Subhash Kak
Historians are in general agreement that with the fall of the Roman Empire Europe plunged in to the Dark Ages, which were characterised by religious passion, destruction of temples and monuments, burning of books, vandalisation of art, and killing of non-believers. This process was repeated later in the persecution of the indigenous peoples in the New World, and the abuse of the natives of Europe’s colonies. As religious dogma ruled, science retreated.
Some see the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century with the dawning of the scientific revolution. Sectarian views were increasingly replaced by humanism. Science itself began looking for universal principles, not just ideas rooted with earth as the center of a universe seen through a theological lens. However, the search for this universal knowledge has been a slow process that is still not accepted by all societies, and there remain nations where free thought is banned and non-believers are oppressed.
In one sense, the modern renaissance is the journey to the discovery of consciousness, which is paradoxical for we experience reality in it and yet are happy to be oblivious of its nature. In the West, the universe was seen as a machine, and this goes back to Aristotle and the Greeks who saw the physical world consisting of four kinds of elements, earth, water, fire, and air. This model continued in Newton’s clockwork model of the solar system. Indian thought, in contrast, has a fifth element, ?k??a, which is the medium for inner light and consciousness.
The modern renaissance has had to go beyond the machine model of the universe and bring in the observer into the picture. This has happened in different fields at different times and it is a process that is still continuing. The new ideas first arose in the field of philosophy and then spread to literature and other domains of thought. Perhaps the last scientific field they were accepted in was Physics where absolute space and time were dethroned by relativity theory and quantum mechanics in the early decades of the twentieth century.
Indian ideas were and are central to the ongoing renaissance. We are not talking here of mathematics and the sign for zero, binary numbers of Pingala, or the idea of immunisation of Ayurveda, but even more fundamental ideas that have shaped the recent past and continue to exert powerful influence in all fields. The best way to see this is to look at its most fundamental foundations and one finds they are precisely the sciences (??stras) associated with the dar?anas. Here’s a quick summary:
The idea of structure of systems, such as abstract systems like language and social organisation, is based on M?m??s? and the philosophy of Sanskrit grammarians going back to P??ini, and of Bharata Muni’s N??ya ?h?stra.
P??ini’s work showed the way to the development of modern linguistics through the efforts of scholars such as Franz Bopp, Ferdinand de Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, and Roman Jakobson. Bopp was a pioneering scholar of the comparative grammars of Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages. Ferdinand de Saussure wrote his Ph.D. on De l’emploi du génitif absolu en Sanscrit (1880) and lectured on Sanskrit in Paris and Geneva. In his most influential work, Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale), that was published posthumously (1916), he took the idea of the use of formal rules of Sanskrit grammar and applied them to general linguistic phenomena. Bloomfield, having studied P??ini, contributed much to structural linguistics, applying these ideas not only to Indo-European historical linguistics but also to Austronesian and native American languages.
The structure of P??ini‘s grammar contains a meta-language, meta-rules, and other technical devices that make this system effectively equivalent to the most powerful computing machine. Although it didn’t directly contribute to the development of computer languages, it influenced linguistics and mathematical logic which, in turn, gave birth to computer science. The works of P??ini and Bharata Muni also presage the modern field of semiotics which is the study of signs and symbols as a significant part of communications. Bharata’s N??ya??stra has much material on acting, signs, gestures, and posture each one of which communicates its own specific meaning to the spectator.
The search for universal laws of grammar underlying the diversity of languages is ultimately an exploration of the very nature of the human mind. The other side to this grammar is the idea that a formal system cannot describe reality completely since it leaves out the self. As human society evolves, signs and symbols in use lose their original meanings, manners change, and fashions come and go.
Modern logic and machine theory that led to the development of computers and artificial intelligence goes back to the tradition of Navya Ny?ya.
That Indian thought was central to the development of machine theory is asserted by Mary Boole—the wife of George Boole, inventor of modern logic—who herself was a leading science writer in the 19th century. She claimed that George Everest, who lived for a long time in India and whose name was eventually applied to the world’s highest peak, was the intermediary of the Indian ideas and they influenced not only her husband but the other two leading scientists in the attempt to mechanise thought: Augustus de Morgan and Charles Babbage. She says in her essay on Indian Thought and Western Science in the 19th Century (1901): “Think what must have been the effect of the intense Hinduising of three such men as Babbage, De Morgan, and George Boole on the mathematical atmosphere of 1830–65.” She further speculates that these ideas influenced the development of vector analysis and modern Mathematics.
