tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5052209446606007692024-03-05T16:39:05.789+05:30pSingularityA dialogue between a Seeker and a Sceptic on the Road to the Primordial Singularity - An interpretation of Advaita Vedanta from the perspective of Turing Machines and the GenomeCalcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-62009405187871349962007-04-20T12:29:00.001+05:302019-09-05T16:45:40.433+05:30<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
The Road to pSingularity<br />
</div>
<hr />
<table style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO2rNJkYv0CvehPem4UMHrvV6nIaa5lffZZbm5AED0kM16DTiUBTqw2tjBpqD7knlQsPVipK_onFjYnrU0X3mDYHhRJ0yB79-t_7LGK3i4bOmNX3Kuu4tusSOYpPyU9iDena0qp5TS0-1G/s1600/Cover-Advertisement-01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO2rNJkYv0CvehPem4UMHrvV6nIaa5lffZZbm5AED0kM16DTiUBTqw2tjBpqD7knlQsPVipK_onFjYnrU0X3mDYHhRJ0yB79-t_7LGK3i4bOmNX3Kuu4tusSOYpPyU9iDena0qp5TS0-1G/s400/Cover-Advertisement-01.png" width="260" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Second Edition</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td>
<td><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-PebWeYFyoAe9TJdBVkoGYVLV2g_hfkUsYhQrPCwhnu5orMEkaV0aN61gsa48DqJr0Om0RVP-X7TJ2zwCExQT7GeIaqAr-08e0riH85zGYuhd-cx1IgiWEHhUNgloTpLZPkMAG-K7GdGS/s1600-h/su-cover-small.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5094646566961647490" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-PebWeYFyoAe9TJdBVkoGYVLV2g_hfkUsYhQrPCwhnu5orMEkaV0aN61gsa48DqJr0Om0RVP-X7TJ2zwCExQT7GeIaqAr-08e0riH85zGYuhd-cx1IgiWEHhUNgloTpLZPkMAG-K7GdGS/s400/su-cover-small.jpg" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">First Edition</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-17573763795142124312007-04-20T12:05:00.001+05:302011-03-15T11:47:02.238+05:30PrefaceSages and seers from time immemorial have held that the Truth is beyond reason, transcends the boundary of the physical world and can only be perceived at an intuitive level. Nevertheless, this particular effort seeks to reflect the Truth in the still waters of a dispassionate rational analysis.<br />
<br />
A rational approach, based on physical phenomena, may have many limitations but the desire to abandon it is an act of intellectual laziness. While it is true that many mystics have perceived the truth intuitively, it may be more satisfying to take the intuitive approach as a matter of choice and not of necessity.<br />
<br />
This analysis begins with the principles of Advaita Vedanta and maps them against known facts from the world of science. Unlike past efforts, we have neither tried to invoke Quantum Mechanics and other forms of modern physics – which are both dated and sometimes as unprovable as religious beliefs themselves – nor used the barren sterility of Artificial Intelligence. The analysis may not be logically complete. We admit that there could be gaps in the chain of argument but we have not taken shelter in the beliefs and mythlogy of religion. Instead we have used mathematics itself to argue that such gaps can never be completely eliminated and we need to learn to live with them. Only at the very last stage – when we are at the edge of the rational and looking at the vista of the infinite – do we invoke the grace of the divine. But even this is not really necessary. We introduce this element as a matter of choice, for personal satisfaction.<br />
<br />
We have created a pattern of thoughts by connecting a number of apparently unrelated ideas, namely ..<br />
• The principles of Advaita Vedanta as enunciated by Sankara in the 8th century<br />
• The plausibility of illusions and non-material information transfer<br />
• The computational metaphor of the Universal Turing Machine<br />
• The persistent and evolving nature of the ‘Selfish Gene’<br />
• Godel’s Theorem of Incompleteness<br />
<br />
in a manner that is unique and has not been attempted in the past. Without being dogmatic and parochial about the greatness of the the Hindu relegion, we show how this ancient philosophy is not only relevent in the contemporary environment of rational science but how it has infact anticipated thoughts and ideas that have now appeared twelve hundred years later.<br />
<br />
The lure of the unknown is irresistible. Any frontier is a challenge for the intrepid few who will want to push it back. This is the spirit of enquiry and enterprise that has taken human civilisation across oceans and now into the deepest reaches of interplanetary space. The boundaries of the physical sciences are no less challenging -- can they be pushed back to include the ultimate truth ? Even if the goal proves elusive, the journey itself is worth the effort. And as we walk along this path it is but natural that we meet fellow travellers with whom it is a pleasure to exchange our thoughts.<br />
<br />
Hence instead of using the platform of the we-know-all discourse, we have used the format of a dialogue between a seeker and a sceptic to first articulate, then challenge and finally reaffirm the mosaic of ideas that add up to this unusual image of the Truth.<br />
<br />
The last chapter, the thirteenth, is different in style, tone and tenor. After twelve chapters of patient equivalence, of trying to see and address the point of view of the sceptic and carefully constructing logical arguments to defend the primary hypothesis, the last chapter dumps it all in the cauldron of faith, belief and conjecture. If all the logic that has been offered so far has still not been able to convince the reader, then in all probability he or she will never be convinced. So why try any harder ? On the other hand, if by then the reader is sympathetic to the point of view that is being articulated, then it is more likely than not that the he or she would have little difficulty in accepting the idea.<br />
<br />
So the final chapter replaces dialogue with didacticism. It is a straightforward essay with a simple, unambiguous, though possibly controversial, message that articulates a specific world view. This view could have been delivered directly as a sermon or a discourse but we hope that its acceptability will be far higher if, and only if, one has read through the dialogues in the first twelve chapters.<br />
<br />
To borrow a phrase from Tavleen Singh, the author believes that this book explains how the cosmos works. If someone else has a better explanation then please let us know. We are willing to listen.<br />
..............................................<br />
<br />
Preface to the Second Edition<br />
<br />
Like the fifth postulate of Euclid, the twelfth chapter of this book has been a source of discomfort both for me as well as for some of my friends and readers. The need to introduce the Divine to plug a loophole in my logic – an inevitable loophole, given the limitations of the Gödel’s Theorem of Incompleteness – was rather irritating and yet it seemed that there is nothing I could do about it. Then I met a friend who alerted me to the existence of a very simple concept that was functionally analogous and one that would allow me to bridge the gap. But does it work ? and have I succeeded in doing so ? That question is best answered by the reader I suppose.<br />
<br />
Technology has moved significantly since the first edition and nowhere is this more evident than in the area of 3D displays. Direct connectivity between the human brain and a digital device has also improved dramatically but we are yet to reach the level of maturity that is necessary to blur the border between the real and illusory as envisaged in “Are You Real”, the experimental movie referred to in the book. In a pre-Google era, I would have tried to list down some references to these technologies but today I refrain from doing so because the reader can easily locate more recent references by searching on the web.<br />
<br />
The final and perhaps the most important reason for this edition is that the print-on-demand technology with which this book is printed is now available in India and so the total cost of procuring this book – including delivery – is now far less. Hence after acknowledging my gratitude to Lulu.com for introducing me to this technology I have now moved over to Pothi.com who I am sure would be doing as good a job in printing and delivering this book.<br />
<br />
<br />
Prithwis Mukerjee<br />
<br />
Kharagpur, India<br />
Dolyatra / Holi : 19th March 2011 – a Supermoon day !Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-85501869623241221122007-04-20T12:00:00.001+05:302007-07-11T10:18:49.979+05:301 - Rollover 2000<span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Midnight @ Hill View, Purulia, 31st December 1999</span><br /><br />Why do you insist on calling this a rollover when the rest of the world is going gaga over the millennium ?<br /><br />Two reasons : First the millennium begins in 2001, not 2000 and second, what millennium ? Of Jesus Christ ? That is of very little relevance to us who are not Christians .... we could have started the count from any other avatar like Krishna or perhaps Gautama Buddha.<br /><br />But why "rollover"<br /><br />Because all the digits on the date -- day, month and all four characters of the year -- would change simultaneously. The dates would look quite different, there is a certain novelty about it but not worth traveling all the way to the Andamans to see the same old sun rise out of the same old sea. Are we not quite comfortable here at Purulia today ...<br /><br />You may not celebrate but you still attach some significance to this date ... otherwise you would not be engaging in this dialogue and then writing it down as well<br /><br />True. Having accepted the Gregorian calendar, I have no choice but to record the rollover.<br /><br />So what stops you from celebrating the millennium ? or rather the pre-millennium.<br /><br />This is a free country, we can celebrate anything on any date. We have accepted the Christian calendar for convenience, not out of any conviction -- just as is the case of English language. The global economy is after all dominated by the Christian currency, the dollar and now the euro. So it does not make sense to break step and be pushed over ...<br /><br />So you do accept and acknowledge the might and majesty of western civilization and its impact on culture and society<br /><br />I hate to be either comparative or defensive but once again there are two perspectives. First, the grandeur of western civilization is a recent phenomenon. In a history spanning millions of years, of which we remember perhaps the last 5000, rational science -- that forms the basis of today's grand edifice, has been in prominence for only the last 500 years. This is but a wink of an eyelid on the face of eternal time -- who knows what will happen in the next 5000 years. Secondly, western civilization is successful along one the potentially many dimensions of the human experience. A long stick loses its size when viewed from the end. A sheet of paper appears non-existent if viewed along the edge.<br /><br />But the length of the stick is important -- to gauge the depth of a river and the spread of the sheet of paper is good to write on. What is wrong with that ?<br /><br />Nothing. Rational science has many uses and they are too well known to be repeated here. But then a stick is no good to write upon and a sheet of paper is no good to keep things in. For that you need to move into another dimension. Similarly, rational science is necessary and sufficient for many of the wonders of the world. It may not be necessary and is certainly not sufficient for many other things.<br /><br />Like ...<br /><br />The mystery of the human mind, or rather the human psyche, and of course the biggest mystery of them all -- the question of creation. Who, if at all anyone, created all this and why ?<br /><br />Are you kidding ? Science has progressively pushed back the layers of ignorance to reveal more and more of the unknown. The movement of the planets, the weather, the cause of disease and its cure. You name it and either science has solved the problem or is in the process of doing so. It is only a matter of time.<br /><br />But all these are in the domain of the physical world. There are other worlds that are delineated by the mindscape -- both individual and collective -- of the intelligent being. These worlds are visible or perceptible to mystics and sages and sometimes to those who are under the influence of certain hallucinogenic drugs.<br /><br />These "worlds", if you could call them as such, do not exist. They are simply the products of a vivid imagination.<br /><br />How can you say that they do not exist ? You may not have seen or experienced them but countless others have, for example Gautama Buddha, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and if you step outside India, we have people like Blake, Meister and Jesus himself. These people were neither fools nor charlatans. Would you not believe them ?<br /><br />This is not a question of belief. Science can prove things to me. I do not have to believe anything.<br /><br />But are you ready and prepared to understand these so called proofs ? Do you understand the proofs of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity ? You need not be ashamed -- very few people do !!<br /><br />I may not be able to fathom the proof but there are other more knowledgeable people who have tested out these things and I have faith in their words.<br /><br />Aha. That brings us back to "faith". You say you believe certain people -- possibly scientists who are on the editorial boards of respectable journals or who carry out certain experiments -- who certify that Einstein's theory is correct, even though you have no direct evidence or proof. Then what is your difficulty in having faith on Vivekananda when he says that Ramakrishna showed him the face of god.<br /><br />But if I am intelligent enough and if I spend the time to learn mathematics and physics, I will be able to understand the relativity. The process is repeatable and demonstrable. Can we carry through a similar process and arrive at god ?<br /><br />Of course. In this case you would need, instead of intelligence, a measure of certain cognitive abilities and you must learn the ways of the adept -- the techniques of sadhana -- thoroughly. Then you can see what the mystics can see. But this may take a very long time and you must have the patience and perseverance.<br /><br />That opens up two more issues : First, what are these special cognitive abilities that one must have and second, the physical world is something that I can touch and feel. It is real. Not so in the case of psychic world that you say exists for the mystics.<br /><br />Let me address the second issue first. You say that the physical world is real and that you can touch and feel it. I will challenge your confidence here. Can you see, touch and feel the atoms and molecules that form this world. Our faith in the logical explanation given to us by scientists allows us to believe that they really exist plus of course we have certain indirect evidence. For example the images on the screen of an electron microscope or the marks left on a photographic plate. So there is a veil or middle layer between the observer and what is being observed that reflects or distorts the true picture. However this distortion is minimized by refining our tools and applying adequate intelligence and logical reasoning. The same is true in the psychic world. There is some truth out there but it is veiled and distorted by a middle layer of perception. This is picturesquely referred to as Maya. This Maya must be corrected by using some tools and techniques and by applying, not intelligence, but something else.<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />This brings us to your first question. The cognitive abilities that help us to perceive the psychic truth can, for the lack of better word, be referred to as intuition. Just as logic and intelligence are the tools that help us to understand the physical world so are intuition and insight when it comes to tools that help us to probe the mental landscape.<br /><br />Intelligence and logical reasoning is available to varying degrees in all humans. What about insight and intuition ?<br /><br />That too is available in different degrees with different individuals. Just as some people are more intelligent than others so are some people more intuitive than others.<br /><br />That is a very generic statement. Can you prove it ?<br /><br />I will but first let me protest at your need for a "proof". Proof is something that is very common in the world of logic and intelligence. Here we are deliberately moving away from that world. So proofs lose their significance. Instead of proving something we must move into the paradigm of "experiencing" something.<br /><br />Fair enough, but I would still hold that you have made a very generic statement about the dichotomy between logic and intuition<br /><br />The human brain has two halves: the left and the right. Many functions are duplicated, for redundancy, across both halves but the left half is dominated by the faculties that deal with analytical and rational activities. The right side deals with our emotional and intuitive abilities. This is well documented in the rational literature of modern science. To put it crudely, this means that in scientists and mathematicians, the left brain is more developed but in case of artists, musicians and mystics the right side is more active. So there is physiological basis for determining why some people are more logical, analytical and perhaps more "intelligent" while others are more emotional and intuitive. I am not talking blue skies here ....<br /><br />That was a very long digression .... where were we ?<br /><br />I was responding to your statement about the might and majesty of western civilization. Without denying your observation, I wish to highlight the Hindu perspective that is as, if not more, significant.<br /><br />What is this Hindu perspective ?<br /><br />The spiritual and mystic angle ..<br /><br />You are falling back into the tired cliché of how Hindus are not materialistic, that they are a spiritual people. That is a joke. Would you call Harshad Mehta or Jayalalitha spiritual ? Or are you saying that our farmers, traders, engineers and computer programmers are spiritually inclined. They want money and power as much as anybody else. Their spirituality begins and ends with a tilak on the forehead.<br /><br />Agreed. The vast majority of Indians are motivated by greed but there is a slim minority that is capable of transcending this level. This is no different from the situation that prevails in US and Europe. However there are two differences...<br /><br />What are these ?<br /><br />First, the proportion of spiritually inclined people within the population is higher in India and secondly this slim minority is heard and to a certain extent even respected by the rest of the population. All of us may not be able to emulate Vivekananda and become sanyasis but many of us have a great regard for his ideals and try to follow in his footsteps.<br /><br />But even in the Christian world, people go to church. There are hundreds of church denominations, priests, bishops. The Vatican is an empire in itself.<br /><br />I am not an authority on Christianity so I will not try to analyze this further. All that I say is that in the Hindu scheme of things, our goals are very simple -- the realization of what, for the lack of a better word, is called God --the Brahman.<br /><br />Is that a physical entity ?<br /><br />I wish I knew, but then I am far away from this realization. Those who have realized Brahman -- the Buddha, Ramakrishna or the anonymous sages who have written the Upanishads, have tried very hard to describe their realization. But all these descriptions are flawed and cannot give the true picture.<br /><br />Why is that ?<br /><br />These descriptions are based on language -- a construct that is rooted in our rational, left brain faculties. The realization on the other hand is at an emotional, intuitive level and is a right brain capability. There is a fundamental disconnect that is impossible to bridge. Hence the Brahman has to be realized, it cannot be realized.<br /><br />But what is the use of realizing the Brahman ? Will it help me in any way ?<br /><br />Utility, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Money or Power may be very important for someone. Fair enough, I have no quarrel with them as long as they do not hurt others in the process of acquisition. But money and power may not be important for others who seek beauty in art and nature. Happiness or pleasure can be derived from many things, but the bliss that is experienced when one realizes the Brahman is unparalleled.<br /><br />How do you know ? Have you experienced it ?<br /><br />No I have not, but I have faith in the words of those who have -- Vivekananda, Aurobindo<br /><br />Why would you believe them ?<br /><br />Why not ? If I come back from a trip to Darjeeling and tell you that the Kanchenjungha is a wonderful sight, would you not believe me ? Perhaps you will, but even if you do not, fair enough, do I really care ? Someone else will. I have no axe to grind and neither did the great sages.<br /><br />We have digressed again, where were we ?<br /><br />I was trying to explain why the Hindu perspective -- that seeks to realize the Brahman -- is important and significant.<br /><br />Can we come back to that please ?<br /><br />It is the Christian bible that I believe states that "money is the root of all evil", to which Mark Twain added that it was the lack of money that was the real root of all evil ...<br /><br />But I thought that you were trying to prove just the opposite ... that money is not all that important .<br /><br />Patience .... that was just an illustration. I was trying to establish that the lack of happiness (that Mr. Twain equated to money..) is the root of all evil. This happiness -- true happiness -- can only come in the form of spiritual bliss. This absolute happiness can only come when we realize the Brahman.<br /><br />I am confused. If happiness is my goal then what is wrong with pursuing the western model of rational enquiry that leads to civil order and economic prosperity.<br /><br />There is not contradiction. The western model leads to a level of material prosperity and happiness but only up to a point. Not beyond that. When there is intense hunger and poverty we need the western model to bring a modicum of comfort, dignity and sense of well being. Without this, man is reduced to the barbarism of the animal world. But this basic level of comfort is not enough. Material comfort is not synonymous with true happiness. It is necessary, but not sufficient. To be truly happy, mankind, as a whole or at least specific individuals, must move beyond mere economic prosperity and into the domain of spiritual fulfillment -- the realization of the Brahman.<br /><br />That was quite a mouthful. Let me take a simple test case. Do you mean to say that people in "spiritual" India are more happy than people in the "materialistic" United States ? I don't believe that. Had that been the case, there would not have been the long queue for the US Green Card.<br /><br />You are making it too simplistic. The world cannot be described in pure black and white. We need the shades and nuances of grey...<br /><br />Your are trying to duck the question.<br /><br />No I am not. Let us begin be defining a level of economic prosperity -- a level that can be measured or expressed in various units like per capita income, per capita calorie intake or average disposable income. As long as an individual has not achieved this level of prosperity, his goal would be economic advancement. In India, the number of people below this level is huge -- both in absolute terms as well the fraction of the population. These individuals are always trying to do various things to improve their economic status and this includes immigration to the US.<br /><br />And what about those who have achieved their desired goals of economic comfort ?<br /><br />These are people for whom spiritual happiness is more important...and for these people, it is more advantageous to be in India. They can take advantage of the ambient environment of spirituality that makes this land and its people so unique.<br /><br />But first we need to be as rich and prosperous like the Americans before we seek spiritual bliss ...<br /><br />We need to be economically comfortable. This level of economic comfort varies with individuals. Some are comfortable with two square meals a day while others need a crore of rupees in the bank before they are comfortable. But whatever may be the level, it is necessary to achieve it before once can look for spiritual progress. However those whose expectations are low can hope to achieve this level faster and begin their spiritual journey much earlier. This is perhaps why some people admire "plain living and high thinking"<br /><br />It has been quite a while since we have been talking ... but where have we arrived so far ?<br /><br />There are two dimensions to human progress -- an economic dimension and a spiritual dimension. Rational behavior leads to economic progress but this is not enough for the highest states of human happiness. Man must take an emotional and intuitive approach to progress along the spiritual dimension and this will lead to the ultimate bliss -- when he becomes conscious of the nature of Brahman and himself becomes a part of the Universal Consciousness. That is Nirvana.<br /><br />What must one do to progress along the spiritual dimension ?<br /><br />I wish I had a clear answer to that question but all that I can say at the moment is that there are many ways to move forward. Different sages and seers have practised, advocated and taught different techniques -- all of which can be loosely classified under the broad concept of Yoga.<br /><br />Yoga ! you mean the body contorting exercises that we see on TV and read about in magazines.<br /><br />That is only a small part of the much larger domain of Yoga. Literally, Yoga means union of the individual consciousness with the divine consciousness. There are hundred of yogic techniques -- some physical, some mental and some psychic, that if practised diligently and sincerely will lead to the ultimate Yoga.<br /><br />Can you teach me some of these practices ?<br /><br />No. I am not an adept. I do not know enough. You must find some one who knows these things and take his help in moving forward.<br /><br />How shall I find such a person ?<br /><br />When the time is ripe and you have achieved the right frame of mind and an appropriate level of maturity, a set of circumstances will propel in the right direction.<br /><br />You are being extremely vague and evasive. Can you please explain this "right frame of mind" business ?<br /><br />It is an elusive concept and very difficult to articulate in words. A crude but effective analogy would be the sexual act. Unlike the purely physical acts of touching the nose or lifting a leg, a sexual state like an ejaculation or an orgasm cannot be achieved by mere will or desire. One must create a conducive set of circumstances -- that may involve thoughts, images, sounds and actions, under which the mind and body react in a manner that leads the individual to a state that is extremely pleasurable.<br /><br />Are you saying that sex leads to spiritual progress ?<br /><br />No. I am merely using it as an analogy. Pieces of glass can be used to represent diamonds, but diamonds are far more precious than pieces of glass.<br /><br />But I believe that Tantriks use sexual techniques to attain spiritual progress ....<br /><br />As I had said before, there are many ways of reaching the goal. Yoga is an umbrella concept. It encompasses many tools and techniques. Tantra falls within the overall ambit of Yoga but Tantra itself has many schools of thoughts. Some of these schools believe in using the sexual imagery.<br /><br />We are drifting into details. Can you please give me a broad picture of the various approaches that one might take...<br /><br />That is not difficult. I think it was Vivekananda who had enunciated the classification : (a) Karma Yoga -- the path of work and service without expecting any reward, (b) Bhakti Yoga -- where the seeker drowns himself in pure and unalloyed belief, devotion and adoration. (c) Gyana Yoga -- that involves a thorough study and deep knowledge of all available sources of spiritual guidance, and (d) Raja Yoga -- where the mind is used a powerful instrument to look within itself and see the reflection of the divine. These four streams of Yoga are not mutually exclusive. Many sages traverse a creative combination of two, three or even four paths.<br /><br />Can you explain each of these paths in greater detail ?<br /><br />No I am not knowledgeable enough to explain the specific nuances of each of these schools of thought and even if I could, it would take too long.<br /><br />If you were to choose a path, which one would you take ?<br /><br />I am too lazy to be a true Karma Yogi and I have not been initiated into the path of Raja Yoga. As a student of science I am more comfortable with handling Gyana or knowledge but I believe that Bhakti or devotion is the final catalyst.<br /><br />Are you sure that this is the right path ?<br /><br />Perhaps I am wrong but let me tell you what the Healer had to say to Satyananda in the closing chapters of Bankimcandra’s novel – Anandamath :<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The true Hindu rule of life is based on knowledge, not action. And this knowledge is of two kinds – outward and inward. The inward knowledge is the chief part of the Eternal Code, but unless the outward knowledge arises first, the inward cannot arise. Unless one knows the gross, one cannot know the subtle.</span></span>[1]<br /><br />What is the outward knowledge ?<br /><br />It is the knowledge of science and technology based on rational enquiry and investigation.<br /><br />Now wait a minute ! You had started this dialogue with the premise that my faith in the might and majesty of western civilization is misplaced. That its impact on contemporary society and culture is transient. And now after all this you have the cheek to come and tell me that science and technology – which is one of the cornerstones and crown jewels of this way of life – is important. Am I missing something ? Somewhere ?<br /><br />The world of full of paradoxes and perhaps it is best that you learn to live with them.<br /><br />Is this a paradox or is this a contradiction or – if you allow me to be generous – a confusion on your part ?<br /><br />Thank you for your generosity but let me clear this confusion for you. As I have just said, or quoted from Anandamath, the knowledge on which the Hindu rule of life is based consists of two kinds of knowledge : internal and external. The rivers of this ‘external’ knowledge have unfortunately run dry in this country. So we cannot follow their course back to the fountainhead, the well spring of ‘internal’ knowledge, where the Truth in all its crystalline clarity, gushes out to quench our thirst. That is why the Hindu way of life – the Sanatan Dharma, the Eternal Code, has become confined to this dry ritualism of polytheistic idolatry.<br /><br />So what do you suggest ? Go back to science and technology again ?<br /><br />Yes. You need to master these techniques, rejuvenate this external knowledge or at least know and acknowledge them before you can have the confidence to walk along the path that leads to the inward or subtle knowledge.<br /><br />Can share the experiences of walking along this path ?<br /><br />I am not yet ready for the journey so let me prepare myself and then we can meet again ..<br /><br />When ? and where ?<br /><br />Meet me after seven years … at the chai-shop on the Road to the pSingularity – the primordial Singularity<br /><br />[1] Anandamath or the Sacred Brotherhood, Bankimcandra Chatterji, translated by Julius Lipner, Oxford University Press. Part IV, Chapter 8, page 229<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-61664742260978028372007-04-20T11:55:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:19:07.859+05:302 - Beyond CHAIPANIIt has been six years and ten months since our dialogue at Hill View.<br /><br />And a lot of things have happened in between.<br /><br />Mostly terrible things though … nothing to make me smile.<br /><br />Why ? The Great Indian Story is panning out in its wonderful detail … Software companies are going great guns, the GDP growth has doubled from the pitiful 4% ‘Hindu’ rate of growth ! You should be all smiles.<br /><br />Oh really, you make me yawn.<br /><br />Why are you so cynical ?<br /><br />Because I can see that behind all this glitter there is a mountain of misery that still torments this country …. the disease – polio and dengue are back, the despair that lurks in the eye of those who have been marginalized into poverty ..<br /><br />You are talking like a politician who is currently sitting in the opposition .. they are the ones who cannot see anything good that is happening in the country.<br /><br />Perhaps I am, but it is these very politicians – cutting across all party barriers – who are the reason why India continues to wallow in a cesspool of poverty and distress.<br /><br />That is a cliché repeated so often, say something new …<br /><br />I will but let me reinforce this point with three examples of how politicians are ruining the country.<br /><br />Go ahead ..<br /><br />First look the reservation policy. Our education system is the only one thing that we had to look the world in the eye. The IITs – something to be proud of – and here we are ruining them by forcing them out of their ability to nurture the elite – the educational elite, not the financial or political elite.<br /><br />Ok<br /><br />And then we have communists who would go to any length to wreck any meaningful economic activity and stall any reform process .. and they are hand in glove with the bureaucrats in the public sector who too would go any length to preserve their right to loot the public exchequer ..<br /><br />And what is the third ?<br /><br />Why … our new found enthusiasm for the terrorists who kill and maim in the name of Islam. We know who they are … and yet we hesitate to move against them because it will hurt the national vote banks ..<br /><br />Vote banks … have you not hit the nail on the head.<br /><br />What do you mean ?<br /><br />Look … all three examples that you quoted can be traced back to our fatal obsession with vote bank politics.<br /><br />I agree … and that is what makes me even more despondent.<br /><br />Why ?<br /><br />Because of the maxim that as are the people, so is the prince.<br /><br />So ?<br /><br />Do you not see that what this means is that the fault dear Brutus is not in our politicians but in us that we are undeserving underlings … condemned to a second-class or perhaps even a third-class existence.<br /><br />But I thought for a moment that you were trying to blame our politicians for this misery ..<br /><br />Sometimes you may have to go for the unreal to know the real … look for the image to see the reality.<br /><br />You are talking in riddles …<br /><br />Perhaps I am … but the fact remains that while politicians are the easy scapegoats that we intellectuals tend to blame in coffee table discussions ( like this ) the real culprit is that we as a nation are ‘like this only’. We are a nation that is awful enough to vote for, elect and in a sense entrust our destiny to, a bunch of hypocrites and thugs ..<br /><br />Is that not true for other nations ? Have the Americans not elected Bush ?<br /><br />Could be true, I am not here to lecture you on comparative politics, but perhaps we are an order of magnitude worse.<br /><br />Worse than tribal Africa ? Worse than the medieval Middle East ?<br /><br />As I said, I am not into comparative politics … and my only interest is in the land that lies in the shadow of the Himalayas.<br /><br />OK, so tell me about India … and about Indians.<br /><br />Have you heard of <span style="font-weight: bold;">CHAIPANI</span> ?<br /><br />You mean tea and snacks ? Of course ..<br /><br />That is the literal translation … but in India, or at least in the Hindi belt of Northern India, chaipani means more … the little extra that gets things done.<br /><br />Bribes ? So what about it ? Are you talking about corruption ?<br /><br />Chaipani, for me is an icon for India – as it was, as it is and as it will be …<br /><br />I do not get you at all …<br /><br />Fine, let me start … <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">C </span></span>is for corruption .. pervasive, inevitable and absolute. An extraordinary large percentage of us are either personally corrupt, and so find it quite OK to bribe others, or given the slightest opportunity would happily become corrupt. And interestingly enough we have given to ourselves laws that encourage the practice of corruption at every conceivable opportunity. Any Indian in any position of authority or in any position that allows him or her to exercise discretion for the benefit of anyone else … will, with a high degree of probability, take advantage of this position – monetarily or otherwise, without batting an eyelid.<br /><br />That is quite an indictment …<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">H</span></span> is for hypocrisy. No nation is as hypocritical as we are. We swear by equality and egalitarianism and many of us, the educated types, may have put the caste system behind us .. but look at the matrimonial columns and you will see categories based on caste.<br /><br />But it is dying out ..<br /><br />Perhaps but it will take a long time. Caste may not be irrelevant for many of us – and that includes me as well – but that is not the point. I am not questioning the belief per se, but let us admit that what we say is far removed from what we believe in ! And that is true not just in the case of caste … we have the Orwellian tendency of meaning the opposite of what we intend to say. Hence trade unions claim to champion the cause of labour but covertly act as agents of unscrupulous management. We know very well that our cities are getting choked but still condone and even encourage illegal slums and settlements to create vote banks. We have no qualms of reaping the benefits of work outsourced from the US but out own bank employees go on strike when Indian banks plan to outsource their own work. We know very well that foreign funded madrasas are the breeding grounds of Muslim terrorists and yet we pretend that being secular and inclusive is the right path to nirvana.<br /><br />I see what you mean .. but is this hypocrisy ?<br /><br />It is a very peculiar behavior and for the lack of a better word, I shall stick to hypocrisy to describe it .. and the more you look, the more it strikes you in the face.<br /><br />You are right … we condemn apartheid and yet we have no qualms of referring to coloured Americans as “kallus”. This is the land of Kama Sutra and while we have no qualms about inviting tourists to Khajuraho we go to great extents to stop sex education among our own kids. We celebrate the Ras Leela of Radha and Krishna and then in the same breath, breathe fire and brimstone about Valentine’s Day. If you have a better word to describe this situation then I would be happy to use it .<br /><br />But that will upset your H in Chaipani !! Anyway you have A next .. what is that for ?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">A</span></span> is for Anarchic … we are truly anarchic. We will not obey traffic rules and are rude to our fellow drivers and yet we sullenly resent when others, especially traffic police are equally rude and offensive to us. We cannot resolve any dispute in a civil manner .. we will have bandhs, morchas, rail and rasta roko-s, with murder and mayhem as necessary collaterals.<br /><br />But that is because our government would not listen otherwise.<br /><br />That is because the government – or for that matter anyone in authority – is equally anarchic. Those who frame the rules are the first to break them – our lawmakers are our biggest lawbreakers – and if we cannot break them, we will find a million loopholes so that the law itself becomes a joke.<br /><br />Why is that ?<br /><br />Well, that will loop us back to the C – for corruption and it also points forward to the next letter of chaipani … <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I </span></span>for Incompetence.<br /><br />Incompetence ?<br /><br />We are terrible in doing anything worthwhile. Our constitution is the longest in the world and has had to be amended the most ! Our laws are so incomprehensively convoluted that they are open to the most virulent abuse. We cannot manage our own affairs … no project in India, government projects in particular, have ever finished in time … and when they do get finished, the deliverables are terrible. Look at the mess that we have created with our streets, the traffic, the airports … our telephones never used to work until they were privatized ..<br /><br />Would that not mean that it is our government that is incompetent and not the people ?<br /><br />Our government consists of our own people .. we have no foreign rulers here ..<br /><br />Perhaps our government is structured in such a manner that only incompetent people reach positions of authority, where they can take incorrect decisions ..<br /><br />That is bigger incompetence ! or should I say meta-incompetence !! We as a nation are so incompetent in managing our own affairs that the worst, most incompetent, most corrupt people end up in positions where they can cause the maximum damage to society. What could be more damming than this ..<br /><br />The CHAI – or tea – that you have brewed for us is very dark and strong. C for Corruption, H for Hypocrisy, A for Anarchy and now I for Incompetence .. all this can leave a very bitter taste in the mouth.<br /><br />Do not panic ! I have some clear PANI – water – for you to freshen your mouth with !<br /><br />Surely you must be joking Mr. Seeker !<br /><br />Not at all, not at all. Consider the next letter – <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">P</span></span> for Patience. We as a nation have infinite patience to tolerate this litany of woes. Any other society would perhaps have given up their ghost by now.<br /><br />Iraq exists, so does Somalia and Nigeria …<br /><br />True …but let us look up at societies that are better placed .. looking downwards does not help.<br /><br />So you ask us to be Patient ..<br /><br />Patience gives us the wherewithal to tolerate all this crap … this Corruption, Hypocrisy, Anarchy and Incompetence .. but to evolve, to move forward .. we need something to look up to .. and fortunately, we do have some positives ..<br /><br />Good .. and what is that ?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">A </span></span>for Advaita Vedanta ! The crown jewel of our intellectual achievement.<br /><br />What on earth is that ?<br /><br />The school of philosophy on which the entire edifice of our intellect is built. First enunciated by Sankara in the 8th Century, it has been refined over the ages by a succession of intellectual giants .. of whom the last two are Aurobindo and Vivekananda.<br /><br />Can you explain …<br /><br />I will, I will .. but it will take some time.<br /><br />Can you be brief ..<br /><br />It is a long story but in essence it says that there is just one truth and that is Brahman – not Brahma, the four faced god who is a part of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva – but the Brahman of the pure consciousness.<br /><br />What is the nature of this Brahman ?<br /><br />You have led me to the next letter <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">N </span></span>for Negation.<br /><br />What does that mean ?<br /><br />This Brahman cannot be described in the normal language. It has no attributes … you can attempt to describe it through a set of negatives … not solid, not liquid, not any known shape, not of any known colour … in fact we could go on and on with a set of negatives and we would still not reach the goal. In fact we must negate the existence the physical world itself to reach the core of Advaita.<br /><br />Negation ? as a fundamental principle ? This is awkward … we cannot have a world of negatives, there has to be something positive, something real … somewhere ..<br /><br />Negation, nothingness is a very crucial part of the Hindu world view. You can see this in the fact that the modern numeric system, based on the zero, which has emerged out of India uses the same word Shunya for both zero as well as empty. Brahman is the only truth, the only positive – if you really want to use the word – but words are not the right vehicles to carry the message here.<br /><br />How can you do without words ?<br /><br />You have to rely on the <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> I</span></span> for Intuition. That is the only tool that we can use and trust. This huge edifice of Advaita and the concept of nothingness on which it rests can only be understood, can only be realized at an intuitive level. That is how saints, saints here in India and elsewhere … like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Sankara .. right down to Ramakrishna get a glimpse of the ultimate truth … that is how they attain Nirvana.<br /><br />So you say that CHAIPANI is the key ?<br /><br />This acronym was just my way to describe the situation. The dark hopelessness of CHAI is where we find ourselves and to wipe out all that darkness, we seek the cool, clarity of PANI. We are stuck. We find ourselves in a situation where we find ourselves in a cul-de-sac of hopeless despair … of corruption, hypocrisy, anarchy and incompetence …and yet, a situation where, if we have the patience to delve into the depths of advaita, it is possible to negate all these and intuitively find a path to the ultimate goal.<br /><br />What is that goal ?<br /><br />That is known only to those who have reached it.<br /><br />I understand goals like health, wealth, fame, peace … how can I reach for a goal that I cannot even articulate ?<br /><br />Then you have to wallow in the triviality that you understand … for me all this stuff is trivial .. I yearn for the ultimate Truth, the pure consciousness .. which again for the lack of a better word we shall refer to as Shiva : The Good.<br /><br />And you claim that Vedanta is the only way out and forward ? Is that not too arrogant ? Is it not that there could be as many paths to the goal as there are travelers ? Are you not following into the same pattern as that of the people of the Book ? Just like the followers of middle eastern religions that say that salvation lies if and only if you follow their exclusive path .. the path defined in the Book – whatever Book that may be ..<br /><br />Not at all … please feel free to traverse any path that you want .. but in the end you will end up here .. and I will be here to walk along again with you.<br /><br />Well if I have to come back and start here .. I might as well do it right now ! But can you explain all this to me ?<br /><br />It is a matter of realization, not understanding … but we can always try to, and then if we are lucky enough, we may get a glimpse of the basics of Advaita Vedanta.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-52382513487815266502007-04-20T11:50:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:19:27.019+05:303 - Basics of Advaita VedantaWhat is Advaita Vedanta ?<br /><br />It is a rather and complex subject but I shall try to explain to the extent that I understand it at the moment and to the extent to that I can articulate what I seem to understand …<br /><br />You are being very cautious but please go ahead.<br /><br />It is one of the six schools of Hindu philosophy and in the opinion of many, including me, the one that is most complete and in a sense the best.<br /><br />One of the six ? what are the others ?<br /><br />Well you have Charvak’s school of extreme materialism at one end – where he says, wreenam kritwa, ghreetam pibet drink ghee, even if you have to borrow money for it : or in short make merry at the cost of anything else – and the other end we have Patanjali’s Yoga – the classical school of asceticism that is based on ethical behavior, physical and metabolic activities and intense, introspective meditation. And then you have a few others schools of thought.<br /><br />Like what ?<br /><br />We have the school of logic, Nyaya, and this is used by many other systems as a foundation for reasoning and debate. We have the school of Vaisesika, that considers visesa, or uniqueness, as an important aspect of reality. Then we have Samkhya which introduced the duality of Purusha and Prakriti.<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />We will come to that later, but let me complete the list. Samkhya is the foundation of Buddhism as enunciated by the Buddha, even though his followers deviated from that path and then we have Mimamsa, which in a sense to leads us to that exalted pinnacle of the Hindu world view that is Vedanta. … and all these schools of thought try to address in their own way some basic questions like<br /> * Who am I ? From where have I come from and why ? What is the relationship between me and the universe and other human beings ?<br /> * What is the essential nature of my being and what is the essential of the universe ?<br /> * What is the relationship between consciousness and the objects of the universe ?<br /> * What is truth and how do we arrive at rational conclusions on the question of truth ?<br /><br />So where does Advaita Vedanta lie ?<br /><br />It is not quite a linear spectrum so that I cannot say that it lies so far from one end … but in a sense, it builds upon the work of Patanjali and Visishta-Advaita and was articulated most elegantly by Sankara – who was born in Kerala in the 8th century AD.<br /><br />The same Sankara who created the four maths or institutions at Dwaraka, Kedarnath, Puri and Sringeri …<br /><br />Yes at the four corners of the country … to reestablish the Sanatan Dharma in the face of aggressive Buddhism.<br /><br />One second, are we talking about religion or philosophy ?<br /><br />Let me step back for a moment .. and restart. The word Hindu religion is a misnomer and it does not exist in the lexicon of the people who are supposed to be Hindus ..<br /><br />I know it was created by Greeks to refer to the people who lived to the east of the Indus or the Sindhu river.<br /><br />So unlike the religions that are based on “books” that is Judaism, Christianity, Islam or their common ancestor Zoroastrianism that emerged out of Persia, the way of life of the so called Hindus is guided by a set of principles that are referred to as Sanatan Dharma, or the Perennial Philosophy.<br /><br />But still these so called Hindus have some religious texts – the vedas, the upanishads, the brahmana, the puranas and the great epics. This is what Hindu philosophy should be based on .. is it not ?<br /><br />They do, but if you observe closely the Hindu word for philosophy is Darshan and this can be loosely translated as vision, sight or even better insight.<br /><br />So are you saying that the philosophy is world view ? Are you not playing semantic games ?<br /><br />Darshan refers to the insight that certain individuals had – these individuals are referred to as Rishis, the learned ones – into the nature of the universe. Their articulation – to the extent that this was possible using the finite grammar of a language – and the subsequent attempts to interpret these articulations have resulted in a set of codes of conduct that were of importance for the stability of human civilisation. The set of codes represent the Dharma or religion of the land – the ‘Hindu’ religion or Sanatan Dharma – but the original insights form the basis of the philosophy – and in this case we are interested in the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.<br /><br />Sankara was the one with the original insight ?<br /><br />No – he came much later and it is to his credit that he interpreted the Vedas, the Upanishads -- referred to as end of the Vedas or Vedanta – and came out with an exquisite, coherent and consistent description of the nature of the universe.<br /><br />But all schools of Hindu philosophy – with the possible exception of Charvak – are based on the Vedas and Vedanta .. so what is different here ?<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSbiL-3ecrB4TIzT9cELK-FxuV1qHFmxgjcTWHs64e7lzcuttuDpnTtP_EyC-UM82Dy_WcHmBMEbIDO5vQXwl4NarsQpSwJ2J0xflxAN8l4vyPiuGqt9NvpodTQqMnTxgfBOAYsdBI8Jky/s1600-h/001-v1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSbiL-3ecrB4TIzT9cELK-FxuV1qHFmxgjcTWHs64e7lzcuttuDpnTtP_EyC-UM82Dy_WcHmBMEbIDO5vQXwl4NarsQpSwJ2J0xflxAN8l4vyPiuGqt9NvpodTQqMnTxgfBOAYsdBI8Jky/s400/001-v1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054696969092646914" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Let me begin with the basic tenets of Advaita, to the extent that I am aware of them.<br /><br />Are you being modest or being sarcastic.<br /><br />Neither, only being truthful … for if I really knew or had the first hand experience of Advaita, then I would not be – or need not have to be – explaining all this to you or anyone else.<br /><br />Curious, but I shall let that pass.<br /><br />The world Advaita can be literally translated as non-Dual.<br /><br />Is that what you refer to as Singularity.<br /><br />Yes, but there are scholars who would not accept that word, they will say it is not Dual, but whether it is Singular or not is debatable.<br /><br />Sheer semantics.<br /><br />True, but as I keep repeating, the fact that I am speaking (or writing ) this and you are listening to me .. means that I am not yet free from the limitations of Semantics .. and you have to learn to live with this ..<br /><br />OK .. no offence meant<br /><br />None taken, except that we are slowing down. So let me continue with the three principal characters of this great play - the Atman, the Brahman and Maya.<br /><br />And who are they ?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Atman - the Self</span> : The entire phenomenal world is bound by time, space and causation and as long as one is confined by these concepts, the experience is limited. Beyond the realms of time and space, there is an absolute and unconditional Reality that has no beginning and no end. That is Atman, the Self. The Self cannot be experienced by the senses. This Self is both within and outside the body. Unlike the body it is beyond death and decay. The Self is the fountainhead of the life force that animates and motivates the mind-body complex. According to Sankara, this Self is the all-pervading, self-illumined Consciousness.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Brahman - the Supreme Consciousness </span>: Brahman is the ultimate Truth within and without. Brahman is also all-pervading and self-illumined Consciousness and the relationship of the Brahman to the Self is that of the forest to the tree. The entire universe emanates from Brahman, exists in Brahman and at the time of dissolution returns into Brahman. Stepping beyond the primitive monotheism of the Judeo-Christian philosophy/theology, Sankara asserts that the individual Atman and the universal Brahman are one and the same and the concept of a creator that is distinct from the creation is a cosmic illusion.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Maya - the Illusion</span> : The phenomenal universe that can be perceived by the senses is actually an illusion called Maya. This Maya is what causes human beings to perceive worldly phenomena and respond to the environment. Vedanta states that Maya shields the Truth or Brahman from the Self or Atman. The concepts of time and space that veil the face of Truth are aspects of Maya. Because Maya veils the Truth, the individual Atman misconstrues both the world and itself as different from the Truth or Brahman.[1]<br /><br />The concept of Non-Dualism or Advaita, goes back to the luminous era of pre-Mahabharat India ..<br /><br />I see that you are consciously avoiding a reference to the dim, dark past of history !<br /><br />Yes, for me it was neither dim nor dark .. because it was in these Vedic or Upanishadic era someone visualized ( remember “Darshan” is insight ) this idea – this spark of illumination – and it was subsequently developed by Sankara around the 8th century and elaborated by many others including Vivekananda.<br /><br />And what was this spark all about ?<br /><br />At the core of Advaita is the startling assertion : Brahma satya, Jagat mithya – the Divine is Real, the World is Unreal. For the lack of a better word, I have translated Brahma as the Divine, but it could also use terms like the Universal Consciousness or the Universal Soul none of which however are quite adequate.<br /><br />I suppose this Brahma is different from the four faced ‘god’ of creation ..<br /><br />Good point, you are right .. Brahma, the four faced ‘god’ is one of the members of the Hindu trinity … but that is more of mythology and doctrinal religion, far removed, and in a sense irrelevant to the principles that we are dealing with in Advaita. Here the word Brahma refers to the Brahman that I had introduced in the Dramatis Personae of our Advaita story.<br /><br />The first part of the statement, in its English translation, certainly seems like a self-defining axiomatic play on words, but given the limitation of the language I can let it pass. But I have some difficulty with the second part of the statement – that asserts that the world as we know it is unreal – is very startling. How is it that the world that we KNOW so well be not real. … How can all this be illusory ?<br /><br />Perhaps you have to learn to give up this most cherished belief ..<br /><br />How can this be ? How can this world be unreal ? The world has form and shape, colour and texture that we can see, feel, hear, taste and smell. This observable world has a persistence across time, space and individuals. We know that the Taj Mahal has existed for the past 500 years and countless individuals have recorded its existence over generations. Fossil records date back even longer and if one were to look at astronomical evidence then we have records stretching back to the Big Bang, that created the observable universe. In the face of such irrefutable evidence, any attempt to deny the existence of all these observable objects as well as the physical existence of millions of conscious observers is impossible, if not downright absurd.<br /><br />I know that this is like running into an impregnable wall – a wall that has been built with the bricks of meticulous observations and resting on a solid foundation of logic and rationality. I do not deny that this is difficult but as I said before, we have to learn how to give up our most cherished beliefs and learn to accept the inevitability of living with illusions.[2]<br /><br />[1] This brief introduction to Vedanta is based on the book "Seven Systems of Indian Philosophy" by Pandit Rajamani Tigunait, Ph.D. ISBN 0-89389-076-6 © 1983 by The Himalayan International Institute<br /><br />[2] Ya Devi Sarvabhuteshu Bhranti-roopena Sangsthita, Namastasyai Namamstasyai Namastasyai, Namoh Namaha – Salutations to the Devi who abides in all beings in the form of Error or Illusion.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-31377240139870744392007-04-20T11:45:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:19:51.812+05:304 - Living with IllusionsWhat do you mean about living with illusions ?<br /><br />We must learn to understand and appreciate that all that we see – and touch and feel and taste etc – with our sensory organs may not be what they seem to be … but a representation of something else.<br /><br />You are challenging the basic theory of perception … and you seem to have no qualms about it.<br /><br />I have no qualms at all and there are three distinct approaches of addressing this issue if you consider<br /> * Quantum Mechanics and the associated concepts that encompass the Uncertainty Principle and the Many Worlds Interpretation<br /> * The emerging technology of nerve implants coupled with vivid 3D computer displays which are helping us realize the ideas put forth by science fiction novels and movies like the Matrix<br /> * Virtual worlds inhabited by Massively Multi-user Online Role Playing Games of which Second Life is the perhaps the most advanced.<br /><br />Can you please explain each of these in greater detail ?<br /><br />Let us begin with Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle which says that irrespective of the precision of your instrument, you cannot measure the position and momentum ( that is the combination of mass and velocity ) of a particle with absolute precision. The mere act of measurement will alter the values that are being measured and the failure of the measurement process is not a matter of the accuracy of the instrument ( which can always improve with time ) but a fundamental theoretical barrier. What this means is that you would never know the exact position of a piece of matter.<br /><br />But that is true for sub-microscopic fundamental particles .. Not at all true for big things like cars and dogs.<br /><br />That is not quite correct. It is true as well for all large particles but, and you are right here, the degree of error is far less in the case of large objects and so it has no practical implications, but the philosophy that underlies this theory is very important.<br /><br />Why ?<br /><br />Because it undermines our belief, shakes our confidence, in the inevitability of the physical observation process. This is like a crack in the wall of invincibility .. and a crack that can be exploited further as we move along.<br /><br />How ?<br /><br />All large objects are a conglomeration of smaller objects and by the laws of Chaos Theory, a small change in the position and velocity of one of the components can lead to a large variation in the nature and disposition of the larger conglomerate.<br /><br />I have heard this before .. a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a thunderstorm in Canada.<br /><br />True and if we explore and expand this idea a little more, we can hypothesize that SINCE the nature and behavior of a large object does depend on the position and velocity of each of the millions of its components AND there a definite uncertainty about the these variables as per Uncertainty Principle AND this uncertainty can cascade through – as per the laws of Chaos Theory, HENCE we are left with the strange feeling that things may not be quite what they seem to be.<br /><br />I have a counterpoint to this in the statistical approach adopted in the Theory of Brownian Motion. The macro properties of large body may not depend on the exact ( or inexact ) values of the micro particles …. a statistical approach and the Law of Large numbers can get us to a fairly satisfying understanding of the world.<br /><br />I do not disagree with you – I am only asking you to keep an open mind and not slam the door shut. Just as you quote the Theory of Brownian Motion so do I quote Chaos Theory and the answer could be a combination of both. For example, the Many Worlds Interpretation[1] (MWI) in quantum mechanics assumes that many alternate realities exist .. and we are aware of only one. In fact the existence of other worlds may be the only way to eliminate randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and hence from physics itself.<br /><br />But is it true ? Can it be proved as rigorously as any other theory of physics like Relativity ?<br /><br />The concept of Proof is another intriguing aspect of this analysis that I will come to later. For the moment let me state, in brief, that as per Gödel’s Theorem of Incompleteness, provability is a weaker notion than truth and there can exist statements that are true but not provable. So instead of Proofs let me talk of opinions.<br /><br />So what is the opinion of the scientific community in this regard.<br /><br />In 1995, David Raub conducted an opinion poll among 72 leading physicists and the results were reported in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 and in this poll 58% believed that MWI is true, another 13% said that it was possible but not confirmed, 18% believed that MWI is wrong and the rest did not have an opinion.[2]<br /><br />But that is still an opinion .. or perhaps should I say a belief.<br /><br />Agreed but it is a belief held by some very learned people who were, unlike Galileo or Copernicus, under NO compulsion to subscribe to this belief. So there could be more than an iota of truth lying out there … just outside the pale of plausibility !<br /><br />So all that you are saying is that there is possibility, but no proof as such of the existence of other alternate realities. How does that fit in with your second idea of 3D computer displays and nerve implants ?<br /><br />To understand that let us think about The Matrix. Have you heard about it ?<br /><br />Of course I have. It is a science fiction movie featuring Keanu Reeves ("Neo"), Carrie-Anne Moss ("Trinity") and Laurence Fishburne ("Morpheus") released by Warner Brothers in 1999. It explores the complex relationship between physical human beings and their perception of reality as controlled by a gigantic computer programme - "The Matrix". The movie has most of the Hollywood elements of high drama, action, violence and a cameo love affair. But what is most intriguing -- and most probably overlooked -- is its striking similarity with the philosophy of Vedanta. There is an uncanny echo of Sankara's treatment of the Atman, the Self, and Maya -- the veil that shields the Atman.<br /><br />How is that ?<br /><br />Let me explain a little about …<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Movie</span><br /><br />The year is 2199 and computers with artificial intelligence have taken over the world. Human beings are born (or "cultivated") in captivity and at birth are connected to a life support system that feeds then intravenously till death. The bio-chemical activity in their bodies is used as a source of electric power to support the computers -- but that is not relevant in this case. What is important is that each person's brain is connected to the central computer. Complex programs -- the Matrix -- running on this computer feed a continuous stream of stimuli to the brain and this causes the individual to perceive a full range emotions associated with growing up, moving around --including flying through space, working, growing old and finally dying. The Matrix programme is smart enough to simulate a whole range of physical locations like parks, gardens, restaurants, train stations that people can visit -- or perceive to visit -- and interact with just as if they were physically there. They also perceive images of other individuals -- some rooted in other physical captive bodies, while others could be pure creations of the computer simulation process. Interactions between two individuals are also simulated.<br /><br />There is a small group "independent" humans who live outside the Matrix in place called Zion. They have their own computers through which they are able to "hack into" the Matrix programme. This allows them to "enter" and "exit" the Matrix through telephone lines. When the enter the Matrix, their physical bodies remain at Zion, connected to the Zion computers, just as the bodies of the captive humans remain in their incubators. The crucial difference between the independents and the captives is that the former can actually "exit" from the Matrix and detach themselves from the Zion computers. Then they can live and perceive Reality.<br /><br />Within this complex environment, the movie weaves a fantasy of heroism and love. Morpheus is the leader of the independent people and he has located and identified Neo -- currently a captive -- as the one who will destroy the Matrix and free mankind from this slavery to computers. Neo's arrival has been foretold by the Oracle. Morpheus and his band of independent humans, enter the Matrix, contact Neo and convince him of his importance. Then they detach his body from the Matrix computer, remove his body from the incubators and take it to Zion. Here they rejuvenate and repair his degenerated body. Now Neo, like the other independent humans can connect to the Zion computers and enter and exit from the Matrix at will. Would he succeed in his mission ? Since the actual outcome of the adventure is not relevant to this analysis, I will not reveal the ending for those who wish to see the film.<br /><br />But if you compare with Vedanta, then what are …<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Similarities</span><br /><br />The philosophy of Vedanta has already been discussed and there is no reason to repeat it here. The movie obviously does not have a one to one correspondence with Vedanta. Nevertheless there are certain similarities. Consider the following passage[3] where Morpheus introduces Neo to the Matrix :<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : I know..._exactly_ what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something _wrong_ with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there...like a splinter in you're mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you _know_ what I'm talking about?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span> : The Matrix</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : Do you want to know...._what_ _it_ is....?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo nods</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : The Matrix is everywhere. It's all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work, when you pay your taxes. The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span> : What truth?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison...for your mind....Unfortunately, no one can be..._told_ what the Matrix is...you have to see it for yourself.</span></span><br /><br />The Matrix computer programme is analogous to the Maya of Vedanta, the illusion that is perceived by the senses as the physical world. Morpheus "detaches" Neo's body from the Matrix computer (and the associated computer programme) and brings him to actual physical "reality" and this is what Neo looks and feels :<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The metal harness opens and drops the half-conscious Neo onto the floor. Human hands and arms help him up as he finds himself looking straight at Morpheus, Trinity and Apoc, along with others he doesn't recognize. Morpheus smiles, and speaks quietly to Neo.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: Welcome to the real world....</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo passes out. As he is unconscious, Morpheus and Trinity talk in hushed voices</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: ...We've done it, Trinity...we've found him.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Trinity</span> : I hope you're right...</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: I don't _have_ to hope. I know it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo wakes up later on, and looks at Trinity and Morpheus, who are standing watching him.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span>: ....Am I dead?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: Far from it...</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo passes out again. Later on, he wakes up. He sees his body pierced with dozens of acupuncture-like needles wired to a strange device.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dozer:</span> He still needs a lot of work.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span> : What are you doing?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus</span> : Your muscles have atrophied, we're rebuilding them.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span> : Why do my eyes hurt?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo blinks</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : You've never used them before.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo looks confused</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Confronted with this reality, Neo feels helpless, and wants to go back to the illusory comfort of the Maya / Matrix. Morpheus allows him to do so</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : You wanted to know...what the Matrix is, Neo?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo nods unsteadily Morpheus nods to Trinity</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : Trinity...</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Trinity approaches Neo, and helps him into an armchair, strapping in his feet, and leaning his head back against the head rest. Morpheus looks at Neo</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: Try to relax...this will feel....a little _weird_.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">As Morpheus guides a coaxial line into the jack at the back of his neck, Neo screams and makes a few other disturbing noises. When he opens his eyes, he is standing in a totally white place. His hair is back, and he is wearing different clothes. As Neo spins around a bit, trying to see what's going on, Morpheus appears in front of him.</span><br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : This is the construct. It is our loading program. We can load anything from clothing, to equipment, weapons, training simulations, anything we need.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo is having a hard time getting a grasp of this.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo</span> : Right now....we're inside a computer program?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Morpheus : Is it really so hard to believe? Your clothes are different. The plugs in your arms and head are gone. Your hair has changed.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Neo puts a hand to his head and touches his hair</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus</span> : Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It is the mental projection...of your digital self.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Two chairs appear in front of them, and Neo reaches out to touch one. He runs his hand along it's back.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span> : This....this isn't real?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Morpheus looks at him</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: What _is_ real? How do you _define_ real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">A television appears in front of the two chairs, as Neo sits down in the chair beside Morpheus. Morpheus picks up the television control and turns it on.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : _This_ is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the twentieth century. It exists now only as part of a neural-interactive simulation, that _we_ call the Matrix.</span></span><br /><br />There are some other interesting similarities between Maya and the Matrix programme. In explaining Maya, Sankara very often refers to the example of the rope and the snake. As long as one mistakes a rope for a snake, he is frightened and reacts to the rope as if it were a real snake. When he realizes that what he sees is only a rope he laughs. Similarly, as long as one is engrossed in the ignorance of relative consciousness, the world is indeed quite "real". But when true knowledge dawns, one becomes aware that the world was a fake.<br /><br />Perceiving the "real" world as a "fake" needs deep insight and skeptics have often wondered that if the snake was a fake rope, how is it possible for it to actually kill someone. Sankara argues that the vivid imagination creates the presence of the snake in a rope and this imagination is so strong that a person can die from an imaginary snakebite. Thus, wrongly perceived situations may result in physical or psychological reactions.<br /><br />There is a very similar situation that happens in the movie. Neo has entered the Maya / Matrix and makes his first attempt to fly through the air.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Summoning every ounce of strength in his legs, Neo launches himself into the air in a single maniacal shriek - But comes up drastically short. His eyes widen as he plummets. Stories fly by, the ground rushing up at him, but as he hits - The ground gives way, stretching like a trapeze net. He bounces and flips, slowly coming to a rest, flat on his back. He laughs, a bit unsure, wiping the wind-blown tears from his face. Morpheus exits the building and helps him to his feet. Inside the Nebuchadnezzar, the crew are feeling kind of let down by Neo.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mouse </span>: What...what does this mean?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Switch </span> : It doesn't _mean_ anything...</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cypher </span>: Everybody falls the first time. Right, Trin?</span></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">But Trinity has left. Neo's eyes open as Tank eases the plug out. He tries to move and groans, cradling his ribs. While Tank helps Morpheus, Neo spits blood into his hand.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span>: I thought it wasn't real.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span> : Your mind makes it real...</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Neo </span> : If you're killed in the Matrix...you die here?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Morpheus </span>: The body cannot live without the mind.</span></span><br /><br />Thus we see that Maya equates approximately to the Matrix computer programme. With a little more imagination, it may be possible to map the Atman and the Brahman as well. However since the movie was perhaps never made with vedanta in mind, such equations may seem to be a bit far fetched at the moment.<br /><br />So it is possible to conceive of a scenario – however improbable that may be at the moment – in which a human brain is fed with stimuli that makes it believe that it inhabits a world that is different from where it really exists.<br /><br />But that was a piece of science fiction.<br /><br />No doubt it was a piece of science fiction and I am not claiming that the Maya of Vedanta is piece of software. All that I am trying to establish is that it technically possible to have something like this … I am trying to establish a rough model or analogy from the world of cyborgs and neural implants.<br /><br />What are neural implants ?<br /><br />That is a long story[4] that begins with Professor Warwick, but to cut a long story short, implants are devices that are implanted in a human body and serve as a gateway for electrical signals to be transmitted directly to the human nervous system without the normal intermediation of the sensory organs.<br /><br />Can you explain that in greater detail ?<br /><br />Yes, the idea is very simple. Suppose you want to open a door. This means that from somewhere in your brain, there must emanate an electrochemical signal that will cause your hand to rise and move in a manner that causes the door to open. But suppose you could sense the presence of the signal in your brain – or nervous system – and cause it to be transmitted out of your body – through this implant – and use this signal as an input to a electro-mechanical device that opens the door.<br /><br />This sounds like thought control, like magic … is this possible.<br /><br />Theoretically it is very much possible because the process does not violate any laws of physics but practically there are hurdles in making devices that are reliable enough to pick up the faint signals and process them correctly.<br /><br />What is the difficulty ?<br /><br />Well the brain sends out millions of signals and the implanted electrodes will sense all of them. The trick lies in isolating the one correct signal from the ‘noise’ and the acting on it. There is a lot of pattern recognition and related software techniques involved … but all said and done it is a tractable problem, a solvable problem and it has been solved for certain restricted cases. In fact the BBC has reported[5] that this technology is already being used to help paralyzed people to control their wheelchairs.<br /><br />That was a neat introduction to nerve implants but how does it link to 3D computer displays ?<br /><br />Implant technology has moved significantly forward from where Kevin Warwick was and one of the most innovative use of this technology is in the area of bionic eyes.<br /><br />What are bionic eyes ?<br /><br />These are devices that will let the blind see<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Scientists have designed a bionic eye to allow blind people to see again. It comprises a computer chip that sits in the back of the individual's eye, linked up to a mini video camera built into glasses that they wear. [6]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Images captured by the camera are beamed to the chip, which translates them into impulses that the brain can interpret.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The work was discussed at a Royal National Institute of the Blind talk and Professor Gislin Dagnelie, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, unveiled details at a recent conference in London, in early 2007 where he claimed that human trials will begin shortly.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Although the images produced by the artificial eye were far from perfect, they could be clear enough to allow someone who is otherwise blind to recognise faces and this breakthrough likely to benefit patients with the most common cause of blindness, macular degeneration, which affects 500,000 people in the UK.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">This occurs when there is damage to the macula, which is in the central part of the retina where light is focused and changed into nerve signals in the middle of the brain.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The implant bypasses the diseased cells in the retina and stimulates the remaining viable cells.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Professor Dagnelie said: "The retinal implant contains tiny electrodes. If you stimulate a single electrode, the person will see a single dot of light." They have already tested implants containing a handful of electrodes, but the end device will contain 50-100 to give a better overall picture. "We are hoping this will be enough for the person to be able to make their way through a building, find a door or window and avoid obstacles for example.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"To us, the images look very basic but for someone who was previously blind they are a massive step forward."</span><br /><br /></span>How is that relevant to our case ?<br /><br />One step at a time. Let us think of what is suggested in The Matrix … we have a series of electrical stimuli that are fed into the brain and the brain is not aware that these are NOT ‘real’ stimuli from physical objects but artificially generated electrical signals that create the same effect !<br /><br />You mean the mind cannot distinguish between a sensory stimulus generated from a physical artifact from a sensory stimulus generated from a computer program.<br /><br />Right, now consider the bionic eye. What does it do ? Its camera picks the sensory signal – in this case light – from the environment converts it into a electrical signal and sends it to the bionic eye and then through it to the brain. What if we replace the camera with an artificial signal generator ? The bionic eye will still pick up the signal – but would not know that it is not coming from the camera – and will send it to the brain and the brain would be let to believe that the signal came from the camera – and hence from the physical environment – but in reality that would not be the case.<br /><br />So instead of ‘seeing’ or sensing what is actually in front of the eye, the brain will ‘see’ something completely different … and in fact will see just what it is shown in terms of electrical signals whose origin could be a computer program.<br /><br />Correct, in effect, we have replaced the physical world with an illusory, artificial world … which is exactly what the Matrix was all about.<br /><br />But what if we disengage the artificial signal generator then the person will know that we were trying to fool him or her.<br /><br />Of course but if for days, a person gets to receive ONLY the stimuli from an artificial signal generator there would come a time when he would be convinced that these artificial signals are in fact the ‘real’ signals from the ‘real’ world … I know that I am stretching your imagination but theoretically and conceptually speaking you can extend this analogy.<br /><br />But what about the other sensory perceptions, sounds ? touch ? taste ?<br /><br />Again .. the bionic eye is just the starting point .. there is no difficulty in extending the same to the other sensory organs … you would need more research, more technology but no theoretical bar on using the same approach to sound and touch and taste.<br /><br />OK .. but I have one more concern. When I ‘see’ the ‘real’ world it is – what should I say – very ‘realistic’ with a great deal of detail in terms of colours, resolution and 3D ‘depth’ – of the kind that we get with stereographic vision. But from what you just said, the images that you see with a bionic eye, even when they are generated by ‘real’ life objects and transformed through the camera – they are kind of crude and fuzzy. Surely the difference between the quality of the two kinds of images is too large.<br /><br />I will answer your question in two parts. First the current combination of camera and image processing technology is in its infancy. With advances here, the image of a ‘real’ object as seen through the camera and bionic eye will be as good as the image seen the ‘natural’ eye – if not better if we use image enhancing techniques. But I will go a step further and introduce the concept of 3D displays.<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />Consider a normal computer screen. There is some data that is stored in digital files – and this could be MS-Word document or an EXCEL spreadsheet or it could be an image stored in a JPEG format. What happens on the screen ? The computer converts this data and represents it on the screen as points of light – or renders it in an optical format. This light moves to the ‘natural’ eye and is taken inside the brain so that we can read the document or see the picture. Now what happens if we eliminate the rendering process ?<br /><br />What ?<br /><br />The computer picks up the same data and instead of rendering it as points of light on the screen send the data directly to the image processing unit of the bionic eye …<br /><br />Ah ha … and the brain ‘sees’ the same document or image as if it was first rendered on the screen and then processed by the ‘natural’ eye.<br /><br />Exactly … we have a new User Interface for the computer that eliminates the computer screen – or console or terminal, call it whatever you will – and yet communicates with the brain.<br /><br />Just like the Matrix !<br /><br />And no more science fiction … we are moving into the domain of science fact.<br /><br />And this could extend to movies in MGEG or WMV format .. you can see the movie in your ‘minds’ eye directly from the disk or from a streaming video server.<br /><br />You are right but I am not happy with that … I would like to push further into the domain of 3D technology.<br /><br />Now what is that ?<br /><br />When you see movies you basically see a 2D representation of 3D object or location.<br /><br />But there are ways of creating and viewing 3D movies as well – using coloured spectacles and other technology.<br /><br />That is very primitive technology. Today we have the ability to create computer displays that are very realistic in their representation of three dimensions. It is as if we craft a real solid three dimensional image out of the interplay of various beams of coloured light.<br /><br />Are you referring to holograms ? Laser holograms ?<br /><br />In a generic sense, yes .. but as I have said, we have some very advanced technology that is available today.<br /><br />I remember that in the movie Star Wars, there was an image of the Princess Leia that ‘materialised’ in front of a group of people and it was animated to the point of asking for help – help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope …<br /><br />That was science fiction but today, it is really possible to do the same. A 3D display[7] is any display device capable of conveying three-dimensional images to the viewer. There are three types of 3D displays: stereoscopic 3D displays, holographic 3D displays, and multiplanar. Stereoscopic displays use various methods to convey a separate image to each eye, allowing the perception of depth. Holographic displays create a light field which is identical to that which emanated from the original scene, giving a perfect three-dimensional image, although usually only at the particular wavelengths of the lasers used to record the image. 3D displays may use voxels instead of pixels.<br /><br />Can you give an example ?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3ToRpEdwLbzHS9ib9Ul2H7exumttx1IFwmPT6fjx8JIvG6tti_MxWFKzTNg_TmWSrt6BfkEdKj84_xTNej7ra-A9aQyF3Aw0bTLtbuUAglqMNpde3XXXrOeCtBQ9Ng2A82nw0iJ7w9tMs/s1600-h/002-3DTechnology.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3ToRpEdwLbzHS9ib9Ul2H7exumttx1IFwmPT6fjx8JIvG6tti_MxWFKzTNg_TmWSrt6BfkEdKj84_xTNej7ra-A9aQyF3Aw0bTLtbuUAglqMNpde3XXXrOeCtBQ9Ng2A82nw0iJ7w9tMs/s400/002-3DTechnology.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054700435131254802" border="0" /></a><br /><br />OK, Look at this picture that shows a Philips' lenticular lens 3-D display[8] that requires no special glasses and can show 3-D scenes simultaneously to several viewers.<br /><br />Is this the only technology available for this purpose ?<br /><br />Not really, there are many companies that are in a position to offer the same technology. For example this IRIS3D display delivers a 4-MegaPixel combined image resolution image in a workstation that allows you to visualize your images and data in true 3D - all without the need for encumbering 3D glasses, HMDs or expensive immersive multi-user environments. It makes visualisation intuitive! It also allows you to work in 2D for when you've just got to write that report, or when playing Quake in 3D has left you, quite literally, quaking!<br /><br />So now we can deliver 3D images directly to the brain using the nerve implants – or the bionic eyes ?<br /><br />Yes these are two of the three pieces of our artificial Maya.<br /><br />Two ? three ? what are we talking about.<br /><br />Let me circle back to what I was trying to do. I was trying to establish that the statement which claims that “the world around us is not real .. it is only an illusion” cannot be ruled out outright. I am trying to establish that under certain situations, we can create an environment where the human mind cannot distinguish between what is real and what is illusory.<br /><br />And how have you established that ?<br /><br />Not yet, but I have first established that it is possible to generate electrical signals and send them into the brain in a manner that the brain may not be able to distinguish between ‘real’ optical signals generated from the environment and ‘illusory’ non-optical, electrical signals generated through a computer.<br /><br />That was part one, what next ?<br /><br />Second, I have established that it is possible to generate electrical signals that simulate 3D images very realistically and so we remove one more barrier between the real and the illusory.<br /><br />You had said that there was a third piece of the puzzle ?<br /><br />Yes that comes from the world of Massively Multi-user Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) in general and the widely popular game or rather platform called Second Life in particular.<br /><br />What is an MMORPG and why do we need it ?<br /><br />We have established that we can generate 3D images and send them directly to the brain … but what kind of images shall we generate and send ? Obviously these need to be images that we see in the world around us … images of people, other people who are around us, together with images of the environment – roads, trees, houses, cars ..<br /><br />And where do we get this ?<br /><br />It is readily available in an MMORPG[9] which is a genre of online computer role-playing games (RPGs) in which a large number of players interact with one another in a virtual world. In these games, players assume the role of a fictional character (most commonly in a fantasy setting) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBFerAr-mpYXG70usbV8_XCYT6XwSQ_-c7gO7_ejpDW92BWzsTd5gz8ZfKuaaMsdsSoZqnBMPImNj-3xgSjdF8zpMVRtUTNPO_Fm1xO0kGf2Xl_fkRc-28qy4RwIQEJrWrszJ6r7fQU3r/s1600-h/003-mmorpg.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBFerAr-mpYXG70usbV8_XCYT6XwSQ_-c7gO7_ejpDW92BWzsTd5gz8ZfKuaaMsdsSoZqnBMPImNj-3xgSjdF8zpMVRtUTNPO_Fm1xO0kGf2Xl_fkRc-28qy4RwIQEJrWrszJ6r7fQU3r/s400/003-mmorpg.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054700435131254818" border="0" /></a><br /><br />MMORPGs are very popular throughout the world, with combined global memberships in subscription and non-subscription games exceeding 15 million as of 2006. Overall, revenues for MMORPGs exceeded half a billion dollars in 2005 and are expected to reach over a billion dollars by 2009.<br /><br />How exactly does all this relate to the Maya of Vedanta ?<br /><br />OK, let me explain in greater detail with reference to a very specific MMORPG called Second Life though in fact SecondLife is actually more than a game. Wikipedia describes[10]<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">“Second Life as an Internet-based virtual world which came to international attention via mainstream news media in late 2006 and early 2007. Developed by Linden Lab, a downloadable client program enables users to interact with each other through notional avatars, providing an advanced level of a social network service combined with general aspects of a metaverse”.</span></span><br /><br />According to Wired Magazine[11]<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">“The vision of former RealNetworks CTO Philip Rosedale, Second Life emerged from beta just three years ago. Rosedale was convinced that the increasing adoption of broadband and powerful processors made it possible to create a 3 D virtual world similar to the metaverse Neal Stephenson described in his sci-fi novel Snow Crash. Rosedale and his team at Linden Lab govern Second Life and rent property to the steady stream of fresh immigrants, but beyond establishing a few basic protocols, they pretty much stay out of the way. Almost everything you'll see has been built by the locals, from the swaying palm trees at the Welcome Area to the pole-dancer's dress at the XXX Playground.”</span></span><br /><br />Second Life is a fairly standard, client-server application that runs on the Internet but the analogies which it offers are truly staggering. You use the SL client software, running on your computer, to “enter” the virtual world that resides on the server machines, with a userid and password. Immediately an avatar – a graphical representation of the user – appears in the virtual world and become visible to other avatars, who are connected to and representations of other users who have similarly entered the world from their computers.<br /><br />Avatars interact with each other in a virtual landscape populated by persistent objects like houses, trees, lakes, cars, shops, merchants, animals, aircraft – you name it, it is there. Each of these objects has been created by other users through their own avatars inside Second Life. This an eerie, but enjoyable world, filled with almost all ingredients of real life – there is a thriving economy, based on a convertible currency, almost as large as the GDP of a small country, there are relationships between avatars, there is law and politics and inevitably crime – committed by avatars and appropriate punishment. A key ingredient of Second Life is the concept of property rights. What you build is what you own and what you own, is what you can sell or rent !! And this is why Second Life is no more a game but an all new world to explore and profit from where the average daily transactions is a shade less than USD 1 million every day !<br /><br />If you are immersed in this world – an at the time of writing, there are more than 3 million users of whom nearly 15-20,000 are concurrently in-world – it occasionally becomes impossible to determine the borders of what is real and what is virtual. Is this Maya ? Obviously not but if you consider the following … the analogy could be very compelling indeed.<br /><br />Have you actually been there ? Or are you simply talking about it ?<br /><br />Well at least in this case, not only do I know the path to Second Life, I have actually walked along that path. I have my own personal property in SL where I have built the Mahamaya Kali temple and it all began with a simple desire, to know who was visiting this temple. The first step was very simple – a phantom, nearly-invisible, trip-wire around the teleport point that sent out an email whenever someone passed through it and this helped identify visitors quite effectively. But then I got ambitious and decided to see if I could create an in-world camera that would snap a picture of the individual instead of just sending the email. Unfortunately this proved to be impossible .. and here is why.<br /><br />Objects in SL are represented as pieces of raw digital data and it is the SL client software that assembles this data and gives it a visual representation. So to create an in-world camera, one would have to have a full fledged SL client, that runs recursively within the SL client itself … and this is infinitely more difficult than writing code to do a host of normal things like driving a vehicle or creating a flying bird.<br /><br />This leads us to the larger philosophical question .. does the existence of reality depend on the existence of a mechanism, a consciousness, to perceive the reality ?<br /><br />This is where we can invoke the analogy and state that the SL client is the equivalent of Maya ( or illusion) that assembles the view or perception. Without this Maya ( or the SL client) there is no Reality or at least the no perception of Reality. Is it that the act of seeing or perceiving is the cause for the existence of the object of perception ? Is it that I perceive, therefore the world exists.[12]<br /><br />Of course it may be argued that even if the SL client was not around to perceive the artifact in SL, the artifact would still exist in the SL asset server database. But the representation of the asset in the server is a series of “real” digital bits in a database which, however, is far removed from the “virtual” tables, chairs, houses, trees and other “solid” objects that are perceived when they are viewed through the SL client.<br /><br />So in Real Life, the Reality could be in a form that is significantly different from the way we see it ... and we see it the way we do because of a Viewer that is placed between that Reality and us .. and that is what the Advaitin would say is Maya. When this Maya is removed, what remains is something quite different.<br /><br />In Second Life, if we equate the SL client to Maya and if the Maya is removed, then there are no artifacts, only a stream of digital bits. In Real Life the big challenge is to know the equivalent of the digital bits. That question may not be answered here but the fact remains that Second Life client is the closest analogy that we have of Maya that the Advaitin talks about.<br /><br />And more importantly, the thought that the world is an illusion may not be so difficult to accept any more. For a humorous take-off on this idea, you can see the movie Are You Real ?[13]<br /><br />So would you say that we have a live example of Maya – the Illusion of Vedanta ?<br /><br />Not yet. All that we have are three very interesting pieces of technology, namely<br /> * MMORPG – that allows multiple individuals to interact with each other and with a very realistic environment that does not really exist but that seems very real<br /> * a 3D display technology that makes this realistic environment even more realistic by replacing the flat 2D computer display with a something more dramatic and<br /> * Finally the bionic eye technology that can eliminate the need for the computer display and beam the signals created from the first two technologies directly into the brain so that the brain cannot distinguish whether it in a virtual MMORPG world or in the real physical world.[14]<br /><br />But that means that you have blurred the borders between the real and the virtual ? Why are you not saying that this is a demonstration of the Maya of Vedanta ?<br /><br />Thank you for your faith in me, but I do not deserve it as yet. All that I have demonstrated is that it is possible to create an environment that seems to replicate Maya but unfortunately this is not Maya as yet.<br /><br />Why ? What is missing ? …<br /><br />You need to understand that computer technology has significant limitations when you use it to model the mental side of human beings.<br /><br />[1] For an overview of MWI see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation<br /><br />[2] As quoted in The Everett FAQ at http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm<br /><br />[3] These dialogues are taken from a version of the script assembled by Shelly Poole (Shelly_Poole@btinternet.com) and available on the internet<br /><br />[4] See http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.02/warwick.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set= for a more detailed story on Kevin Warwick in Wired magazine.<br /><br />[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5167938.stm<br /><br />[6] This section adapted from a report in the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4411591.stm A Google search with Bionic Eyes will reveal more information.<br /><br />[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_display<br /><br />[8] http://www.research.philips.com/newscenter/archive/2004/3d-display-cebit.html<br /><br />[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game<br /><br />[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_life<br /><br />[11] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/sloverview.html<br /><br />[12] In a recent paper published in Nature (Nature 446 871) and reported in Physics Web (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14 ) physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it.<br /><br />[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebq0tbhap-g<br /><br />[14] In fact technology is moving so fast in this direction that as of March 07, 2007 we have an announcement at http://www.gamespot.com/news/6166959.html that Emotiv Systems have introduced a new helmet that will allow players to control the game with thoughts and emotions. The product is expected to be in the market in 2008.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-89944480055237668792007-04-20T11:40:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:20:13.806+05:305 - Limitations of the Computer AnalogyWhat are the limitations that you are talking about ?<br /><br />Look I am using computer technology to – in a sense – model the mental behavior of human beings but it is only fair that I point out to you that using computers as an analogy of the human mind is NOT something new, and earlier attempts to model the human mind on digital computers have generally resulted in very limited success. Despite the hype with Artificial Intelligence (AI) since the early sixties it is still not possible to construct a computer, or rather develop the software that passes the Turing test.<br /><br />What is the Turing test ?<br /><br />This test, developed in the fifties required a system to respond to questions or stimuli in a manner indistinguishable from that of a real person and carry on this charade for a specified amount of time. The success of IBM’s chess playing computer, Deep Blue, which had beaten Gary Kasparov is no indication of any intelligence because it would not be able to replicate very simple human behavior like carrying on a conversation or guiding a robot across a busy street.<br /><br />I have heard of Artificial Intelligence and of a primitive software analogy for the human mind … can you elaborate on that for a moment.<br /><br />The hard disk of a computer, or rather the software that resides on it, can be seen, at a very gross level, to mirror the mind or the soul. Should you replace the entire software on the hard disk of one computer with that of another, then the two computers would be indistinguishable from each other.<br /><br />It is almost be like the transmigration of a very primitive soul !<br /><br />We can carry this analogy further along by considering a network of computers, say a local area network [ LAN ], where each computer picks up the relevant software from a central, big computer, called a server. This ties-in very neatly with the Hindu concept of one central soul, with serves as the repository of all knowledge and consciousness and where each individual person, or his soul, is a manifestation of this divinity. When new computer hardware is first put into the network, it connects to the server and picks the relevant software that breathes life into the computer. The software determines the behavior of the individual computer and gives it a personality. In the course of its active life, this computer modifies the software (or data ...) on the server. Should the computer die or become dysfunctional, all that needs to be done is to throw it away and replace it with another computer. The new born computer will pick up the software from the server, left behind from its earlier incarnation, and carry on from there on. We can triumphantly say that this is an excellent model for the transmigration of the soul.<br /><br />But is this model really flawless ?<br /><br />Not at all, not at all. The real question is where is the communication channel ? In fact scientists have still not found out the exact mechanism by which an individual soul communicates with the great central soul. There is no psychic equivalent of the physical Ethernet cable (which connects computers together) or the stream of electromagnetic signals that carry the data over the cable.<br /><br />Perhaps there is some as yet undiscovered extra-sensory capability<br /><br />That is an explanation that you tend to invoke when you do not have a really good answer – that this communication mechanism is beyond the sensory capabilities of the physical world and its existence cannot be detected by any rational method. But even though rationality has its limitations this immediate attempt to isolate this phenomenon beyond the realm of the rational sciences smacks of escapism. All but the most ardent believer would expect something more substantial.<br /><br />So how do you explain the communication ?<br /><br />I will come to it in a minute but there is a second flaw and perhaps bigger flaw that you need to be aware of.<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />It is in the assumption is that there is indeed some software, that is a collection of computer programs plus data, which can indeed model the human mind and soul. Nothing could be further than the truth. All computer programs have at the core an algorithm, which specifies the logic that dictates how the software will behave under various circumstances ... and this principle seems to be at a complete variance from the way human beings behave. People are impulsive, do not do what seems to be logical and are capable of drawing conclusions without analysing all the data .... these are impossible in the algorithmic methodology that is the heart of the computer program. Various attempts to simulate this irrational but goal directed behaviour by building algorithms that learn as they go along or make heuristic shortcuts have been successful only to a very limited extent.<br /><br />So if I understand you correctly there are two fundamental problems in using computer technology to model mental, thinking and psychic behaviour, namely<br /> * The absence of a well defined theory of algorithms that allow us to have any degree of confidence in our ability to model human thought on a digital machine and<br /> * The absence of a proven communication channel that would allow sentient individual to communicate without resorting to physical media<br /><br />These are hard obstacles and I do not wish to bypass them with any magic or occult mumbo-jumbo. Instead, let us look at two approaches namely (a) Patterns and (b) the Universal Turing Machine. But please understand that this means two major detours from our original path … and you have to bear with this till we come back here again.<br /><br />What are these two detours ?<br /><br />These are detours into<br /> * The realm of patterns and<br /> * The realm of the Universal Turing MachineCalcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-80815338064035648892007-04-20T11:35:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:20:32.552+05:306 : Detour - PatternsIf one looks very, very closely at a printed page then all that will be seen is a set of dots. A collection of dots, arranged in a particular pattern would constitute a letter. Individual dots are meaningless, but when grouped together in a particular manner they acquire a specific meaning. This process is recursive. A continuous sequence of letters on a line is again meaningless, but if grouped together and separated by spaces and other punctuation marks they again acquire the meaning of words. Similarly words by themselves mean little but arranged in sentences they make sense. Finally sentences arranged in a certain fashion represent ideas. At each stage of this evolution, individual units do not mean much but collections of the same units, when arranged in a particular pattern contain, and can convey, information when observed at a hierarchically higher level. This phenomenon is not unique to text-based language only ... similar hierarchical acquisition of meaning is evident when atoms form molecules, which form cells, which form living organisms.<br /><br />What is so new and original about this ?<br /><br />There are two things to be noted about in this namely<br /> * First - the same set of marks on the paper can and do convey very different messages or pieces of information under different circumstances .. sometime they are alphabets, some time they are disjointed words and sometimes they are sensible sentences<br /> * Second – and this can be a partial corollary of the first observation, a group symbols ( or of anything ) can and do represent something more important than that communicated by the components.<br /><br />You are unnecessarily complicating matters. The first is merely a restatement of the second.<br /><br />Not really .. take a look at the image on the on the next page and tell me what you see there.<br /><br />Nothing just a random pattern of coloured dots.<br /><br />Apparently it looks like a haphazard set of random coloured dots, but if you hold it in front of your face and stare it for some time, a fuzzy image of three eyes will begin to appear and with a little more effort, the image will suddenly “jump” out and your eyes will lock into it very comfortably.<br /><br />Is this some magic ? Some trick ?<br /><br />There is no magic in this and similar images which are called stereograms. Once your eyes lock onto the image, there will be no difficulty in seeing it for any amount of time. This particular image is a rather crude product that I have created but professionally done stereograms with more complex objects can easily be created with appropriate or better imagery and more sophisticated computer software. If you go to the web and search for stereograms, you will find more interesting examples.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIvNuCjuQKIlUlJLgHryK3ySgjnpinCWYpTdq-VHBovCpRFLo3Yo6eEDHVRbZV4UhU6nILSvy-mqcbA6JmYZ35Tw5drRQSQGt8j5b_cr6IGq3YGGaF9S9rR7gmP_9_sNnSWgm4NMsohPoJ/s1600-h/004-ThreeEyes.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIvNuCjuQKIlUlJLgHryK3ySgjnpinCWYpTdq-VHBovCpRFLo3Yo6eEDHVRbZV4UhU6nILSvy-mqcbA6JmYZ35Tw5drRQSQGt8j5b_cr6IGq3YGGaF9S9rR7gmP_9_sNnSWgm4NMsohPoJ/s400/004-ThreeEyes.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054723490515699762" border="0" /></a><br /><br />What is it that you are trying to tell me through this ?<br /><br />There is a message – or in this case, an image, that is here inside this diagram, that is not very apparent to begin with. But with some effort and with no special or additional communication channel it is possible to transmit this message or image to someone else.<br /><br />Can anybody see this image ? Can anybody can get the message ?<br /><br />That is exactly my point … what you must understand is that while the technology for creating such images is interesting, the insights that are thrown up by this analogy are even more so.<br /><br />What insight ?<br /><br />The reality in this case is the image of the three eyes but it is hidden inside a random pattern of coloured dots. Nearly 20% of the population would never be able to see the real image because of a peculiar metabolic structure of their eyes. The other 80% would be able to see it but if and only if they strive to do so.<br /><br />Is this the only case of such non-physical transmission of message ?<br /><br />There are other examples and I could share them with you. But what is more interesting is that almost 80% of the population would be able to see the message – that is only about 80% would be able to ‘tune’ in to this mysterious channel. But the others would not !<br /><br />Is this what is called Extra Sensory Perception ? I thought that that was possible only with esoteric individuals like tantriks, sadhu and mystics.<br /><br />Perhaps they can ‘tune’ into other channels that we are not even aware of … but this is a simple example of how we can use an existing and known channel of communication to overlay and transmit another additional layer of information and message.<br /><br />Can you give some other examples ?<br /><br />There are quite a few very simple examples from our daily life … for example consider the standard tests that are used to check colour-blindedness.<br /><br />How is that done ?<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9A0LPgAZdYxKvDNvS-FIWDt78qLlqyzFhYzePCBfC33FGp5iCOYiWGF1tkonUJ_VHAOfpkeptOUaJp1pWZjbiG5GIJlHy6fn0w8PN5nDZHapw0YyCAM8HIhOMGaf4DGw2Tnc4DloroMbm/s1600-h/005-ColourBlindness.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9A0LPgAZdYxKvDNvS-FIWDt78qLlqyzFhYzePCBfC33FGp5iCOYiWGF1tkonUJ_VHAOfpkeptOUaJp1pWZjbiG5GIJlHy6fn0w8PN5nDZHapw0YyCAM8HIhOMGaf4DGw2Tnc4DloroMbm/s400/005-ColourBlindness.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054723490515699778" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Look at these patterns, can you see what is written here ?<br /><br />Of course, I see three numbers, 25, 45 and 56.<br /><br />Right, you have access to channel called colour that is not available to a person who is colour blind. For him it will impossible to decode what is written here.<br /><br />Why is this ?<br /><br />It is the way that our brains our wired together. For a person without colour-blindedness the ‘hardware’ of the eye and brain is such that it can spot the pattern and make sense of the message. That is the same with the stereogram. In fact that is true with a large number of other patterns as well.<br /><br />Like ?<br /><br />For example, our knowledge of the English language. Just because you know the language you are able to understand this text. For a person who knows only German or French it will be difficult to comprehend what is being said here … even though he may recognise the letters of the alphabet. And if you take this analogy further, a person who is not familiar with the English alphabet – say someone from Africa, will find it even more difficult to comprehend what is being said.<br /><br />Just as we would have difficulty in comprehending a series of mathematical symbols.<br /><br />Exactly but a person who understands symbolic logic will have no difficulty in understanding that -x,y| x,y c N, ( x >y) e ( x 2 > y 2 ) means for all values of x and y where both are members of the set of Natural Numbers, the fact that x is greater than y implies that the square of x is greater than the square of y.<br /><br />So it means that the physical image, the physical message may not be all that there is in the message ..<br /><br />You are right, there is no magic, no Extra Sensory Perception involved in the transmission of a complex message that may be encoded or overlaid on a ‘normal’ message that is being transmitted. The magic – if at all you call it that – lies in patterns and the ability to decode these patterns in a meaningful way.[1]<br /><br />Never knew that patterns could be so exciting ..<br /><br />They are and in fact they have some very unusual applications as well.<br /><br />Like what ?<br /><br />Do you believe in Astrology ? But let me warn you, that this could be big detour …<br /><br />Well I cannot say I do not … for I do look up the various astrology columns that appear in Sunday newspapers. So go head, let us take this detour within a detour – astrology within patterns.<br /><br />I find the generalized newspaper columns rather vague and if not trivial but a personalized horoscope cast with the date and time of birth is a much more significant document.<br /><br />But how do you explain it all ? How can planets that are so far away have an impact on individual lives ? Is it the usual action at a distance phenomenon ? Like gravitation or electromagnetism ?<br /><br />Well it is obviously not gravitation or electro-magnetism or any of the known forces of nature as otherwise we would have found an explanation for it.<br /><br />But astrologers do talk about rays – invisible or otherwise coloured, through which the planets impact our destiny.<br /><br />Well that is just another escapist tool. When you cannot explain something, invoke something extra-physical, psychic and what not.<br /><br />So how do you explain it ? With Patterns ?<br /><br />Yes .. and it is quite simple .. if you view this whole phenomenon from the perspective of co-relation and not causality.<br /><br />Big words, please explain.<br /><br />Suppose you walk into my office and see that my car is parked in the basement garage … what would you conclude ?<br /><br />That you are in the office, of course.<br /><br />But does that mean that the car somehow forced me or otherwise ensured my presence in the office.<br /><br />Of course not.<br /><br />If the car had some mysterious mechanism to make me physically present in my office, then that would have been a demonstration of causality. But what we have here is a simple demonstration of co-relation : the probability of me being in the office when the car is in the basement is significantly higher than what it would have been had my car NOT been the basement. The two events are co-related and the existence of one leads us to believe in the existence of the other.<br /><br />But how does this square with the planets at your birth ?<br /><br />I will give you an analogy : Suppose you were looking at a landscape from the sky but parts of it are obscured by clouds. At two positions you see a river but the portion in between is not visible. Would you not expect that the river is there in the middle portion as well ? Even though you cannot see it because of the clouds ?<br /><br />Well I suppose, I would.<br /><br />Now suppose that a person’s life is depicted as a series of events and these are events that occur not to the individual itself but to all entities to which the individual has some – however tenuous – connection.<br /><br />That would be an incredibly large number of events.<br /><br />Agreed and a very simple analogy of this the Feynman diagram for an elementary particle.<br /><br />I have heard of this Feynman diagram. If a particle is stationary in space, the Feynman diagram is a line in space-time. If it is in a 2-dimensional orbit around a fixed point, then it maps out a spiral in 3-Dimensional space-time where time represents the axis of the spiral. Similarly, the Feynman diagram for a 2-Dimensional surface that is stationary in space will be a 3-Dimensional solid structure.<br /><br />A Feynman diagram for a normal 3-Dimensional body in a 4-Dimensional space time is a difficult to visualize or represent but mathematically speaking is a trivial extension of the line, the spiral and the solid structure that we talked about. But if you take a little leap with your imagination, and imagine the Feynman diagram of a 3-Dimensional person, in a 4-Dimensional co-ordinate system then you have ‘something’ ( which cannot be drawn on paper but can be understood by a mathematician ) that represents a person’s entire life in 4-Dimensional space-time.<br /><br />This is way too mathematical for me … you will have to simplify matters.<br /><br />OK, let us stick to a 2+1 Dimensional space-time environment where the final representation of the life line of a 2D body is a 3D ‘solid’ figure.<br /><br />Fine, that is more tractable.<br /><br />Now suppose we have a system consisting of 2 planets plus an individual, so a total of three bodies.<br /><br />These three bodies move in a 2D space – that is on plane surface – and at any instant of time form a triangle. At every different instant of time, there is a new triangle which is slightly displaced from the earlier triangle in the Z direction ( the time dimension ).<br /><br />So I get a series of triangles on top of each other and all these triangles some kind of solid body.<br /><br />Right … and if the behavior of these three objects is not completely random, then the solid structure formed will have some kind of deterministic shape.<br /><br />What shape ?<br /><br />We don’t know that as yet. The nature of that shape is the knowledge that astrologers like Parashar have tried to tell us.<br /><br />How does this help ?<br /><br />By looking at the shape of the structure at one region ( that is at one instant of time ) we could reasonably predict what the shape of the structure would be at another region, that is at another instant of time.<br /><br />Well I suppose so …<br /><br />And that is exactly what the natal horoscope is all about ? It gives the positions of the planets at one very critical time point of the individual – the birth, and by doing so it tells us the ‘shape’ -- if I may use that word – of the structure at one time point. Using our knowledge of such ‘structures’ – that is astrological knowledge – we can now predict what the shape of the structure would be at another time point.<br /><br />Can you say that again ..<br /><br />The existence of a planet at a particular time at a particular position is an event. So the positions of planets during birth are a set of events, as is the birth itself. So we have a pattern of events – and this pattern represents one portion of the huge pattern of events that characterize a person’s life.<br /><br />So all events in the person’s life, like say marriage, job, wealth, death etc are events that fall into that huge pattern.<br /><br />Exactly, but we cannot see the pattern in one glance. So we cannot know about the marriage, job, wealth, death in advance. But what we can do is to look at some of the events and try to understand the pattern that is local to that part of the structure.<br /><br />How does that help ?<br /><br />Once we know the shape of the structure at one point, we can extrapolate to the actual state of the structure of events for the individual at a different point of time … which is what predictions are all about.<br /><br />Is it something like seeing a part of a picture – say the upper half of a face – and guessing the name or identify of the subject of the picture ? Is it something like seeing a part of a jigsaw puzzle and trying to figure out what the rest of the picture could look like ?<br /><br />You are absolutely right ! It is a all a matter of seeing a part of a pattern and trying to figure out what the rest of the pattern would – or perhaps could, be like.<br /><br />But is this feasible at all ?<br /><br />Theoretically yes, but practically very difficult and prone to errors, but that is exactly what Astrology is like ! Of all the predictions, only a handful turns out to be correct.<br /><br />So what is the benefit of that ?<br /><br />That is a different question .. would you be happy to live with some error in the analysis ? Some people are not, some people are … that is a personal choice.<br /><br />So you believe that astrology is real ?<br /><br />I do. But it gives me a lot of comfort to know that I can explain this phenomenon in terms of co-relation and not causality. I can visualize the process of prediction as looking at an abstract shape in four dimensional space and not have to invoke either the divine or laws that operate outside the bounds of physics.<br /><br />Are you sure that you are right ?<br /><br />I believe I am right but what gives me confidence is that the horoscope is cast at birth and not during the conception of the individual because had the process been causal, then the time of conception would have been more important in charting the destiny of the individual.<br /><br />But what about gems and jewels that people wear to change their fortune or sometime perform certain rites to satisfy the planets ? Would you not say that there is causality involved there ?<br /><br />I have faith in the ‘predictive’ part of astrology but my faith withers and turns into skepticism when astrologers claim to curative powers. I am not comfortable with the remedial aspects of astrology since I cannot figure out how it could work. Perhaps there is an explanation but I do not have it.<br /><br />…………………………………………………………………………..<br /><br />That was a huge detour into Astrology but where does all this lead us ?<br /><br />We began with two fundamental flaws in our attempt to use computer technology in the analysis of mental phenomena, namely<br /> * The absence of a well defined theory of algorithms that allow us to have any degree of confidence in our ability to model human thought on a digital machine and<br /> * The absence of a proven communication channel that would allow sentient individual to communicate without resorting to physical media<br /><br />And we have arrived at a possible solution to the SECOND flaw.<br /><br />Yes, and that is in the ability to transmit a message, a piece of information, across physical entities without the physical existence of something like an Ethernet network wire. By using patterns of stimuli that encode and help transmit deeper, more significant messages and ideas.<br /><br />That still leaves us with the other flaw ? The problem of algorithms.<br /><br />That can be addressed to an extent through the use of another unique concept – that of the Universal Turing Machine.<br /><br />[1] Ya Devi Sarvabhuteshu Chaya-roopena Sangsthita, Namastasyai Namamstasyai Namastasyai, Namoh Namaha – Salutations to the Devi who abides in all beings in the form of Reflection or Image.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-91149173153701736172007-04-20T11:30:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:20:53.727+05:307 - Detour - Universal Turing MachinesWhat kind of a machine is that ?<br /><br />I will explain but first let us look closely into what lies inside a computer. In fact if you look closely, you will find that at the lowest level, all that is there is a series of zeroes and ones. These symbols are grouped to represent bits, bytes, and then either pieces of data or pieces of logic that operate on the data that are called programs. The bottom line is that a huge collection of binary digits (1,0) can, and does, contain meaningful information.<br /><br />What kind of information ?<br /><br />As I said, there are two kinds of information ... data and programs. Consider a computer that calculates the monthly salary in a company. First, it must have information about each employee ... name, salary, days worked, perquisites .... this is referred to as data. Secondly, the computer must know the logic with which salary is calculated and taxes are deducted ... this is referred to as the algorithm or the program.<br /><br />But both the data and the algorithm are finally stored in the computer as a series of zeroes and ones.<br /><br />Yes, but people who use the computer and the computer itself knows which is where. Without going into great detail, let us accept that the logic that helps the computer to distinguish data from program is coded in the form of a higher-level program loosely referred to as the operating system. Classical computer programming techniques teach that data and programs be kept separate from each other and all computer systems, from mundane ones that calculate salary to extremely complex ones that send rockets to Mars, work on the basis of this fundamental principle -- without any exceptions.<br /><br />So where does the Turing machine come in ?<br /><br />The Turing machine is a mathematical construct that represents a hypothetical computer, and was conceived by Alan Turing[1] to model the most general of all computers. This computer has the capacity to store an extremely large number of binary digits (0’s and 1’s) and since it has no physical wear and tear, it can go one working for a very long time without any degradation of speed. The Turing machine can at any instant of time be in any one of many internal states. Data is fed into the Turing machine as string of binary digits on a very long tape. The machine also has a set of rules that specify what action to take when it reads a binary digit of data. The machine operates on the following very simple principle :<br /><br /> * Read the digit on the input tape that is in front of the machine<br /> * Determine the current internal state of the machine<br /> * Look at the set of rules and do these three things ....<br /> + Either change the digit on the tape OR leave it alone<br /> + Either move one position to the left OR to the right<br /> + Change the internal state of the machine and continue OR halt<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWpqzVcHvZSD_ua-NNmtLWEScs6s_G5ASGCsZIVMLbsHkHhOHGGtlDpks2GmyNA4FIpdQibYlfA_8z9SyD0ZZ4-NoN67RcYuWQTMuC35wxhJ26xB0kdIZ8DBXdxqJtckK88SFrs6Hb0jTb/s1600-h/006-tm02.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWpqzVcHvZSD_ua-NNmtLWEScs6s_G5ASGCsZIVMLbsHkHhOHGGtlDpks2GmyNA4FIpdQibYlfA_8z9SyD0ZZ4-NoN67RcYuWQTMuC35wxhJ26xB0kdIZ8DBXdxqJtckK88SFrs6Hb0jTb/s400/006-tm02.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054726033136339026" border="0" /></a><br /><br />A Turing machine is uniquely specified by the collection of states that it can be in and by the set of rules that it obeys. The Turing machine is the mathematical basis of any computer system and it has been mathematically proven that any problem, or situation, that can be resolved in a logical and rational manner, can be simulated on a unique Turing machine. Unfortunately, most problems dealing with human behavior cannot be directly modeled on a standard Turing Machine.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigKQx_BzQ5OTaATN1D1sCFHbMsmep9eY1p_JZ1p8LngZBZi6A9pL0jsLBqi0mG0_F2NPTxqifVcwTtKniiiX6m0txUmXrUvQALhKxSSPDq8l12K_avnuBFhVqXyPsEyFX-1Kkv4ze-uBHu/s1600-h/007-tm03.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigKQx_BzQ5OTaATN1D1sCFHbMsmep9eY1p_JZ1p8LngZBZi6A9pL0jsLBqi0mG0_F2NPTxqifVcwTtKniiiX6m0txUmXrUvQALhKxSSPDq8l12K_avnuBFhVqXyPsEyFX-1Kkv4ze-uBHu/s400/007-tm03.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054726033136339042" border="0" /></a><br /><br />That is unfortunate. So how is relevant for us ? In this discussion …<br /><br />We need to introduce a slightly more complex concept of the Universal Turing Machine.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga0bcild8PviXsjXZlZkh-Ln7zwPIlceT3ucy2cGAMLyblxfLYdtJN4xOGIjrNc8ktPfDTdz4H20mKOIJoP7OVP5HmdUHCe_zvJv12AfTKIdh2aFNfdV-1ewZ_kDrjencaFAaxA5YJhZ9m/s1600-h/008-tm04.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga0bcild8PviXsjXZlZkh-Ln7zwPIlceT3ucy2cGAMLyblxfLYdtJN4xOGIjrNc8ktPfDTdz4H20mKOIJoP7OVP5HmdUHCe_zvJv12AfTKIdh2aFNfdV-1ewZ_kDrjencaFAaxA5YJhZ9m/s400/008-tm04.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054726033136339058" border="0" /></a><br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />The collection of states that a Turing Machine can be in and the set of rules that it obeys can be represented as a set of binary digits as well. This set of binary digits is similar to the regular set of binary digits that constitute the data, though the information encoded is quite different. Hence this bigger set of binary digits can be viewed as the input data to another Turing Machine. This higher level Turing Machine, generally referred to as the Universal Turing Machine, with its own collection of states and rules, can then simulate any other Turing machine .... by first processing the digits that represent the lower level Turing machine and then processing the digits that constitute the data.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk-saxuoJWQMjktkVUDJvKlc6vv26bhyqPoNRuUu4gSFKvVmDYpiay1I-ex13bSWzv-oMR2f0fj1UkJ0cycaCGLi25hNkJaqMmXEmrUtU4hf0zgWKr9XBuSGI7cEFrIjg02bT8JWbanOD6/s1600-h/009-tm05.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk-saxuoJWQMjktkVUDJvKlc6vv26bhyqPoNRuUu4gSFKvVmDYpiay1I-ex13bSWzv-oMR2f0fj1UkJ0cycaCGLi25hNkJaqMmXEmrUtU4hf0zgWKr9XBuSGI7cEFrIjg02bT8JWbanOD6/s400/009-tm05.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054726037431306370" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The concept of the Universal Turing machine (UTM) is based on solid, mathematical logic and the proof of its existence is a significant mathematical achievement. There is nothing arbitrary about the UTM except that it is generally not known if or when the machine will stop processing the stream of binary digits. This means that the machine just might go on processing digits forever without ever arriving at a final answer. This solution is not acceptable to any mathematician ... but fortunately, as we will see later on, this limitation is not significant for the purpose of our analysis here.<br /><br />So are you saying that you can model the mind as a Universal Turing Machine ?<br /><br />Not so much as the mind but perhaps the thinking process is my end-game but before that, I have to first introduce you to another idea – that of self replicating programs.<br /><br />Is that another oddity, from the world of computers ?<br /><br />Yes and in general, such programs have very little commercial utility but for the fact that such techniques are used by malicious persons to create computer viruses that have very high nuisance value. When such a program executes, it creates an accurate copy of itself on the hard disk of the computer.<br /><br />From a strictly mathematical point of view, self-replicating programs should satisfy two conditions<br /><br /><br /> * the parent or the child program should be self contained and must not use any intermediate data file and<br /> * the execution of the program should result in the creation of executable child code. No extra steps should be required to compile the source code of the child.<br /><br />However, for all practical purposes, we can relax these assumptions and conceive of a program that, as it executes, reads some data from a file and makes some changes in it. The actual executing program is quite primitive and simple. However complex logic and decision events are embedded as data in the data file which gets changed when the program executes. So when the same program is executed a second time, it reads in a different set of logic and decision events and in all probability behaves in a manner that is different from its behavior during the first execution. Incidentally, it would also change the data file as well, which would affect its behavior on the third run ... and so on. A trivial example will make this clear.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A trivial example :</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Let us assume that the data file has three numbers that are initially set to some arbitrary value between 1 and 10. The program has the capability to generate a beam of light where the proportion of the primary colours is in the same ratio of these three numbers .. so it generates a coloured beam. This beam of light is reflected back by a screen of some particular colour. The laws of physics determine the proportion of each primary colour in the reflected beam -- a red screen will reflect red light the most. The reflected beam is analyzed and the proportion of each primary colour is determined. The values of the three original numbers in the data file are UPDATED to bring the relative ratios closer to the ratios as analyzed in the reflected beam. Then the program terminates.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span></span></span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaMBL1Ovhg4TzB_EquV3HDkpHQHxZAuAxx4R7jZQvj2qnHrlDHwPGYe7YOYbzlcW98IeQuKVF88GUFEI0GWQnc6TQgD37MpVZIhyefTEpdQAf7O_qs7sfKvk5E1Q-AkWF9YyrOPU3C4SLU/s1600-h/010-reflector.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaMBL1Ovhg4TzB_EquV3HDkpHQHxZAuAxx4R7jZQvj2qnHrlDHwPGYe7YOYbzlcW98IeQuKVF88GUFEI0GWQnc6TQgD37MpVZIhyefTEpdQAf7O_qs7sfKvk5E1Q-AkWF9YyrOPU3C4SLU/s400/010-reflector.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054728790505343122" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">If the program is run a second time, the light it will generate will be closer to the colour of the reflecting screen and again the data values will be updated. Successive executions of the program will make the colour of the generated light closer and closer to the colour of the reflecting screen .... unless of course the colour of the screen is suddenly changed. In that case the experiment will, in effect, restart from the beginning. [Stage I]<br /><br />Let us now isolate the physical equipment that generates and analyses light and treat it as a black box (BB1) that receives three numbers (coded in binary format) from the computer and sends three numbers back to it. A very large part of the rest of the computer program can be coded in appropriate binary code and placed on the data file itself. However, the logic is designed in such a manner that when the program executes it alters only that part of the file that has the colour values and not any other part. [Stage II]<br /><br />Let us, next, isolate the enhanced data file, which contains the code-logic and the changeable data, and view this as another black box (BB2). Once again, the computer reads a stream of binary digits from BB2 and sends another stream of digits back to it. [Stage III]<br /><br />What is left on the computer is a very core program that talks to two black boxes BB1 and BB2. If you think about it, you will realize that this core program is nothing but a Universal Turing Machine (UTM). All that it is doing is reading a stream of binary digits, deciphering some logic and acting on some data. This will become even clearer if we merge BB1 and BB2 into just one black box and add a simple multiplexing device at each end that allows the computer to communicate with both BB1 and BB2 over a single digital data channel. [Stage IV]<br /></span></span><br />The trivial example of shining a light is used as an example to prove a point. The theoretical foundations of the UTM guarantee that any real world situation, that involves learning about and altering the physical environment, can be modeled on it though the size of the data file [ BB2 ] and the complexity of the physical devices [ BB1 ]will be enormous.<br /><br />What the mathematics fails to guarantee is that even if we have the most powerful computers, the UTM will finish processing BB2 and achieve the result expected in BB1 in a finite amount of time.<br /><br />Why are we spending so much time with the Universal Turing Machine ?<br /><br />Let us begin by considering the human mind, or perhaps the brain, to begin with, as a Universal Turing Machine. The human being is born and a corresponding UTM starts to process data.<br /><br />But where is the logic stored for the ‘core’ UTM ?<br /><br />Let me assume that the initial logic could be stored in the hardware, or firmware of the human brain. As a very rough and initial analogy, the neurons in the human brain can be, at least initially, thought of as the equivalent of the logic gates that a computer chip has. Though range and versatility of the human brain is prodigious in terms of adaptability, the analogy is not too fallacious, especially because the ‘core’ code of the UTM is still finite. This is in contrast to the far larger and infinitely complex code required to handle all human interactions.<br /><br />Where does it get its stream of input data ?<br /><br />The input data stream begins, in the womb with every piece of external stimulus that it receives, perhaps unconsciously. In fact, this is the only data available to a child as it drops down the mysterious stairs of birth. Subsequently, additional channels of communication open up as the sense organs become activated and the person sees, reads, hears, touches, feels and in general learns about the environment. In all cases, the electrochemical transmission of the nervous system is the one and only data channel, carrying a flood of input into the UTM.<br /><br />So there is no need yet to postulate a divine agent that breathes in life and spirit into the physical body.<br /><br />The stream of information that floods in, is huge, far more than what can be stored in any computer today. As in the case of any UTM, it consists of data, information on how to process the data and possibly meaningless junk.<br /><br />Meaningless, in this case, is a relative word. An input data stream has any meaning, if and only if, the logic to process that data stream has already been processed by the UTM. For example, a person who has never learnt mathematics would find mathematical symbols meaningless. From this point of view, most of the input data stream would be perfectly meaningless but for occasional strings of logic and data.<br /><br />So it is as if the sentient entity is dipping into a universal pool of knowledge ?<br /><br />The physical universe -- every single atom, molecule or higher-level objects like chairs, tables, books, movies .. in fact everything -- constitute a vast input data tape for the Universal Turing Machines that represents every conscious or living organism. Each living entity is an UTM that is processing a part of this data pool to which has physical access. Here are some examples of input data :<br /> * the sight of a sunset<br /> * the sound of a bell or mantra<br /> * the smell of a flower<br /> * the sensation of breeze on the face<br /> * the physical action that has an impact on any part of the human body<br /> * the knowledge of the existence of the stars and planets.<br /> * the knowledge of scientific truths - Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution.<br /> * the knowledge of the Upanishads<br /><br />Every action that a person takes, from writing a book to leaving a banana peel on the road, can have an impact on every other person. This is because every UTM is not merely reading the input tape but also writing back on it -- modifying some part of the data pool.<br /><br />How does the UTM write back on the tape ?<br /> * it alters the position of some atom, molecule or higher-level object or creates new combinations of primitive objects.<br /> * it generates new ideas, new patterns of knowledge, and leaves it behind in the form of books and other records.<br /><br />The data in the pool is changing continuously. Can we visualize this data pool ?<br /><br />One way of doing so would be model this data pool as network of binary digits strewn along the surface of sphere. As an UTM reads, processes and writes on one part of the data pool, it picks up the logical instructions to move to and read data from some other part of the surface -- this movement can be physical, one goes somewhere or intellectual, a new chain of thought is explored. The surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded, so there is no possibility of reaching the edge of this vast pool and then falling off !<br /><br />However, this spherical surface is only an analogy. The actual data exists as information about the location and disposition of atoms and higher-level objects including, but not limited to intellectual property like books. To the UTM in the human brain, all this information appears as a stream of binary digits being fed in from an infinite tape.<br /><br />How does consciousness appear ? How does intelligence reveal itself ?<br /><br />Intelligent entities are often seen take action as a response to certain stimuli. Beginning with a simple thermometer where the mercury expands with the rise of temperature to sophisticated closed-loop control systems that measure various parameters and regulate complex machinery, the relation between input and output is governed by logical rules or algorithms. The UTM, as a model for the human thinking process, is the ultimate algorithmic device in this regard.<br /><br />However, it is believed that consciousness is not algorithmic and hence cannot be modeled on the UTM. The line of reasoning behind this belief is as follows<br /> * Consciousness is associated with desire or will. I raise my hand not because I have to but because I want to. No thermometer would want the mercury in it to expand.<br /> * Consciousness is associated with self-awareness. A conscious entity is aware of itself. It needs no external input realize that it exists and is capable of raising its arm.<br /><br />So how is it possible to have an algorithm based UTM that generates tangible, rational and meaningful output when it has no tangible input stimulus ? And that too when the output could be different in each case. For example one person draws a picture, another decides to go scuba diving and a third asks questions about the existence of God.<br /><br />In each case, the particular UTM that represents the individual is indeed processing an input data stream, consisting of memories of past input and immediate input from the five senses, but this input is not perceptible or not intelligible to any other UTM in the vicinity. As we have said in the past, the data pool from which each UTM draws input is vast and every UTM is processing some part of it. Moreover, most of the input data is meaningless unless the algorithm to decode it has been encountered or read-in before.<br /><br />So even if two UTM read the same part of the data pool, though this is unlikely, UTM-1 would not make any sense of the data but UTM-2 would understand it and react in some tangible way. UTM-1, that is trying to observe conscious behavior in UTM-2, would not perceive the data at all and conclude that UTM-2 is not reacting to any external stimulus but instead acting out of its own consciousness. Can a colour-blind person ever understand the exclamation of wonder that is expressed when a person with normal vision sees a rainbow ?<br /><br />So to summarize what I have said so far …<br /> * It is theoretically possible to envisage a computational device, a Universal Turing Machine, which can process a very large stream of data. The logic to process the data can be embedded in the data itself. However, the act of processing of the data is not always guaranteed to terminate with a meaningful answer. Real devices will decay and disintegrate before even a fraction of the available data is processed successfully<br /> * The human brain ( or mind ) could be perceived as such a computational device such that, at birth, the neurons are arranged in such a manner that they can be modeled as a Universal Turing Machine.<br /> * The physical environment, consisting of every atom, molecule and higher level object together with the various patterns they form among themselves represent (a) a vast pool of data equivalent to the input of an UTM and (b) this data pool is the repository of all knowledge and information available in the universe at a point in time. This data flows into the UTM or the conscious mind that it models, over the normal physical channels of the five senses. There is no need to postulate any extrasensory communication mechanism.<br /> * This data pool is not static. UTMs corresponding to every conscious entity in the universe are reading data from some part of the data pool and writing back into the data pool. The process of writing back is done by subtle or significant changes in the position of some physical object ... small or large. The mere act of breathing is enough to change some data as well.<br /><br />This line of logic (or speculation) can be faulted on the ground that the mental process is not logical and hence cannot ever be modeled by an algorithmic computational process.<br /><br />In this case, let me insist that the process is indeed algorithmic, but the logic and algorithm is apparent to only certain entities (or UTMs) that have had the opportunity to read in the relevant part of the input data. But to those who have not had the opportunity to access and read the relevant part of the input data, the process seems irrational.<br /><br />If viewed from this perspective, phenomena related to the human psyche, even if they are not repeatable or reproducible under laboratory conditions, can be analyzed rationally and modeled computationally.<br /><br />Is this not all old wine in brand new bottles ? Is this not as if you are trying to recreate the first flush of euphoria that adherents of Artificial Intelligence experienced in the early late 1960s when computers were first becoming fashionable in eclectic academic circles? Is it not like as if naïve computer scientists are trying to prove, once again, that it was merely a matter of using brute force – very powerful computers and a rock solid program – to demonstrate intelligence in machines. This dream had failed but was rejuvenated again in the 1980s as, less ambitious Expert Systems – computers systems that could address problems in one functional domain. But even these too have now gone out of fashion ….<br /><br />These attempts failed because in each case, the search was on for that “perfect” algorithm or computer program that could mimic the behavior of a human being. It is said that this failure was because the mind is NOT algorithmic and hence any attempt to model it algorithmically is like trying to push a square peg into a round hole and expecting a perfect fit.<br /><br />So why are we trying an algorithmic approach again ?<br /><br />This apparent confusion can be cleared up if address two basic misconceptions namely :<br /><br />· There is one “perfect” algorithm that if and when located – invented or discovered – will solve the problem of understanding and responding to the universe of data.<br /> * There is a clear demarcation between the “universe” of data and the algorithm [ or program] that processes the data.<br /><br />Yes, the basis of intelligence as well as consciousness is algorithmic, but no, there will be never be THAT one perfect algorithm. The algorithm that we use to represent mental phenomena is one that is continuously changing – mutating and evolving – as it senses, reads in and processes [“understands”] sensory and other data.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Hence the mental faculties of intelligence and consciousness are not inherent properties of the algorithm, but of the data that is processed by the algorithm. At best, the mind may be equated to the algorithm, but consciousness – or the “soul”, or rather the properties and behaviors associated with it – is a property that emerges from the pattern of data that is available, read in and processed successfully by the algorithm.[2] What is even more crucial is that the in this process, the algorithm itself gets changed significantly so that it is quite likely that the same data, if presented a second time to the same entity, may not get processed in an identical manner. Hence there is no question of passing the test of repeatability or any other test that is put forward by rational scientists.</span></span><br /><br />So we say that mental phenomena are algorithmic or computational and hence deterministic, but they are deterministic to the extent of only one instance !! Since the second or any subsequent instance could and most probably would differ from the first or any earlier instance, we are erroneously led to believe that the process is non-deterministic and hence non-computational.<br /><br />OK, I understand that this is neither Artificial Intelligence nor is it expert systems but tell me why are we at all trying to understand this whole business of UTMs ? We had begun with the statement of Vedanta that the world is an illusion, that is Maya .. when, where and why did this new animal called UTM enter our discussion.<br /><br />I told you that we would be taking two major detours … and that is where we were.<br /><br />Fine, the detours are over, so let us just go back to Maya and restart the discussion from that point.<br /><br />Yes and I have tried to establish that this Maya, or illusoriness of the world that we apparently see around us, is not as impossible an idea as it seems to be. It is quite conceivable to envisage a scenario where the world is not what it seems to be.<br /><br />But then you went off into this UTM business ? I thought that you would explain to me the mysteries of the Brahman and the Atman.<br /><br />I will, I will, but before that I had to straighten out our ideas on how we, as sentient conscious entities, handle the process of understanding our environment.<br /><br />Why is that so difficult ? If we can understand physics and chemistry and mathematics and economics and law and accountancy why is it that we need all this mumbo-jumbo to understand the Brahman and the Atman.<br /><br />The difference my friend is because in all this cases there is a clear and sharp distinction between (a) the Knower, (b) the to-be-Known and (c) the process of knowing. There is a clear object – say Newton’s Laws of Physics, then there is a subject, the student, the learner who is trying to understand and finally there is a well defined process of learning which could include listening to a lecture, establishing a hypothesis and then conducting an experiment.<br /><br />But is that not the same in this case ?<br /><br />Not quite, because in this case, the knower, the to-be-known and the process of knowing is all bundled into the same thing. In fact there are people who claim that it is impossible to know … because they raise the very fundamental question .. How can the knower be known ?<br /><br />OK. One step at a time, what is that we are trying to know ?<br /><br />Singularity !<br /><br />[1] Alan Turing, who created the theoretical basis of what is now called computer software, is often referred to as the father of computer science. A brilliant mathematician, he worked for the British government during the Second World War and broke the encryption technology of the German “Enigma” coding machine. Unfortunately his homosexual orientation caused him to fall foul of the law of the land and he committed suicide at a very young age to avoid further humiliation.<br /><br />[2] Ya Devi Sarvabhuteshu Chetanetyabhidhiyate, Namastasyai Namastasyai Namastasyai Namoh Namaha – Salutations to the Devi who abides in all beings in the form of Consciousness or CognitionCalcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-45303854824452586492007-04-20T11:25:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:21:22.695+05:308 - Towards SingularitySingularity is something that is difficult to explain with words, it is to be experienced.<br /><br />Are we going to experience singularity now ?<br /><br />That will require years of practice, years of sadhana, but since that is not possible here, let me begin with a series of images which are at least better than dry text ..<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdeAPrj5iIVvYeAaLGs7-TpFU9Qx0d7xE6yJNiwnLUYzip4Q2aluOjJxSuoMSIT3XL_jfmZauW2maGO-AUGD7L8h5kBGcsQ6ncPPInu3SFLB5-ttCz09ANK_oa8T2n6SiyjChFviC1SDKq/s1600-h/011-s1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdeAPrj5iIVvYeAaLGs7-TpFU9Qx0d7xE6yJNiwnLUYzip4Q2aluOjJxSuoMSIT3XL_jfmZauW2maGO-AUGD7L8h5kBGcsQ6ncPPInu3SFLB5-ttCz09ANK_oa8T2n6SiyjChFviC1SDKq/s400/011-s1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054732956623620258" border="0" /></a><br /><br />We begin with the perfect Brahman, without shape or form and the perfect Atman, also without shape or form, but since the perfect Brahman is obscured from the perfect Atman through the delusion or veil of Maya, which acts as a barrier to true knowledge, it perceives both itself and the Brahman – the Universe – as first separate and secondly with shape and form (that is with “horns”).[1]<br /><br />But the Atman, and Maya and the Brahman are one and the same … is that not what you have said ?<br /><br />You are correct, but we will be there shortly … but before we do, let me clarify a small but significant point. We have used the a lens or a veil as an analogy for Maya but perhaps we would be better off if we were to use a mirror as the analogy.<br /><br />So do we replace the lens with a mirror ?<br /><br />That is exactly what I have done in the next diagram.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8LpsQ1Gp-A1NvM5FOd7UGFanB1gaoaQZZguU353-gv_tMnUIonAoNJauIKsuSJz5D5MtPPLhtlORrLoH9RVHY7WZF8Eoxbc8w2IfT20H_zGhdLbiihTdPzJKDjR2jtbxYDq_MdKrm2BsH/s1600-h/012-s2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8LpsQ1Gp-A1NvM5FOd7UGFanB1gaoaQZZguU353-gv_tMnUIonAoNJauIKsuSJz5D5MtPPLhtlORrLoH9RVHY7WZF8Eoxbc8w2IfT20H_zGhdLbiihTdPzJKDjR2jtbxYDq_MdKrm2BsH/s400/012-s2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054732956623620274" border="0" /></a><br /><br />In reality, the Atman is indeed a part of the Brahman but because of the imperfect mirror of Maya it sees itself as distinct from and smaller than Brahman. Moreover, it sees both itself and the Brahman, erroneously, as with shape and form. That is why we retain the horns.<br /><br />What happens next ?<br /><br />As the Atman acquires more and more knowledge through the UTM process that we described earlier, the Atman moves closer and closer to its identity with the Atman --- the horns, errors of form and shape, reduce and unknown to itself, the Atman “increases” or “swells up” to come closer to the Brahman.<br /><br />Is this shown in the next two diagrams ?<br /><br />Yes .. and if you note carefully there are two things happening here ..<br /> * The Atman is approaching the Brahman in size. This is my way of saying that the Atman is losing the spell of delusion that was cast on it by Maya.<br /> * This means that its knowledge of Brahman and recursively, of itself – since it is itself becoming identical with Brahman, is becoming better and “clearer”. It loses its images of ‘horns’ the erroneous concepts of shape and size … and starts seeing things as they are formless and without attributes – that I have represented as a circle here.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzW5T5kRK5ql2wkkUPQ6Q1PUCxvfoecQ6fm3-X1d4mM40gr9xFCgBQDkk02-SHyt9Ay1FeJtKV1wYMteghfolswD96xKYsLjvzrJcneN0XYJdpFKtq5gCbwpX_-bK4Gfr5iB_DH8mhhxVe/s1600-h/013-s3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzW5T5kRK5ql2wkkUPQ6Q1PUCxvfoecQ6fm3-X1d4mM40gr9xFCgBQDkk02-SHyt9Ay1FeJtKV1wYMteghfolswD96xKYsLjvzrJcneN0XYJdpFKtq5gCbwpX_-bK4Gfr5iB_DH8mhhxVe/s400/013-s3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054732956623620290" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyLRtngljO-f73hOMiYZ-j7KL2mheNxexSClFMpMdzTmo7KN7upFys8IZk3P1lTFMi_qpkHHwDqhlvbwA6TWK7zFnmRUNErByzciKfy_hGIm2yeTqgsHdLn0l1kVPjNGrH_0fTM1Qt6ybx/s1600-h/014-s4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyLRtngljO-f73hOMiYZ-j7KL2mheNxexSClFMpMdzTmo7KN7upFys8IZk3P1lTFMi_qpkHHwDqhlvbwA6TWK7zFnmRUNErByzciKfy_hGIm2yeTqgsHdLn0l1kVPjNGrH_0fTM1Qt6ybx/s400/014-s4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054732960918587602" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Is this the state of Nirvana ? Or what is called the state of Truth and Bliss and Consciousness, the Sat-Chid-Ananda ?<br /><br />That I suppose is what is described in the next image.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimwQw7epwEPCYRmDHVDyqsaG34Xjce87g-NJ9T8K8A_SYFpfMne47fEKJ3FPu6VWI9rfwqg7vMvDJuTIA6i-u0UkbYyXuF1t0mVMeUH3FAeYHYBJo0Btc5ejNj623zWmBYXVNBTrBcBXNU/s1600-h/015-s5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimwQw7epwEPCYRmDHVDyqsaG34Xjce87g-NJ9T8K8A_SYFpfMne47fEKJ3FPu6VWI9rfwqg7vMvDJuTIA6i-u0UkbYyXuF1t0mVMeUH3FAeYHYBJo0Btc5ejNj623zWmBYXVNBTrBcBXNU/s400/015-s5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054732960918587618" border="0" /></a><br /><br />This is old hat. Sankara said this eons ago. How does this tie in with the idea of the UTM that have been championing so far ?<br /><br />To understand that, see the next image, where I have introduced the UTM. This UTM is the basic cognitive mechanism, initially imperfect, but as it acquires knowledge and evolves it becomes more efficient and effective in overcoming Maya. It becomes more capable of ‘seeing’ or ‘understanding’ what it experiences.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCC5FZm_FMrQOWCB34NIpr7OBpRl4-nAG7OsUCxy1y9HlybDYfts2QXYcyGPMwBX2fRn7zKMI80yyfsiR4OnAdNdhLRIldQ3I4Wt99T3Kaz-I-og_Api-rR1kA12mLBeR2kv3zGhB3W8VJ/s1600-h/016-u1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCC5FZm_FMrQOWCB34NIpr7OBpRl4-nAG7OsUCxy1y9HlybDYfts2QXYcyGPMwBX2fRn7zKMI80yyfsiR4OnAdNdhLRIldQ3I4Wt99T3Kaz-I-og_Api-rR1kA12mLBeR2kv3zGhB3W8VJ/s400/016-u1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054733862861719794" border="0" /></a><br /><br />For more evolved individuals, the UTM is better and it helps him have a more accurate image of itself and the universe -- the ‘horns’ disappear.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLcFv9oPOZYVXG9a90QwWU6QKwBO7TvXTlqKPYlSutO6hxPXVkx0xKat_96YpwxhbOVgjiRH8mmyN123ZMlUCZNG7HQbUEB3EHEYSC4l4fqjvOa1UkerUTeHluPiddgm3X0aYdwwrigorj/s1600-h/017-u2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLcFv9oPOZYVXG9a90QwWU6QKwBO7TvXTlqKPYlSutO6hxPXVkx0xKat_96YpwxhbOVgjiRH8mmyN123ZMlUCZNG7HQbUEB3EHEYSC4l4fqjvOa1UkerUTeHluPiddgm3X0aYdwwrigorj/s400/017-u2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054733862861719810" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The process continues as the UTM “reads”, “processes” more data from the environment and “understands” more and more of reality, it becomes more cognitively competent, and the Atman that it represents moves closer to and closer to the Brahman<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAxxjEDj1Z9n5xlx4I1NPxPL7eZ7I0M9clnfVU1hl_Qj1K5dRI-ZOxfykuXSGYQ2TW24menUuLYrE_5ph8uW3FwU83cLSCbRFZg1NYiVh0Vo1jSgGyVdh_mwpPgr9UAoVKMxHHAJP6dBV_/s1600-h/018-u3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAxxjEDj1Z9n5xlx4I1NPxPL7eZ7I0M9clnfVU1hl_Qj1K5dRI-ZOxfykuXSGYQ2TW24menUuLYrE_5ph8uW3FwU83cLSCbRFZg1NYiVh0Vo1jSgGyVdh_mwpPgr9UAoVKMxHHAJP6dBV_/s400/018-u3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054733867156687122" border="0" /></a><br /><br />until in the state of perfect Nirvana, the perfect UTM, and the perfect Atman achieves identity with the perfect UTM that represents the Brahman.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhueJcFQKkjuOonVM78fFKlzr7eyTzGGxgbha_-awdjqLajTNj4TpALUjACHaHsoWe2MgxHShGsqOYvbKDe2Zhyphenhyphenz6odpN9u0cAvRAjIY9uHct6CS9QRKsCgLKUvQbULW-fQALVkz_ZyD4m7/s1600-h/019-u4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhueJcFQKkjuOonVM78fFKlzr7eyTzGGxgbha_-awdjqLajTNj4TpALUjACHaHsoWe2MgxHShGsqOYvbKDe2Zhyphenhyphenz6odpN9u0cAvRAjIY9uHct6CS9QRKsCgLKUvQbULW-fQALVkz_ZyD4m7/s400/019-u4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054733867156687138" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />So can you summarize the story that you have been telling me so far ..<br /> * The sentient or conscious mind picks up continuous series of data – or information, or cues, call it what you will – from the environment<br /> * Initially it interprets the data in an imperfect manner. It builds up an erroneous image of itself and of its environment .. this is when it is under the delusion of Maya<br /> * However, embedded in this data is the ability to make better sense of the data. Thus the mind acquires – some faster, others more slowly – the ability to make sense of this data. Thus the illusion becomes weaker and the image approaches closer and closer to reality.<br /><br />And how do you map this to the UTM ?<br /> * The primitive UTM of the simple mind acquires complexity along with the ability to make sense of current and subsequent data<br /> * The complexity of the UTM approaches the complexity of the data that it is trying to process or understand.<br /> * When it becomes equal in complexity to the complexity of what it is trying to understand then there is<br /> + no need for any external complexity anymore<br /> + the Yoga or the Union of the outer and inner data space is complete.<br /><br />I see that you have mapped the knower, the to-be-known and the process of knowing into an UTM, but at the end of the day the UTM is a mathematical construct, a pure piece of thought. How is this mathematical construct implemented in the ‘real’ world.<br /><br />So you are still looking for the real world ?<br /><br />Don’t laugh at me ! I know that you have been trying to convince me that I have to give up the real and live with illusions. But this is too much. How can the world be governed by a mathematical idea ? There has to be some touch point with something that is real – or perhaps what appears to be real.<br /><br />Don’t worry .. I am not trying to trick you but before that let me ask you a question – what is your favourite book ?<br /><br />Harry Porter and the Philosophers Stone.<br /><br />Now any book has two components, first the actual story and second the physical form or media in which it is presented – hard cover, soft cover, soft copy. So which of these do you like ?<br /><br />Obviously the actual story is what I like, the physical form is necessary but actually quite immaterial.<br /><br />Would you say that if I destroy the physical book, the novel is destroyed ?<br /><br />Not at all. The story is more important than and outlives the physical medium.<br /><br />So let us talk about a book and an incredible story that it contains.<br /><br />What book is this ?<br /><br />The book is the human genome and the story is the Universal Turing Machine that you have been looking for.<br /><br />.........................................................................................................................<br />[1] For the sake of convenience, we have represented perfection as circles and imperfection as a circle with horns around the periphery. Please note that this is an arbitrary representation and there is no inherent connection between perfection and circularity.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-70081156167761503212007-04-20T11:10:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:21:45.277+05:309 - Inside the GenomeWhat is the genome ?[1]<br /><br />Loosely speaking, the genome is a sequence of chemical compounds that lie along the chromosomes in the cell of a living organism.<br /><br />I have heard of the human genome, are we talking about that.<br /><br />Yes and more, but first let me clarify that there is nothing called the human genome. Every individual living organism has its own specific sequence of these chemical compounds so there are as many genomes in existence at any point of time as there are living organisms.<br /><br />So what is that was recently discovered as the human genome.<br /><br />In every species of living organisms, the genome corresponding to each individual is by-and-large similar and because they are similar they are said to belong to the same species.<br /><br />That means that your genome and my genome is similar ? To what extent ?<br /><br />To the extent of nearly 99.99% perhaps one in every 10000 element is different and that is why you are what you are – the skeptic – and I am what I am, the seeker !!<br /><br />So what is the human genome ?<br /><br />As I said, the 99.99% of the sequence that is common to all individual members of the species is often referred to as the genome of the species.<br /><br />So there is a genome for human and there is a genome for chimpanzees ?<br /><br />If you understand the genome of the species in the way that I have just defined, then yes, there is a genome for human being and there is a genome for chimpanzees and from what I know, they are 97% similar.<br /><br />Fine, now that I am clear on the definition of the genome, can you please explain what these sequences are all about.<br /><br />A sequence or pattern – and remember how we stressed on the importance of patterns earlier – is of immense significance in living organisms but before I begin let me state that we will be discussing two kinds of sequences.<br /><br />What are they ?<br /><br />The sequence of bases that exists in the chromosomes, also called the genotype, and the sequence of amino acids that exist in a protein, also called the phenotype.<br /><br />A bit confusing.<br /><br />Don’t panic, just remember the two words genotype and phenotype .. but first let us begin with the genotype.<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />Every living organism consists of living cells and each cell has a set of organic structures called chromosomes.<br /><br />I know, human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes … and in each cell, the chromosomes are identical to each other. But what are these chromosomes ?<br /><br />Yes there are 23 distinct chromosomes in each human cell and since there are two copies of each chromosome, we have 23 pairs.<br /><br />I know, one acts as redundant backup copy in case one get damaged.<br /><br />There is a huge science and technology around genetics and the study of the genome but we shall ignore that at the moment and focus on what matters most – the sequence.<br /><br />Why is this sequence so important ?<br /><br />Let us assume for the time being that the genome is a “book” and this book is written using an alphabet consisting of just four letters, namely A, C, T, G. This book has 23 “chapters” and each chapter has approximately a thousand “stories” and these are called genes.<br /><br />A continuous set of one thousand stories ?<br /><br />Not continuous .. the stories consists of meaningful “paragraphs” – called exons – and these interspersed with junk, or irrelevant sequence of letters, like advertisements in a magazine that are called introns. Finally each paragraph, whether a meaningful exon or an inexplicable intron consists of “words” called codons.<br /><br />Rather complex<br /><br />True but not the bottom of the hierarchy. Remember there are only 20 kinds of codons – or 20 “words” in this vocabulary, and as we said earlier, there are only 4 letters in the alphabet – A C T G.<br /><br />What is this A C T G, obviously these are not the letters of the English alphabet.<br /><br />Of course, but as you would realize shortly, for our analysis they just might be but do not panic as yet. The letter A C T G are used as a short hand for four specific organic molecules namely, Adenine, Cytosine, Thiamine and Guanine … and what is remarkable is that all living organisms that we know of at the moment use the same four ‘letters’ or bases, irrespective of whether it is human being or a bacteria living in the middle of a volcano !<br /><br />So the sequence that you were referring to were sequences of these molecules.<br /><br />Yes, it is as if these molecules ( A / C / T / G ) were strung together, like “letters” of the alphabet, in a specific sequence to form first codons, or “words”, which are then strung together to form exons, or “paragraphs”, which in turn are strung together to form genes, or “stories”.<br /><br />Is this the DNA ?<br /><br />DNA is long chemical molecule that acts as the thread on which the A C T G molecules are placed to form the sequence. If A C T G are flowers in a garland, then DNA is the thread on which the flowers are placed. Of course, unlike garlands, the DNA molecules do not loop back on themselves – they are like linear or straight garlands.<br /><br />And where are these DNA garlands placed ?<br /><br />On one of 23 chromosomes – the so-called “chapters”. And these 23 chromosomes constitute the “book”.<br /><br />But what does this “book” contain, what are these so called “stories” about ?<br /><br />These stories are actually “recipes” but before I start on that, remember I talked of two kinds of sequences, the genotype and the phenotype.<br /><br />Yes and you have just described the genotype, what about the phenotype ?<br /><br />We say that than organism is alive if and only if it has a class of molecules called proteins and it is these proteins that are referred to as phenotype. A protein molecule gives us shape, size, colour, texture … it makes us what we are – human beings and not birds or reptiles, who have their own kinds of proteins. Significantly, it is these proteins when in the company of thousands of other proteins that gives living organisms the basic ability to eat, to see, to grow, to hear, to talk, to think and to do all that is necessary to actually live.<br /><br />So it is this phenotype, this collection of protein molecules that collectively give us what is known as life ? But what exactly is a protein anyway …<br /><br />Now if you take a protein and look carefully you will see that it too is a sequence of smaller molecules … these molecules are called amino acids … and once again, there are only 20 of them.<br /><br />I thought that there were 20 codons.<br /><br />I will come back to that in a moment but for the time being let us focus on the 20 amino acids and we will note that it is the same 20 amino acids that are present in the proteins of all living organisms that exist today or have existed in the past … from human beings to the dinosaurs.<br /><br />Nature is indeed very economical with its basic materials – only 4 bases or letters are used to build the genotype and only 20 amino acids are used to build the phenotype.<br /><br />Yes … and the magic is that the 4 bases – A C T G – that form the genotype are found in only 20 different combinations – the codons, or “words” – in the genotype and there is a one-to-one correspondence between a codon and an amino acid.<br /><br />What does this one-to-one correspondence mean ?<br /><br />Aha … you had asked what is it that the “book” contained ? what are the “stories” about .. and I had said that the genome was a recipe book and each story was indeed a recipe.<br /><br />Yes .. but where is the linkage ?<br /><br />The recipes in the genotype, the genes, are used to assemble the proteins of the phenotype.<br /><br />You mean each gene corresponds to a protein.<br /><br />Yes … each gene – which is one specific sequence of A C T G arranged on a particular stretch of a DNA molecule -- carries information but is not capable of any metabolic function. The information in each gene is used to create a specific protein molecule – by mapping the codons on the gene to the amino acid required for the protein – and it is this protein, which gives rise to the physical appearance or metabolic function of a living organism.<br /><br />So the genotype – consisting of thousands of genes, has the information to create the phenotype – consisting of proteins, that give rise to life and metabolism.<br /><br />Right and some of these proteins, have the ability of create other proteins and this includes, in addition to other proteins, the DNA itself and that is used in the next generation.<br /><br />So the genotype and the phenotype is very closely related to each other ? But how exactly does all this happen ? How is the information in the genotype used to create the phenotype ? And how does the phenotype create further instances of the genotype for the next generation ?<br /><br />The exact process[2] is a matter for molecular biologist, we are not interested in that right now, but believe me a process exists and it is reasonably well understood. For us, we need to know only the Central Dogma of molecular biology.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik_AH7KGS13MXGDOnf73AV5x7MjQsBqL0jt2Ks3gP4lezZqG02wBIl6F276zIm8foR4luX4_G9KAm09HdfiPt44D1nDUB6VGT8gcH6t2risVliF8vv2zbIUqyjXlQYEEM0_fUUQ9lZ9v6A/s1600-h/020-centraldogma.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik_AH7KGS13MXGDOnf73AV5x7MjQsBqL0jt2Ks3gP4lezZqG02wBIl6F276zIm8foR4luX4_G9KAm09HdfiPt44D1nDUB6VGT8gcH6t2risVliF8vv2zbIUqyjXlQYEEM0_fUUQ9lZ9v6A/s400/020-centraldogma.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054740245183121730" border="0" /></a><br /><br />This is intriguing.<br /><br />Certainly it is, especially if you consider the following :<br /> * Protein – the ability of the organism to perform actual action is the phenotype<br /> * Gene – the knowledge of how to perform an action is the genotype<br /><br />and this has an uncanny resemblance to the duality of the Shiva Shakti paradigm. Shiva is knowledge but is incapable of action unless it is coupled with the Shakti the active principle.<br /><br />Are you saying that they are one and the same ?<br /><br />Not so fast ! We need to look closer at the persistent Gene<br />........................................................................................................................................<br /><br />[1] For a more comprehensive insight into this subject, please refer to Genome, Matt Ridley, HarperCollins, ISBN 0-06-019497-9<br /><br />[2] The exact process is called Transcription. Any standard textbook of genetics or molecular biology will explain this in great detail.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-11972005216700227162007-04-20T11:00:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:22:05.867+05:3010 - The Persistent Gene<div style="">What is a persistent gene ?<br /><br />It is a term that I have just coined to distinguish between the media and the message, the book and the story contained in the book.<br /><br />One second … I have just figured out that the gene is a sequence of chemical compounds -- the A, C, T, G compounds – strung out on the thread of a DNA molecule and each gene is the recipe of a particular protein. Now is this gene persistent or transient ?<br /><br />The material that creates an instance of the gene is of course transient and can decompose or be destroyed if we – say – burn the DNA but the information that it contains – the recipe, if I may say so of producing a protein – persists, in, among other thing, copies of this gene in other cells in the body, in bodies of other members of the species, or even in members of another species.<br /><br />I see … just like the story of Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone is available, not only in multiple copies of the book but also on various web pages and perhaps on DVDs ..<br /><br />Not to mention the memory of individuals who know the story and can recreate them if necessary.<br /><br />But there will be some deviations, some errors from the original ..<br /><br />And that is exactly the point I am trying to make.<br /><br />What point ?<br /><br />First let us understand that when we refer to a gene we could be referring to one of the two things<br /> * the gene – or recipe – in its physical manifestation. That exists as a physical collection of chemical compounds that can be “touched and felt” in a laboratory. This manifestation of the gene is similar to a copy of the Harry Potter book and I shall refer to it as the transient version of the gene.<br /> * the gene – or recipe – in its abstract manifestation. This is the information that is contained in one or more collection of chemical compound, but this information cannot be “touched and felt” in a laboratory. However it can be studied, examined from an information perspective – just as we can comment and criticise a Harry Potter novel, irrespective of whether we have a copy of the book in our hand. This is the persistent version of the gene.<br /><br />Is there a one-to-one connection between the transient version and the persistent version ?<br /><br />For each and every transient version of the gene, there is always a persistent version of the gene. However for each and every persistent version of the gene there may or may not be a corresponding transient version, at all instants of time.<br /><br />Are all persistent versions of the gene identical ?<br /><br />Let me clear the air on this<br /> * Every individual human genome has thousands of transient genes, say I number then 1 to 10,000. Each transient gene in an individual is different from the others.<br /> + this may not be quite correct, but I shall assume this … and it will not impact the quality of my argument.<br /> * If you consider the mass of humanity, say 6 billion people, the persistent version of any particular gene ( say gene number 5679 ) across the population is by and large identical.<br /> + 5,999,999,990 are indeed identical but 10 are different and these 10 people have some feature that is different from the general population.<br /> * For the 6 billion transient genes ( identified arbitrarily as gene 5679 ) there are 11 persistent genes at any instant of time and of these ONE greatly outnumbers the others.<br /> + with passage of time, the number of transient genes will change with the birth and death of individuals. However the number of persistent genes will remain constant at around 11, of which one will continue to dominate the others in sheer numbers, but the other 10 can go down with death or go up with an additional mutation happening somewhere.<br /> * What we said for one gene ( in this case gene 5679 ) applies equally to all the other 10,000 or so other genes in the genome.<br /><br />So in a population consisting of multiple members of a single species, the set of persistent genes is kind-of independent of the number of members of the species in the population.<br /><br />Yes, these same 10,000 persistent genes are floating around in the population together with their individual variations. However, the same population contains variations but the number of instances of these variations ( the corresponding transient genes ) is small.<br /><br />Fine, but can you tell me what these genes – persistent or transient – do ?<br /><br />Thousands of things … for example, a specific gene ( say number 2346) creates an enzyme ( a protein ) that helps digest salty food, or another gene ( say number 3456 ) creates a kind of flapper between the fingers that allow the animal to swim faster … The list can go on and on .. and thousands of technical papers have been written to explain the connection between the presence of specific genes (or collections of genes ) and specific physical and metabolic functions.<br /><br />This has something to do with evolution of species ?<br /><br />Yes .. for example, if an animal has the correct genes, it can survive longer in a marine environment, have more offspring to which it will pass on these “good” genes. So in such an environment you would be more likely to see a larger population of these animals. Members of the same species who do not have these genes will live less and you will see fewer and fewer of them in successive generations.<br /><br />You mean to say that crocodiles with webbed feet and with the ability to digest salty food will outnumber crocodiles that do not have webbed feet and who cannot digest salty food in the – say – salt water delta regions.<br /><br />That is the obvious explanation … and that has been successfully used by evolutionists to explain the wide variety of animals and plants that have inhabited, and currently inhabit, the world.<br /><br />And it explains why elephants and giraffes still exist whereas dinosaurs have disappeared from the face of the earth.<br /><br />As I said, that is the simplistic explanation … but there is a far deeper significance.<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />We have traditionally viewed natural selection – the process by which organisms which are more efficient or successful in a specific physical environment, become more numerous and get to dominate that physical environment – as a competition between species.<br /><br />That is correct. Mammals exist today because they were more efficient and successful than dinosaurs were in world.<br /><br />And tigers who can handle a salty diet are the only ones that exist in the Sunderbans delta.<br /><br />Yes it is either a competition between species or a competition between sub-species within a species that leads to wide diversity of biological life.<br /><br />But let me challenge you with this statement : The competition is NOT between the organisms – the members of the species – but instead, it is a competition between their respective genes !!<br /><br />But the genes are synonymous with the animals .. are they not ?<br /><br />The physical genes – the transient genes – are synonymous with the physical organism, the persistent genes are not synonymous at all.<br /><br />Please explain ..<br /><br />If you go back to the example of the salt-diet gene (to which I gave an arbitrary number 2346). If we look at the population of tigers in the delta … there would have been say 3 variations of this gene – let us say 2346A, 2346B, 2346C and initially there could have been an equal number of tigers with these genes. Then the land got flooded and the water turned salty. Now tigers with 2346A – which is best for salty diets – are more successful. They feed better, do not suffer from nausea, are more healthy, can fight the others better and in the long run have more offspring.<br /><br />So what happens next ?<br /><br />After three or four generations .. you will see that the ratio of the three persistent genes is heavily biased towards the A variety. In a population of 100 tigers, a good 95 will be carrying the 2346A gene. Thus it is not that salt-friendly tigers are more successful than salt-averse tigers BUT it is the salt-friendly gene that is more successful than the salt-averse gene.<br /><br />What is the difference ?<br /><br />Our focus has moved away from the physical gene – the transient gene, and towards the information content of the gene – the persistent gene.<br /><br />This is semantics, there is a close correlation between the persistent gene and the transient, physical gene. Between the genome – the total collection of all the genes – and the physical animal.<br /><br />Not quite, because the same gene – or its close variant – could be found ACROSS different species !!<br /><br />You mean a man and chimpanzee could have the same gene ?<br /><br />Of course, they would .. if you lay out the entire genome of a man and chimpanzee, you would find that they are identical to the extent of 97% of the patterns – that is how the proteins that make your eyeballs and that of the chimpanzee are similar. So is true for so many other physical features.<br /><br />Goodness gracious ! and what about behavioral features ?<br /><br />Perhaps they are not discussing genetics at the moment .. but they would behave the same way as we would if there was a big sound or a flash of light, or if they are hungry and find food !<br /><br />And what does that imply ?<br /><br />If we go back to our salty-friendly gene, it means that all mammals that have gene 2346A – whether they are tigers or they are deer – would be more comfortable, successful and hence more numerous than their peers who have 2346B and 2346C.<br /><br />But tigers may eat deer and deplete their number.<br /><br />Fine … but whatever may be the final number of tiger and deer ( which can depend on so many other ecological parameters ) one thing is certain : the proportion of 2346A gene will be higher than the proportion of the other two in the total biological population of the region.<br /><br />So the competition is not between the members of the species .. it is between the genes that reside, or are carried inside, the members of the species.<br /><br />Exactly … and that is the theory of the persistent gene or the Selfish Gene.[1]<br /><br />Why selfish ?<br /><br />Because the persistent gene does not really care if the member of the species that is carrying its current transient version succeeds ( survives, proliferates) or not. What matters is that the persistent gene should succeed, survive and proliferate.<br /><br />Is it not the same ?<br /><br />In many cases it is true. Which is why we in our mind get mixed up between the persistent and the transient gene .. but in some cases that is not the case.<br /><br />Can you give an example when that is not the case ?<br /><br />That will be a big detour and will not serve to illustrate what I am trying to say here, but for the sake of completeness, let me say that there are cases where the persistent gene can cause the death of the physical animal to serve its larger purpose of preserving and perpetuating itself – but that is another story. Let us stop here and focus on the persistence and not on the selfishness.<br /><br />Fine, let us stick to the persistent gene.<br /><br />So our first step was to replace the concept of competition among species with the concept of the competition of among persistent genes. The next step is to replace the concept of the evolution of the species with the parallel concept of the evolution of the genome.<br /><br />What do you mean by that ?<br /><br />You see it is quite common to draw the process of evolution along time as a tree – the evolutionary tree.<br /><br />I know … and we begin with a trunk that is far away in time and as we move upward ( or rather forward in time , we have the trunk dividing into branches which in turn subdivide into branches – and at each fork where the branches break out .. we say that vertebrates separated from invertebrates and then the vertebrates broke up into reptiles, fishes, birds, mammals and so on ..<br /><br />Now if we replace the various species and sub-species on this tree diagram with their corresponding genomes ..<br /><br />You obviously do not mean the individual genomes of each individual member of the species .. that will be too cumbersome.<br /><br />No – I mean the part of the genome of each individual member of a species which is by and large common to all members of the species at that point of time ..<br /><br />Fine ..<br /><br />So once I have replaced the species on the tree, with the persistent genome of the species on the tree there are some very interesting things that you will notice …<br /><br />What ?<br /><br />If you go back to the trunk at the base of the tree, there is only version of the genome – and this genome is the genome of what is referred to as LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor .. and for some reason, that organism is generally referred to as a female though there is no logical reason for that.<br /><br />Fine we have the genome of LUCA and as we move away from it, we have genomes that break away and become different from each other.<br /><br />And each branch of this genome tree has some genes that are different from the genes that are found in branches that represent other genomes.<br /><br />So we have genomes that have evolved – changed, mutated – over a period of time.<br /><br />Yes and in this case, the time periods over which a genome mutates and changes are typically an order of magnitude larger than the time period over which a species mutates and changes.<br /><br />So effectively, our focus has shifted FROM the change, mutation and evolution of physical organisms that are members of a species TO the change, mutation and evolution of the non-physical, persistent genome.<br /><br />Yes … and that is the crux of the matter : That persistent genes compete with other genes in seeking to perpetuate their own existence beyond the individual body OR the species that currently houses them in their physical or transient form and<br /> * just as members of a species compete with each other and with members of another species<br /> * just as one species competes with another species<br /> * So do genes compete with other genes<br /> * and the principle of the “survival of the fittest” applies to the gene ( or the genome – the gene collection ) as well<br /><br />Why is all this important for us ?<br /><br />Just think back for a moment and see what we have in our hand – we have this transient genome[2], which in a sense is something abstract and yet it has a very close relationship with the structure and behavior of a living, conscious and sentient organism.<br /><br />Yes ..<br /><br />And it is this genome that has been evolving over time .. from the time it represented some insignificant and semi-conscious entity like a bacteria or something even less life like ..<br /><br />OK ..<br /><br />And with the passage of time, of thousands of years it has now come to represent a highly competent, capable and conscious entity like a human being. And how has this happened ?<br /><br />How ?<br /><br />By responding to events and stimuli from the environment that has been changing around it ?<br /><br />Why do you say so ?<br /><br />Evolution is dictated by the environment – the land got flooded and so the salt-friendly genes got the upper hand – and so in a sense, this evolution is dictated by the cues and stimuli that the genome has been picking up from the environment.<br /><br />But this reminds me of something – the Atman ?<br /><br />Yes … you are right. The genome – the collection of persistent genes – is without form, without shape and cannot be directly accessed by our senses. And yet it is immortal over time … it does not die, it does not decay with time as is true for any physical entity .. it continues on and on but changes the physical environment that houses it – the sequence of chemical compounds located temporarily in a physical body. It evolves and changes over time.<br /><br />But the genome reminds me of something else as well … the UTM[3] !<br /><br />Exactly .. the UTM, though it is a mathematical construct, is something very similar. It begins at a very primitive state and then it picks up cues from the environment and improves – in its ability to understand and react to the environment. And with the passage of time it becomes sophisticated.<br /><br />But in an earlier chapter we had modeled the human cognitive process on the mathematics of the UTM and were left wondering where in the world would we find the UTM to implement this model.<br /><br />So here you have the UTM that is so important for us … that the UTM that we were looking for.<br /><br />[1] The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins<br /><br />[2] Ya Devi Sarvabhuteshu, Jati-roopena Sangsthita, Namastasyai Namastasyi Namastasyai Namoh Namaha – Salutations to the Devi who abides in all beings in the form of Genus or Species<br /><br />[3] ‘Nobody realizes it at the time, least of all Turing, but he is probably closer to the mystery of life than anybody else. Heredity is a modifiable stored program; metabolism is a universal machine. The recipe that links them is the code, an abstract message that can be embodied in a chemical, physical or even immaterial form’ – Genome, Matt Ridley, page 15<br /><br /><!--[endif]--> <div style="" id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="" href="http://www2.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=505220944660600769&postID=1197200521670022716#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div>Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-36200223760005640252007-04-20T10:55:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:22:35.854+05:3011 - Connecting the Dots : Atman, UTM & GenomeWe started off with a discussion on the Advaita Vedanta and we went into the UTM and now you have brought us into the genome. Can you please try to sum up all this for me ..<br /><br />Advaita Vedanta begins with the assertion that there are three components in the Universe : the Atman, the Brahman and the erroneous illusion of Maya. The world that we see around is a Maya – an illusion, and because of this illusion the Atman sees itself as distinct from the Brahman.<br /><br />We found it very difficult to accept the fact that the world is indeed an illusion but we did explore some aspects of computer technology and got around to reconciling our self that it is indeed possible to live with illusions and be oblivious of the same.<br /><br />But using computer technology to model the cognitive process – the process that ultimately leads the Atman to understand its identity with the Brahman, is fraught with the danger of making mistakes. We explored certain mathematical constructs from the area of theoretical computer science and came to the conclusion that one particular mathematical construct, the Universal Turing Machine can be used to model the process of cognition reasonably well.<br /><br />We then looked for a real life implementation of the Universal Turing Machine and felt that the study of the genome – the genetic code that is embedded inside every living and sentient entity could be used to implement the Universal Turing Machine.<br /><br />So you are saying that the genome is the Atman in the guise of an UTM or perhaps it is an UTM that models the Atman.<br /><br />I am describing three separate lines of thought …<br />* The Atman is an absolute and unconditional reality that lies outside the realm of the sensory universe. It is cognitive but its cognition is erroneous because of interference of Maya and because of its erroneous cognition it sees itself as distinct from Brahman – even though both Atman and Brahman are indeed identical to the absolute and unconditional reality. Through a process that spans across the illusory concepts of time and space, the cognitive prowess of the Atman improves until it realizes its identity with Brahman<br />* The UTM is a mathematical construct that can, in principle, be manufactured using a variety of means – including that used to make digital computers. The UTM has the property of evolving from a state of limited awareness of its environment, through a series of intermediate states that span across space and time, until its state of awareness of its environment is very high. The degree to which it can be aware of its environment is determined by the environment available to it and there is, in principle, no theoretical limit on its abilities.<br />* The genome, which is an integral part of the living and conscious universe, has demonstrated the property of starting from a very primitive and basic state and evolving over vast intervals of time and space to a state where it can display a very high degree of awareness about the Universe.<br /><br />and I believe that all three lines of thought can be tied together<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj900yufT6K2KhBnMIDPiDUJiro2GJel-2SNiNuIA8AezgxQqFb1RMpTYQoT05f4CegmXiC99GODRKQ0_r0q4DZdppfxY8f5GXqNyClDr58EAAfJck48pUZ4j6mxa26IwBGfGYkqjWP5xSX/s1600-h/021-thirdlook.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj900yufT6K2KhBnMIDPiDUJiro2GJel-2SNiNuIA8AezgxQqFb1RMpTYQoT05f4CegmXiC99GODRKQ0_r0q4DZdppfxY8f5GXqNyClDr58EAAfJck48pUZ4j6mxa26IwBGfGYkqjWP5xSX/s400/021-thirdlook.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054743676861991250" border="0" /></a><br /><br />So you say that our search for the Atman leads us to the Genome.<br /><br />Yes, the genome in its abstract, non-physical, persistent form : the genome of pure information. As a concept it is universal because all that has life has a genome and yet each specific instance of life has its own specific versions of the genome. If we use the term genome of a species to indicate the common parts of the genome of each member of a species, then different species have genomes that differ from each other to the extent that that they are different from each other on the tree of Darwinian evolution.<br /><br />Darwinian evolution leads to diversity as species and their genomes diverge away from each other. On the other hand, our search is for convergence towards a singularity. Is your model not at odds with your goal ?<br /><br />The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases and the world will become more and more chaotic. Physics on the other hand allows us to create technology that reduces the entropy in one localized region ( though it does increase across the universe ) and use this localized region of low entropy to generate energy for human growth. Similarly, the Darwinian process leads us to a diversity of the genome, but that does not rule out the possibility of individual genomes or groups of genomes Atmans to evolve and converge towards a singularity of Brahman.<br /><br />Linking the genome to the UTM and, even if implicitly, stating that a “better” or more evolved UTM – that is one that is closer to the Brahman – is a result of a more evolved genome can raise some disturbing questions. Are you not being racist by trying to establish a correlation between the genome and the ability experience the ultimate Truth ?<br /><br />If I had a desire to be politically correct I would have strongly refuted your allegation but at the bottom of my heart I know that there is an element of truth in what you are saying ..<br /><br />That your theory is indeed racist.<br /><br />The American civil rights movement has given a certain negative overtone to that much abused word but the fact remains that most ancient civilizations have features that do not allow conversions into the fold. While the younger religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are very enthusiastic about conversion into the religion you cannot do the same in the case of Zoroastrianism, Zionism or any of the castes in India.<br /><br />You can always become a Hindu though. The Arya Samaj has been doing this for ages.<br /><br />But you cannot become a Brahmin or a Kayastha unless you are born as one. So there could be something significant about your birth …. And that significance can only be your genome. After all, it is said that you require multiple births or reincarnations to reach a state from where the knowledge of the divine is accessible to you !<br /><br />Are you stating that only higher castes can achieve the goal ? But then how do you account for people like Narendranath Dutta or Aurobindo Ghosh who were not Brahmins but had access to the highest knowledge ?<br /><br />I never said that only Brahmins can succeed. All that I said was that the probability of success has a high correlation to the level of evolution of the genome. That may or may not mean that Brahmins as a caste are closer to Brahman, even though the two are nearly homophonic, though traditionalists might argue that they indeed are. To me however, that debate is of very little significance.<br /><br />So what is important to you ?<br /><br />The high level of overlap between the Atman of Vedanta and the UTM and genome of modern science. That is what I am trying to establish here and if in the process I seem to politically incorrect, then so be it. I am not trying to win elections here !<br /><br />You refer to the high level of overlap … does that imply that there are parts of this idea that do not overlap ?<br /><br />Of course. I have mapped the Atman to the UTM and then the UTM to the genome .. but whereas the Atman could be mapped almost entirely to the UTM, the same cannot be said about the mapping of the UTM to the genome.<br /><br />Is that one more of your favourite googlies ?<br /><br />No. All that I am saying is that the genome plays a very important role in the implementation of the UTM but is not the only component of the UTM .. perhaps it is the core around which the UTM is implemented.<br /><br />So what is the rest ?<br /><br />As I said, the UTM is a pattern of information and this pattern lies in the genome and ALSO in the apparent patterns of the physical world ( or should I say the patterns of the apparent physical world ?)<br /><br />Explain, explain, explain …<br /><br />If you recollect our discussion of the original Turing Machine you would see that I had said that<br />* The physical environment, consisting of every atom, molecule and higher level object together with the various patterns they form among themselves represent (a) a vast pool of data equivalent to the input of an UTM and (b) this data pool is the repository of all knowledge and information available in the universe at a point in time. This data flows into the UTM or the conscious mind that it models, over the normal physical channels of the five senses. There is no need to postulate any extrasensory communication mechanism.<br /><br />What this means is that in addition to the patterns in the genome, the patterns of information that an individual creates in its vicinity – both physical as well intellectual, emotional and otherwise – all add up to the UTM. When we refer to the evolution of the UTM, it refers to the evolution of this entirety.<br /><br />I can understand or appreciate persistence at the genome level but what about persistence of thoughts and ideas ? Can the current instance of your UTM remember what the UTM was like eons ago ?<br /><br />Generally not, but there have been sages and mystics who can remember what is called their past lives .. though there have been fraudulent claims in this regard.<br /><br />So are you trying to say that you can explain reincarnation through this mechanism ?<br /><br />Let me be very clear : my goal is the Singularity of Sankara and my hypothesis of the genome / UTM is to rationalize the Atman. However in the process, I have a by-product called reincarnation which I am happy to pick up …<br /><br />So do you believe in reincarnation ?<br /><br />I would guess is that in certain cases, the UTM is in a position or state to process certain patterns and when that happens we say that it remembers the past. Even otherwise, the UTM has a past but more often than not, it is unable to handle it or ‘remember’ it.<br /><br />………………………………………………………………………………<br /><br />All this may sound very logical but is there any proof ? is there any empirical evidence of what you are saying ?<br /><br />Unfortunately not .. this is my hypothesis and this hypothesis is based on the concept of patterns – of convergent patterns.<br /><br />Can you restate your hypothesis once again ?<br /><br />We begin with a basic Duality : the duality of a pattern that represents the Brahman that is somewhere “out” there and that of another pattern that represents the Atman that is somewhere “in” here.<br /><br />What are these patterns ?<br /><br />The pattern of the Atman is based on the genome and on layers that are built on ‘top’ of the genome – which is the heart, the core of the UTM. The rest of the UTM is assembled as other patterns and these other patterns are composed of either internal components like knowledge and wisdom or external components that it influences, alters, changes through the process of Karma.<br /><br />And when the pattern is complex – or as we would say ‘evolved’ or ‘competent’ or ‘adept’ enough it SIMULTAENOUSLY achieves identity with the pattern of the Brahman AND realizes that it has done so – that is Nirvana or Samadhi.<br /><br />Is that why Zen Buddhists say that only the Buddha knows the difference between the Buddha and an ordinary person ?<br /><br />That is indeed a rather picturesque way of putting it ! but there are some interesting facts that may help strengthen our confidence in this model based on patterns<br /><br />Like what ?<br /><br />For example self similar fractals and concept of the five koshas or sheaths.<br /><br />What are these ?<br /><br />Fractals are patterns generated through some basic mathematical processes – and I do not want to go into the details here, but one interesting feature about a fractal is that if you take one part of the pattern and expand it … the resultant pattern is very often very close, if not identical to the original pattern.<br /><br />So a small part of the pattern is indeed an exact replica of the larger pattern of which it is a part.<br /><br />Just as the pattern of the Atman – which could be thought of as a small part of the Brahman – is indeed similar if not actually congruent to the pattern of the Brahman.<br /><br />Actually the idea of the Atman being similar to the Brahman is not that alien because if you think about it, we from time immemorial have modeled our Gods and Goddesses in our own image – the principle of anthromorphism.<br /><br />But sometimes the model is flawed … the Bohr model of the atom, somewhat like a miniature solar system, was wrong … even though there was an element of self similarity in it .. with the microscopic world looking like the macroscopic – or telescopic – universe.<br /><br />That is true, self similarity in patterns is no guarantee of correctness but there is another aspect of patterns that is very interesting.<br /><br />Is that the five koshas that you referred to earlier ?<br /><br />Vedanta speaks of five layers that shield the Atman from the Brahman.<br /><br />And you think that they are related to the patterns.<br /><br />They could if you consider the following<br />* First, the physical layer of the gross body – the pattern of protons, neutrons, electron and other sub atomic particles constitute matter<br />* Second, the Prana or Life layer – the pattern of bodily organs in any living organism that cause metabolism, the act of living.<br />* Third, the Mental layer, the mind – the pattern of neuronal interconnects in one specific organ, the brain and the nervous system, that allows one to think<br />* Fourth, the Wisdom layer, the so called subtle body – which I think maps rather neatly to the pattern of the genetic information on the genome<br /><br />You said that there were five layers ..<br /><br />The fifth layer is the layer of bliss or ecstasy, the Ananda layer – but unfortunately I do not have a ready explanation for that as yet.<br /><br />I suppose you would have to achieve Ecstasy, experience the Bliss of Nirvana to articulate that.<br /><br />I suppose so, but there is one thing that still troubles me.<br /><br />What ?<br /><br />Your analysis is far too simple. Sages and seers have from time immemorial have written tomes on this topic but you have not referred to any of these scriptures. What gives you the confidence that your simple correlation is correct.<br /><br />First, please do not confuse the simple with the trivial. If my analysis has been trivial then I should be apologetic about it but since I am not, I do believe that it is non-trivial. If you, or anyone else who reads this feels that it is indeed trivial, he or she has every right to criticize it. On the other hand, if you are hesitant to believe me only because what I have said is simple, then let me tell you that simplicity is the hallmark of many great ideas.<br /><br />I know, I have read about the principle of Occam’s Razor that is often paraphrased as : All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be best one.<br /><br />Thanks for bringing out this important principle because by referring to this 14th century English logician, you have led me to my next point …<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />That we in India are unduly obsequious and subservient of our superiors, elders and predecessors. It is as if only the past has a monopoly on the truth. Just because someone has not said something in the past, just because we cannot find a quote from some ancient sage to support an idea, we tend to devalue it. It is as if that the generation of all knowledge has stopped with the creation of Vedas and Upanishads. All that we can do is to interpret it. It is fine to be respectful of our seniors and sit at their feet and learn from them, but that should not stop us from standing on their shoulders and see what lies beyond their horizons.<br /><br />I admire your lack of modesty but are you claiming that your insights are as important or significant as that of the great Rishis who visualized the truth and codified them in the scriptures.<br /><br />What I claim may be right or wrong – that is for other students and scholars to decide. What is indisputable and not negotiable is my fundamental right to explore new vistas of knowledge and create new patterns of interpretation. In fact with the increase of scientific knowledge, the evolution of the genome and the ascent of man, the probability of being closer to the truth is higher for a person who has been born later in history. This gives me the confidence about my analysis.<br /><br />I suppose so .. but would you would ever be able to prove any of this ?<br /><br />I don’t think so and I do not intend to …<br /><br />Does it not disappoint you, not to have a proof of all this ..<br /><br />Not at all because I have the proof of something else ..<br /><br />And what is that ?<br /><br />The proof of Gödel’s Theorem of Incompleteness.<br /><br />Who is Gödel ? and what is this Theorem of Incompleteness ?<br /><br />Gödel is a contemporary and colleague of Einstein at Princeton and one of the finest mathematical minds of the last century and what he did was something amazing ..<br /><br />What is that ?<br /><br />He proved that if you were to assemble a set of statements that are all logically correct, and consistent with each other, then there will be at least ONE that is TRUE but NOT PROVABLE.<br /><br />Surely you must be joking ? How can a scientist make such a statement ?<br /><br />It is a fact that he did indeed make this statement – in his famous Theorem of Incompleteness, and a generation of mathematicians since then have failed to prove him wrong. It is an amazing fact.<br /><br />Can you prove this ?<br /><br />I cannot. You will have to read about it in textbooks of very advanced mathematics, but believe me .. it is true … you will be wasting your time if you were trying to disprove it.<br /><br />What if I define this unprovable statement as an axiom, the one that does not need any proof ?<br /><br />You will be surprised to know that as soon as you do this, there will appear ONE more statement that has this property – of being true but not provable. There is no escape from Gödel.<br /><br />But does this not apply to number theory only ?[1]<br /><br />True but you must appreciate that if this is true in something as structured and formal as number theory, how much more it must be true in the case of unstructured information that we are dealing with here.<br /><br />But can you elaborate on what it means ? Can this be used to prove the existence of God ?<br /><br />Gödel was a mathematician and he did not care about existence or non-existence of what the Judeo Christian tradition refers to as God nor did he have any known interest in Advaita. All that he worked with was logic, the most abstract and difficult part of mathematics … and all that he said was very simple – A system of axioms can never be based on itself. A statement from OUTSIDE the system must be used to prove the consistency of the system. Provability is a weaker notion than truth.<br /><br />So what is that is needed to establish that all that you have said is correct and consistent ?<br /><br />We need a different kind of GOD – the Grace of the Divine !!<br /><br />..............................................................................<br /><br />[1] Informally, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions (Hofstadter 1989). This is sometimes called Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, and answers in the negative Hilbert's problem asking whether mathematics is "complete" (in the sense that every statement in the language of number theory can be either proved or disproved). -- Weisstein, Eric W. "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.htmlCalcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-47952521727071502192007-04-20T10:45:00.001+05:302011-03-15T11:44:32.166+05:3012 - G O DI thought that you were trying to establish Advaita Vedanta on the basis of reason and logic … so why do you need to bring in God ? Religion ? Divinity ?<br />
<br />
You were right, that had indeed been my intention. That was why I was using the analogy of computers, the Universal Turing Machine and then the genome … but are you fully convinced ?<br />
<br />
Conviction is a relative concept. I have been following your logic and prima facie I cannot find any loopholes as yet … but still ..<br />
<br />
Exactly, there is this feeling of incompleteness …<br />
<br />
For which you have cleverly positioned your Theorem of Incompleteness as a way out …<br />
<br />
Which may be adequate from the perspective of logic but that is a celebration of Incompleteness. Should we not be looking for completeness, of certainty.<br />
<br />
But you, yourself, have just said that this is impossible …<br />
<br />
It is impossible if we choose to restrict ourselves in the domain of logic, of rationality.<br />
<br />
What if I am happy with that ?<br />
<br />
Then you are blessed, I am not happy with cold logic. I am still troubled with doubt. Am I right in what I have been telling you – and in a sense, telling myself.<br />
<br />
So what do you do next ?<br />
<br />
Where do you think, in our history, our mythology, have we come across such doubt ?<br />
<br />
Where ?<br />
<br />
At Kurukshetra, when Arjun was troubled with doubt and turned to his friend Krishna for advice.<br />
<br />
And of course Krishna gave him the Song of the Divine, the Bhagavad Gita … and Arjun was convinced enough to pick up his arms and engage with the forces of evil.<br />
<br />
But if you read the Gita closely, and especially if you regard Prof P Lal as much as I do, you would realize that Krishna almost failed in his mission ..<br />
<br />
The mission to convince Arjun ? But he did not …<br />
<br />
Well for the first ten chapters Krishna used every possible logical argument that he could put together, and he being the epitome of erudition, the logic was pretty good – to say the least.<br />
<br />
What happened then ?<br />
<br />
He failed. At the end of the tenth chapter and despite everything that Krishna had said, Arjun had still not picked up his bow.<br />
<br />
So what did he do ?<br />
<br />
When Krishna realized that he was at the end of his logic and he had still not convinced his friend, he threw away his logic and applied magic !<br />
<br />
Magic ?<br />
<br />
Of course, the eleventh chapter, Vishwaroop Darshan, The Multi-Cosmic Revelation, call it what you will … but it was direct application of what we would now say is magic. He used magic to frighten and then convince Arjun when he saw that logic was not good enough. And after that, Arjun was never the same again !! He became a believer.<br />
<br />
So how does that relate to what we have been discussing so far.<br />
<br />
We have been following the path of reason and logic and reached a point where we are, to a large extent, convinced that Sankara must have been right when he advocated the Principles of Advaita Vedanta but then deep down there is this feeling of incompleteness.<br />
<br />
A sense of unease ?<br />
<br />
Yes a sense of unease that makes us wonder that perhaps all this could certainly be true but is it really true ? And we also know that any more discussion, any more debate, any more study will not lead us any further … it is as if someone has said: thus far and no farther !<br />
<br />
So what do you do next ?<br />
<br />
You crave a direct darshan … that, for the lack of a better word, I would say is like a flash of revelation .. and if you have it, you have it and then you are there.<br />
<br />
What is this flash of revelation ?<br />
<br />
For Arjun it was the Vishwaroop Darshan, for every other saint or mystic it is an intensely emotional and intuitive – but definitely NOT rational, experience of extreme ecstasy, of bliss.<br />
<br />
Ecstasy, bliss ?<br />
<br />
I don’t have the words for it because perhaps there are no words to describe the state. Had it been possible to use words – that is grammar and vocabulary, to describe or at least circumscribe this state of mind, this state of awareness, then it would have of course moved back into the domain of reason and logic. We would have been able to discuss, analyze and describe it in the style and manner that we have been used to since we began this dialogue.<br />
<br />
But if we cannot do that why should be we believe it ?<br />
<br />
Because you have finally run out of all other options. I have taken you to the edge of what is possible …<br />
<br />
But after that am I on my own ?<br />
<br />
Perhaps or perhaps not. If you had a Guru, like the way Vivekananda had Ramkrishna, perhaps he could have induced you to experience that state of ecstasy of union with the final absolute … or perhaps if you were the Buddha you would have, on your own, experienced that state under the peepal tree.<br />
<br />
Is that true of all mystics ?<br />
<br />
I would say so … even mystics of other traditions like Christ and Mohammad have had these intense visions as of course have numerous sadhus and sants in this country, since the edge of history, right down to fairly contemporary figures like Aurobindo and Ramakrishna himself.<br />
<br />
But why is it that these people have not left us vivid descriptions of this state ?<br />
<br />
They have and that is what we read about when we read about these people but as I have said, words – that are necessarily limited to by their rules of grammar and logic are not enough. At best they could help us in two ways.<br />
<br />
What two ways ?<br />
<br />
Words can at best give us a very approximate description of these states OR they could tell us about the path to the state. With this we get to know the path … but the difference is that while they have actually walked the path we get to learn about the path ! These descriptions are like maps of a new and uncharted territory, not the actual territory itself.<br />
<br />
Is there no way for us to access what they know ?<br />
<br />
We can always access it .. but we would never experience or understand what they had experienced or understood.<br />
<br />
If language is a barrier then is there anything else that can be used to depict these ?<br />
<br />
Depict ? Yes … Experience ? Unfortunately no !<br />
<br />
So how does one at least depict this ?<br />
<br />
Since we began with Sankara, let me use his depiction …<br />
<br />
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4MFh0B0bztjudZOcLmR7OKmGb0sbThufhgsk-WYCOZQLOOpuaZZFixe1lpgsSHVXjpxXZNLNVwzQRbeF75kSs-YgkGwlIp9r5dtZ_gj9uyRqgba4z5W7aGt95jUYpBgFRflRq3vWNckqO/s1600-h/022-NonVerbal.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4MFh0B0bztjudZOcLmR7OKmGb0sbThufhgsk-WYCOZQLOOpuaZZFixe1lpgsSHVXjpxXZNLNVwzQRbeF75kSs-YgkGwlIp9r5dtZ_gj9uyRqgba4z5W7aGt95jUYpBgFRflRq3vWNckqO/s400/022-NonVerbal.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5054745089906231650" border="0" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
What does all this mean ?<br />
<br />
We are well outside the domain of meaning .. we are in the realm of pure experience.<br />
<br />
Then at least tell me what this represents.<br />
<br />
This is the Sri Yantra as described by Sankara in his classic poem Saundaryalaharee[1]. This visual representation is a potent symbol of the ultimate union of male energy (ascending triangles) and female energy (descending) and represents the expansion of consciousness through the physical universe and the cosmos as a whole. Sri Yantra is said to be the Cosmos in Abstract Form or the Matrix of Creation. The fifteen letters[2] are the aural representation. It is as if he is giving us two views of his ultimate experience.<br />
<br />
You talk of the male and the female so is there an element of sexuality in this ?<br />
<br />
Sexuality is a good handle to represent the interaction, the intercourse, the intermingling, the coming together of two very powerful components that result in the Universe that is known to us today and the analogy of a man and woman comes in handy.<br />
<br />
Is this related to the concept of Purusha and Prakriti ? Of Shiva and Shakti ?<br />
<br />
These are allied and overlapping concepts. Shiva represents pure knowledge but it is knowledge that is incapable of any action unless coupled with Shakti, the active principle.<br />
<br />
I remember, when we were discussing the genome you had said that the patterns that we had observed had an uncanny resemblance to the duality of the Shiva Shakti paradigm. Shiva is knowledge but is incapable of action unless it is coupled with the Shakti the active principle. Just as ..<br />
* Protein – or the phenotype, represents the ability of the organism to perform actual action<br />
* Gene – or the genotype, represents the knowledge of how to perform an action<br />
<br />
But why, if at all, would Shiva and Shakti be bothered – if I may say so – act out this drama ? this leela ? and create the illusion of this illusory universe ?<br />
<br />
The phenotype represents Kriya or action. The genotype represents Gyan or knowledge but what could perhaps connect the two is the third element of the Triad – Ichcha or Desire ?<br />
<br />
So we have Gyan, Kriya and Ichcha … Knowledge, Action and Desire. I can understand Knowledge and Action but why have you suddenly introduced Desire ?<br />
<br />
Because of the<br />
<br />
The imagery of Kali on Shiva<br />
<br />
The conscious intellect, that we have tried to describe so far, perceives the world through the five physical senses. In this it sees the sun, the moon, the landscape, rivers and forests, people and institutions built around people – families, societies and nations. This is the first step. Then he leverages this knowledge and the powers of reasoning to deduce what lies behind the physical world. Some “see” the laws of physics and mathematics, and he deduces the “reason” behind seemingly magical events likes thunder and lightning, heat and cold, health and disease. Others delve into the depths of the mind and seek similar explanations for the behavior of individuals and collectives.<br />
<br />
There are others, and it is these others who are the most interesting to us, who go even further. Pushing past the limitations of the five physical senses as well as the limitations imposed by rational inquiry, they explore the uncharted terrain that lies beyond what can be described as the physical landscape or the mental mindscape. These are mystics who have access to dimensions beyond those described in time and space.<br />
<br />
But the images that they perceive remain with them and them alone. They cannot bring these images back and show them to – or share them with – others who have not yet acquired the ability to perceive them. Or if they do, the images get distorted beyond recognition and are reduced to representations that may serve as a pointer to what it seeks to represent. Consider ..<br />
* If a three-dimensional sphere is represented on a two dimensional paper, it either looks like a circle or suffers from the errors that are inevitable in cartographic projections.<br />
* A photograph of an event that extends in time, for example the cascade of a waterfall, presents a representative snapshot without conveying the sense of time.<br />
* A person who is blind from birth cannot perceive the beauty of a rainbow or the sunset just as one who is tone deaf cannot appreciate the nuances of musical raaga.<br />
* An illiterate person cannot understand the news as it appears in a newspaper. He sees it as a series of alphabetic symbols separated by punctuation marks and white space.<br />
* One who is not trained in mathematics and physics cannot appreciate the significance or rather “beauty” of the Theory of Relativity. He sees the representation as a series of funny symbols.<br />
<br />
These are the fortunate few who acquire the ability to perceive the reality behind the representation through various exercises, exertions and perhaps by grace of the reality itself that is being sought to be seen.<br />
<br />
But whatever is it that they see is something that gets grossly distorted when it is brought back and represented in terms of the symbols and images that are used in the “normal” world of rational intellect.<br />
<br />
Is that why we have these fantastic images of gods and goddesses and descriptions of their supernatural powers ?<br />
<br />
Yes, but let us try to see or conjecture the nature of the reality – the face of the divine – by extrapolating from the distorted representation that is available to us. This is like ..<br />
* Understanding the nature of a sphere by looking at its circular representation together with the shadow that is also portrayed along and “using” our knowledge of the third dimension.<br />
* Understanding the Theory of Relativity by looking at the Greek symbols and “using” our knowledge of other branches of mathematics and physics.<br />
<br />
It is been our premise that there is one and only one Reality and that the observer and the observed is a part of a self similar pattern that pervades every possible dimension of space, time and other as yet undefined dimensions.<br />
<br />
The part sees itself as distinct from the whole as long it is deficient in knowledge inputs. As it becomes aware of more and more facts – as its “ignorance” decreases – it acquires a clearer and clearer picture of the whole …. And this is where it proceeds towards convergence.<br />
<br />
It is as if a small balloon is being blown up inside a far larger balloon. As the smaller balloon expands with knowledge, the patterns on its surface become more and more similar to the patterns on the surface of the larger balloon. A three-dimensional balloon with knowledge being represented as patterns on its quasi-two-dimensional surface is of course a poor “representation” of the true phenomenon. We need to extrapolate it to an N dimensional balloon expanding with the knowledge represented on its quasi-[N-1] dimensional “surface”.<br />
<br />
At the point of convergence, often referred to as revelation or samadhi, the smaller balloon becomes as large as the bigger, outer balloon, and the patterns on the two match exactly with each other. That is yoga, the union of the individual with the universal – the Atman with the Brahman. The nature of the seeker is identical to the nature of the that, which is being sought. tat tvam asi … shivoham !<br />
<br />
That is nice. The small balloon that has become large enough to converge with the big balloon is very happy – it is in a state of absolute bliss. But what about the rest of us ? the other smaller balloons that are still trying to inflate ourselves with knowledge but have still many years – or lives – to go ? What is the face of the divine – albeit the distorted representation of the face – that we see ?<br />
<br />
We see the representations that the enlightened ones have condescended to show towards us. And we interpret these representations in terms of the concepts and symbols that are available to us through our understanding of the physical world.<br />
* It is as if we see the circle that represents the glowing sun and try to interpret it in terms of the yellow fruit that we call an orange.<br />
* It is as if we read the musical scores of Beethoven and Bach and try to relate them to the flickering oscilloscopes of a physics laboratory.<br />
* It is as if we believe – or rather we do not doubt – that Einstein is right in his Theory of Relativity … if it was wrong, then other scientists would have disproved him …. But we have to be satisfied with staring at the series of Greek letters on the printed page.<br />
<br />
So we peek into the smoky mirror and hope to see the nature of Reality. And what do we see ? We see a world that stretches into the distance – as far as our senses and intellect can perceive. A universe that is infinite in both and time and space and in all other possible dimensions. It is infinite and yet we note that it is composed of an infinitely large number of cycles of creation, stability and dissolution. We represent this flickering image of flux and continuity as, or rather map it to, the only similar image that we know that all living and conscious intellects are familiar with : the image of birth and death.<br />
<br />
We grab this image of birth and death and hope and pray that it is indeed a reasonable representation of what others who are more advanced than us have perceived. And in this we are perhaps lucky. Those who have seen the real image have assured us that Reality is indeed self-similar and a part of the picture has quite a bit of similarity with the whole. Hence we feel reasonably safe to represent the ultimate Reality in terms of a continuous timeline of birth and death … or rather creation and destruction.<br />
<br />
From this perspective, the image of Kali on top of Shiva is very appropriate.<br />
<br />
This image of Kali – standing on top of Shiva and wearing ornaments of human organs is one of the most enigmatic if not the most controversial images that has come down to us from the dawn of recorded history. In fact it is one of the most powerful representations of the creation of the universe. Shiva represents the absolute and undifferentiated Reality – the Brahman, without form and without shape. When it desires to project itself in a physical form, this desire manifests itself creative principle, the power and energy represented by Shakti.<br />
<br />
The act of creation is represented in the one and only primordial creative process known to man – the act of sexual union. The naked image of Kali poised on top of Shiva is actually an image of this primordial desire – the Ichcha – to be creative, to create, and this is depicted as the act of sex with the woman on top, first manifesting and then controlling and guiding the creative process or the translation of the intangible truth into its sensible form in the physical world. The iconic image represents the burning desire of the Absolute to reveal itself, revel in its revelation, that is the reason for the existence of the illusory world.<br />
<br />
This stark image of wanton desire is too difficult for most people to handle in a social and family environment. Hence adepts who have perceived this representation have tried to sanitize the image through stylistic adaptations.<br />
<br />
The celibate vedantists led by Sankara have sought refuge in the geometric forms of the Sri Yantra. That abstract diagram bypasses the overt sexuality of the representation by using five downward pointing triangles – that stand for Shakti, the woman on top – superimposed on four upward pointing triangles that represent the otherwise inert Shiva.<br />
<br />
Those who are a little less inhabited, have retained the familiar icons of man and woman but have diluted the impact by having Kali stand on her beloved Shiva. However there are quite a few extant images that show Shiva, in a state of arousal– a throwback to the original image of the sexual union. Also most hymns of Kali have a fleeting reference to her preference for viparit rataturang – the reverse sexual position with the woman on top.<br />
<br />
I know that you believe in simplicity but are you not being too simplistic here ? How can something as profound as the ultimate reality be similar to something as mundane as the antics of human beings, who are after all just one kind of life, one small planet, circling one of a million stars in the known universe ? Is this an extension of the anthromorphic principle that makes us see everything – including the divine gods and goddesses – in our own image of men and women.<br />
<br />
I agree. Perhaps the Divine is something very much different – in fact so different that none of our analogies apply. But then again, it might not be so !<br />
<br />
You have just contradicted yourself !<br />
<br />
I suppose we have to learn to live with ambiguities and contradictions until we have achieved convergence with singularity.<br />
<br />
Fine, so tell me why you believe that this anthromorphic images are not totally erroneous.<br />
<br />
Because I believe in the principle of self similarity .. or to put in the words of William Blake : “ .. see the world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower .. hold eternity in the palm of your hand and infinity in an hour”<br />
<br />
Can you please be a little less obscure !<br />
<br />
Perhaps there is some similarity in nature between the microcosm and the macrocosm ..<br />
<br />
That is what our atomic physicists thought when they tried to model the structure of the atom in terms of celestial bodies. Electrons circling around the nucleus were said to be analogous to the planets circling around the sun – but that model was wrong. Quantum mechanics came and wiped out that neat analogy.<br />
<br />
But there are other examples of self similarity .. particularly in the area of fractals.<br />
<br />
You mean those colourful images that people generate on computers.<br />
<br />
They are beautiful no doubt but if you study fractals carefully, you will realize that they have some unusual features.<br />
<br />
Like what ?<br />
<br />
You take a part of the image and blow it up, expand it and you will see that in the expanded region a new pattern is emerging.<br />
<br />
So ?<br />
<br />
And if certain conditions are met, then this new pattern will be very similar, if not identical to, the original pattern that was being expanded.<br />
<br />
Coincidence ?<br />
<br />
No, pure mathematics. These patterns are created through mathematical equations and if the parameters of the equation are appropriate then the expanded part of the pattern will be identical to the original pattern. And this scalability is infinite. You could go up blowing-up and expanding even the secondary pattern and then a third pattern identical to the second ( and so the first ) will appear.<br />
<br />
So in a way you could use one part of the pattern and use it as a model of what the pattern looks like deep inside … you don’t have to go all the way into the heart of the pattern.<br />
<br />
Exactly and that is what Blake meant when he said that it was possible to “ … see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower …”<br />
<br />
So you say that a picture of a god or goddess that looks like a human being is not all that erroneous.<br />
<br />
We should make due allowances for poetic license, for example having multiple arms could be rationalized as a way of depicting the ability to do multiple things – multi-tasking in computer jargon – and having multiple heads could be an analogy for different moods, emotions and personalities.<br />
<br />
So coming back to the iconography of Shiva on Kali, you claim that it is a representation of the universal creative process.<br />
<br />
Creation – and its representation as sexual union – is of course just half the story. The world is in a state of flux as it goes through cycles of creation and destruction.<br />
<br />
Cycles of creation and destruction ? Where do you get that ?<br />
<br />
You have heard of the Big Bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe. There is a whole school of thought and thinkers who have been debating on this and there is a point of view that states that the Universe will at some point of time stop expanding and then collapse back into the Big Crunch.<br />
<br />
This is highly contentious topic among physicists and you really cannot say one way or the other.<br />
<br />
Not only is it a very contentious subject but it is a very difficult and complex subject and I do not wish to treat it cursorily here. I do not enough about it. What I do know is that the discovery of the Dark Matter has made it more likely for physicists to accept the view that the universe will ultimately collapse back to the Big Crunch.<br />
<br />
Dark Matter ? As dark as Kali herself ?<br />
<br />
That could be a coincidence. Dark matter refers to matter that is invisible and inaccessible to most instruments of detection – but I would agree that is a very fortuitous if not eerie coincidence. And then again, scientists have postulated something called Dark Energy !<br />
<br />
Another coincidence ? The darkness of Kali ?<br />
<br />
Strangely enough, Dark Energy is postulated as a repulsive force as opposed to the attractive tendencies of gravitation. So while Dark Matter tends to cause a gravitational contraction to a state of intense density, Dark Energy is expected to push things apart and rip apart the universe explosively. Perhaps that is how the Big Bang happened – when Dark Energy set things in motion and now it is up to Dark Matter to bring things back under control.<br />
<br />
So the future of the universe is a play between Dark Matter and Dark Energy.<br />
<br />
Could be but do remember, for us Darkness is not evil. For us it is the colour of Kali, the colour of Krishna.<br />
<br />
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a link between our perception of Kali and these Dark theories.<br />
<br />
I would not dare to ! We are at the outer periphery of rational knowledge. Everything is in a state of absolute flux. The scientific theories are in their infancy, they have not been tested to the extent of Relativity or Quantum Theory. Our own perceptions of the Divine are based on second or third person reports handed down by a few adepts and mystics. In this tumultuous environment I can only be talking in terms of beliefs or conjectures. Nothing more.<br />
<br />
So you say that the universe goes through this cycle of creation and destruction – just as it is described in mythology.<br />
<br />
Yes and the destructive aspect of this iconography is of course very evident in the violent visage of Kali as it cuts and chops down the world through the passage of Time or Kala. What is created must be destroyed and s/he who is the creator is also the destroyer.<br />
<br />
That is why we have the image of simultaneous creation and destruction. We see Kali in her lurid form, dripping blood and gore as she goes about her task of destruction even as she is participation in the creative process of sexual union. Not only does she destroy the tangible objects of the physical world, there are images where she is shown destroying herself – in fact the world that she represents. The most telling image that portrays this is found in the representation of the Chinnamasta – where she chops off her own head and drinks her own blood to rejuvenate herself.<br />
<br />
This recursive image of creation and destruction, the act of giving birth and the act of killing is perhaps the closest representation of the illusory world that we seem to inhabit.<br />
<br />
You had been pretty consistent with your logical analysis but now at the end of this analysis, I feel that you are losing your grip, the clear stream of reason that was flowing so strongly through the mountainous peaks is now losing its way in muddy confusion of the delta just as it was about to reach the deep blue sea of eternal bliss.<br />
<br />
My friend, we have no options left. Logical analysis has brought us so far but can take us no further.<br />
<br />
But finally at the end of the day this is all dry theory. How do I finally get to see the Face of the Divine ?<br />
<br />
There are many ways and paths .. irrespective of which one you choose travel on, there is one thing that is perhaps certainly necessary and possibly sufficient to ensure that you reach your goal.<br />
<br />
And what is that ?<br />
<br />
The Grace[3] of the Divine.<br />
.................... ( the following section has been added in the second edition)<br />
Oh dear, that is most unfortunate.<br />
<br />
Why ? What is it that is unfortunate here ?<br />
<br />
The fact that you have to invoke the Divine to solve this fantastic puzzle. It reminds me of the blank square that is made available in Scrabble to help you complete a word when you have all the letters in place except for one.<br />
<br />
But we do lack that one letter ! And as I have pointed out – or as Gödel has pointed out – we will always be one letter short and there is nothing that we can do about it.<br />
<br />
Falling back on the Divine is actually so medieval. It is as ridiculous and as unjustified as the Indian Parliament passing regressive laws on caste-based reservations, exempting them from judicial review and then taking shelter behind the mandate of the people which is a crude analogue of the divine right of medieval monarchs. Sorry, but if you invoke the Divine then you have lost the moral right to talk to me.<br />
<br />
Point taken, so let me give you an alternative – what if I equate the medieval concept of the Grace of the Divine to the modern concept of Probability ?<br />
<br />
So you mean to say that it is chance that rules the world ?<br />
<br />
Well, probability plays a very important role in modern physics. Quantum mechanism has its roots in Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty and Schrödinger’s equations but we are not talking about such matters here.<br />
<br />
Then why probability ?<br />
<br />
I invoked the Divine – or perhaps from now on I should use divine, without the capital D – to say that without it, it is impossible to perceive and experience that final truth, the ultimate pattern. But perhaps I can reconfigure that statement and say that – other things being equal – it is simply a matter of luck for the person who has the chance, the opportunity to experience that flash of enlightenment.<br />
<br />
You mean that mystics have simply been lucky ?<br />
<br />
Think about it. For anything that you infer as the Grace of the Divine there will be someone who will point out that it could just as well have been the Smile of Lady Luck – the choice of viewpoint is yours and it does not matter which one you pick. Functionally, they are identical !<br />
<br />
Believers will kill you if you say that ?<br />
<br />
That might have been true in the middle ages but we are a little more safe today. But if you look back on your life you would find that most of what you have experienced or achieved can be attributed to some cause …<br />
<br />
Most, but not all. There might have been inexplicable events, both good or bad – like getting a fantastic job or losing a loved one – that defy reason and logic, and we refer to these as Acts of God.<br />
<br />
But they could as jolly well be because of pure chance. You might have got that fantastic job simply because you ran into a person whom you knew at the airport ? Or your loved one had the misfortune or bad luck to board an aircraft that crashed. Both events can be explained as EITHER an act of god OR a matter of chance.<br />
<br />
So are you saying that destiny is the secular equivalent of the divine ? <br />
<br />
When we started on this journey we never had any interest in the divine and neither do we have any now. All that we were looking for is an explanation or a model that relates the external, physical world with its image as perceived in the inner world of intelligent consciousness. We have built this model on the basis of various thoughts and ideas that we have been discussing so long. But in the end we realise that our final picture – the jigsaw that we are trying to assemble – would always be one piece short !<br />
<br />
That means we have all the necessary pieces in place but they are not sufficient. So how do we achieve that final sufficiency ? <br />
<br />
Through a last piece called G O D which is a label that can be interpreted as the Grace of the Divine or the Gears of Destiny.<br />
<br />
And what happens when this last piece falls into place ?<br />
<br />
We comprehend, understand, experience or get a glimpse of the contours of the eternal !<br />
<br />
...............................................................................<br />
<br />
[1] Verse 11, Saundaryalahari of Sankaracharya, translated by V K Subramanian, Motilal Banarsidass (1977), ISBN : 81-208-0202-0<br />
<br />
[2] Verse 32<br />
<br />
[3] Ya Devi Sarvabhuteshu Daya-roopena Sangsthita, Namastasyai, Namastasyai Namastasyai Namoh Namaha - – Salutations to the Devi who abides in all beings in the form of GraceCalcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-71940318367232306002007-04-20T10:40:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:23:19.423+05:3013 - The Contours of the EternalThe text book of college physics by Resnick & Halliday[1] – one of the most incisive yet understandable books of its genre – ends with an intriguing statement : The universe is full of magical things, waiting for our wits to get sharper. The obvious implication is that the sharpness of the wit will eventually cut through the magic – which is of course the correct stance for a classical scientist. But what if the universe is magical itself, not merely full of magical things ? And what if the wit was a part of the magic as well ? So we circle back, yet again, to the congruence of the knower, the to-be-known and the process of knowing itself. The primordial singularity.<br /><br />Singularity is elusive. While anyone can pursue this goal, reaching it is the preserve of a chosen few – activity is guaranteed, but results, unfortunately, are not ! So many a seeker has to be content with the journey itself without the satisfaction of arrival – so let it be for us as well. At least for the moment.<br /><br />But as we rest upon a crest and look back at the road that we have traveled so far, what is it that we see around us ? We see a landscape – or perhaps we should call it a thought-scape, an idea-scape or ideally speaking, an insight-scape – that is perhaps as intriguing as well as confusing.<br /><br />We see ourselves as patterns that sit at odds with the patterns around us. But not for long ! As we sit and watch the patterns that we are and the patterns that we weave around ourselves, we see or rather sense that there are subtle changes happening in the vicinity. It is as if a thin sheet of the illusory – or is it knowledge masquerading as truth ? – is trying to spread across the undulating terrain of the substratum and as it settles in into the peaks and hollows, it ends up gradually revealing the contours that had been hidden so far. Paradoxically enough, that which obscures reality ends up as identical with the same.<br /><br />The contours of this terrain are eternal and the end state is that all patterns will finally converge with it. This will not happen quickly nor will it happen if we try to rush things and end up tearing the fabric. It is a process as inevitable as the annealing that happens when iron is repeatedly heated and then allowed to cool, so that the crystalline constituents arrange themselves in a manner that nature or energy-states dictate, and result in a state of softness that in turn allows it to respond to and align itself to the presence of an external magnetic field.<br /><br />The contours of this terrain are eternal in the sense that while the fabric cover may or may not fit at the moment there will come a time when it will not have an option of not doing so. This sense of inevitability is unnerving. Is this a cessation or suspension of free will ? Is this an extension of the hidden hand of psychohistory, extended from societies to individuals, that Isaac Asimov spoke about through Hari Seldon in the Foundation ? Or is this what Emerson was speaking about when he said ‘when me they fly, I am the wings’.<br /><br />But this patient wait for things to fall into place is fraught with dangers. Could it degenerate into an invitation to willful inactivity for those who have an inclination to stay away from hard work? Is this a license for laziness ? Is this a call to cool your heels on the roadside while the great trucks of enterprise and human endeavor roll forward on the multi-lane highways of the world ?<br /><br />On the other hand, what about the inactivity of those who are otherwise dynamic in ‘reality’ ? Is that because of the fact that these individuals have a real insight into the dynamics of eventuality, of inevitability ?<br /><br />Lord Krishna had of course exhorted one and all to engage in positive and dynamic action, to labour without seeking the fruits of labour but is it possible that such advice was meant only for those who have to be told what is to be done ? Is it really relevant for the self-motivated seekers who actively seek out patterns, or rather see through patterns, and have the insight to extrapolate these patterns out into what is commonly referred to as space and time.<br /><br />But, in any case, what did Lord Krishna achieve through his exhortations ? We know of him as the emissary between the two rival camps who apparently tried to negotiate a truce and avoid a war, but if you read deeper in the story behind the story, it is quite clear that it was he who had catalyzed the catastrophe to achieve a strategic catharsis in a society that he saw was unwinding towards a terminal decline. But despite his most energetic activism, his intense involvement with the politics of North India, the Dharma Rajya that was notionally, though finally, established was at its core a hollow joke. The land was ravaged, society was thrown in turmoil and power passed into the hands of men who were but mere straws and of whom no political trace was left for posterity. The grand vision of a new and enlightened nation state remained at best a dream or at worst became a nightmare. Kali Yuga arrived, and that too not a minute behind schedule ! There was no way that he could stop or even delay the wheel of inevitability as it rolled on its predestined path.<br /><br />Of course there could be another interpretation of Lord Krishna’s advice to labour without seeking the fruits of labour and this is based on a different translation of the word phal : which could mean both (a) fruit or reward but also (b) results. If we use the second interpretation, then perhaps his advice can be viewed as a tacit and pragmatic acceptance of the inevitable ! Activity, or work, as we all know, can be guaranteed, but results are another matter – they are totally unpredictable. So it may be wise to say that one should on focus on work and not bother about the results That is how you manage expectations and avoid the disappointment of failing to obtain the desired results.<br /><br />The current band of dedicated Karma Yogis – the NGOs, activists and others who wish to change the world may differ, but the world that that they wish to change may have other ideas ! If you are a pragmatist, you may consider leaving the world to look after itself and focus on your personal evolution towards the singularity. If Lord Krishna, the foremost strategist-soldier-statesman of his age could not stop the Kaal Chakra from its predestined path there should not be in shame, dismay or heart burn if we, mere observers, fail to do so.<br /><br />Questions are easy, answers are not. Whether to act or not appears to be a matter of personal preference, of free will. Whether action has the desired result or not is another question altogether.<br /><br />Most of us view causality, the co-relation between cause and effect, between result and action, as a non-negotiable cornerstone of our world-view. But just as we had argued in the case of astrology – where we had replaced causality with patterns as the key to the underlying principle – so could be the case in this larger world view. Causality is an illusion and reality is a pattern to which all sentience would eventually attain congruence with … a pattern that defines the contours of the eternal.<br /><br />But is this correct ? That is known with certainty only to those who have achieved that congruence, that identity. That means it is known only to the Contours of the Eternal itself.<br /><br />..........................................................................................................<br />1 Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday, Resnick and Pearl, 6th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, pg 1138Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-65494932671411135122007-04-20T10:37:00.000+05:302007-07-31T14:25:53.368+05:30The Last WordThe Shivastaka is an octet of hymns in praise of Shiva that is said to have been composed by Sankara himself. Multiple versions of this octet are extant today but unfortunately these versions differ from each other and so we do not know which is the original.<br /><br />While most variations are minor, the eighth stanza is a source of dismay because in each version it is not only different but in all cases the cadence and metre of this last stanza is distinctly at odds with the cadence and metre of the other seven. This leads us to believe that Sankara’s original last stanza is irretrievably lost and so each commentator has tried to plug the gap with his or her own version of what the eighth stanza could have looked like !<br /><br />Without being critical of the attempts of others before me, I take the liberty of creating my own. Should the reader be comfortable with the words and cadence he is welcome to use it to complete the octet.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">sat byaakula sevaka ranjanakam<br />sadhu sadhaka nayana pradanakaram<br />shringara-ghana shriyantra rupam<br />pranamami shivam shivakalpatarum<br /></div><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEECVFQ95LPp3njqi5FNbFyXQf4VoZUZlZfyi1H3Po9ETOMgpRtju5jrdaGa9BbakSOwTcXTVlEkALuG4PdVNoX7M_LqlRQIDL9tCSr9TqVxJ7wtev3Y-iX1-2iTMUF3-SJoBk67-qW1oA/s1600-h/8thShloka-lite.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEECVFQ95LPp3njqi5FNbFyXQf4VoZUZlZfyi1H3Po9ETOMgpRtju5jrdaGa9BbakSOwTcXTVlEkALuG4PdVNoX7M_LqlRQIDL9tCSr9TqVxJ7wtev3Y-iX1-2iTMUF3-SJoBk67-qW1oA/s400/8thShloka-lite.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5093281828218441586" border="0" /></a>Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-73315506287989304012007-04-20T10:35:00.000+05:302007-07-11T10:23:46.747+05:30Feedback ?Thank you for your interest in Advaita Today ..<br /><br />I would be delighted to have your thoughts, comments and criticism on all that has been written here. While you may leave your comments on any of the posts ... it would be nicer if you could use this post to leave your comments as this would help me (and other visitors) have a consolidated view.<br /><br />You may also write to me directly at prithwis AT yantrajaal DOT com<br /><br />May the Grace be with youCalcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-505220944660600769.post-10785587161224094502007-04-20T10:30:00.000+05:302007-04-23T10:13:49.705+05:30Copyright (c) Prithwis Mukerjee 2007<p>This website and its content is copyright of Prithwis Mukerjee - © Prithwis Mukerjee 2007. All rights reserved.</p> <p>Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:</p> <ul><li> <div>you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only</div> </li><li> <div>you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal use, but only if you acknowledge the website as the source of the material</div> </li></ul> You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.Calcuttahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16070070371730319966noreply@blogger.com0