Indian logic texts were translated into English by H T Colebrooke in 1824. De Morgan himself admitted to the significance of Indian logic in his book (1860): “The two races which have founded the mathematics, those of the Sanscrit and Greek languages, have been the two which have independently formed systems of logic.”
Some scholars have suggested that knowledge of the results of the Kerala School of Astronomy and Mathematics (14th to 16th centuries), which first developed Calculus essential to modern science, was transmitted to Europe through the trade route from Kerala by traders and Jesuit missionaries.
Much prior to this, Mohsin Fani”s Dabistani-i Madhahib (17th Century) claimed that Kallisthenes, who was in Alexander”s party, took logic texts from India and the beginning of the Greek tradition of logic must be seen in this material. In Indian logic, minds are not empty slates; the very constitution of the mind provides some knowledge of the nature of the world. The four pram??as through which correct knowledge is acquired are direct perception, inference, analogy, and verbal testimony.
Indian Physics that goes back to Ka??da not only has laws of motion but also a place for observers.
The Indian Physics tradition, with the laws of motion already characterised in the Vai?ehika Sutras (500 BCE) and the idea of relativity of motion enunciated by Aryabhata (500 CE) perhaps did not directly influence discovery of physical laws in Europe. But Indian ideas that placed the observer at centre prefigure the conceptual foundations of modern Physics, as is acknowledged by the greatest physicists of the twentieth century.
In my own study of the Vai?ehika (as in my translation titled Matter and Mind (2016)), I have become convinced that Kan?da is perhaps the greatest physicist before Newton. He anticipated much of Newton in his laws of motion and he spoke of invariants. Further, he attempted something that no physicist to date has dared to do: he created a formal system that includes space, time, matter, as well as observers. He also postulated four types of atoms, two with mass (like proton and electron) and two without mass (like neutrino and photon).
The problem of observers is one of the major unsolved areas of Physics and my own sense is that Indian ideas will play an important role in the progress in this field.
Cosmology both at the personal and the cosmic levels. S??khya.
The Rigveda speaks of the universe being infinite in size. A famous mantra speaks of how taking infinity out of infinity leaves it unchanged. This indicates that paradoxical properties of the notion of infinity were known. The evolution of the universe is according to cosmic law. Since it cannot arise out of nothing, the universe must be infinitely old. Since it must evolve, there are cycles of chaos and order or creation and destruction. The world is also taken to be infinitely old. Beyond the solar system, other similar systems were postulated. An infinite size of the universe logically led to the acceptance of many worlds.
The S?nkhya system describes evolution at cosmic and individual levels. It views reality as being constituted of puru?a, consciousness that is all-pervasive, motionless, unchangeable, without desire who at the individual level is the s?ksin, the witness, and prak?ti, which is the phenomenal world. Prakriti is composed of three different strands (gunas or characteristics) of sattva, rajas, and tamas, which are transparency, activity, and inactivity, respectively.
Evolution begins by purusa and prakrti creating mahat (Nature in its dynamic aspect). From mahat evolve buddhi (intelligence) and manas (mind). Buddhi and manas in the large scale are Nature’s intelligence and mind. From buddhi comes individualised ego consciousness (ahank?ra) and the five tanm?tras (subtle elements) of sound, touch, sight, taste, smell. From the manas evolve the five senses (hearing, touching, seeing, tasting, smelling), the five organs of action (with which to speak, grasp, move, procreate, evacuate), and the five gross elements (ether, air, fire, water, earth).
The evolution in S?nkhya is an ecological process determined completely by Nature. It differs from modern evolution theory in that it presupposes a universal consciousness. In reality, modern evolution also assigns intelligence to Nature in its drive to select certain forms over others as well as in the evolution of intelligence itself.
Yoga. Mind-body medicine. Self-actualization.
The Yoga revolution is occurring now all over the world. For many, it is about health and well-being but that is only a doorway to the next step of asking as to who the self is and the relationship between it and the body.
Patañjali’s Yoga-s?tra (see my book Mind and Self (2016) for a new commentary) is a systematic exposition on the nature of the mind. It is logical in its method and it questions the naïve understanding of the world. Patañjali takes it that there is a single reality and the multiplicity we see in it is a consequence of the projections of our different minds. Therefore the challenge is to undo the workings of the mind to experience reality in its most directness.
The Consciousness Revolution. Ved?nta.
The Vedic texts claim to be ?tmavidy?, “science of self” or “consciousness science” and they also provide a framework to decode its narrative, establishing its central concern with consciousness.
Until recently, the question of consciousness was considered to lie outside of the scope of science and, consequently, the Indian texts on the subject were not properly examined. Scientific attitudes towards consciousness have changed due to the advances in neuroscience and because modern physics and computer science must confront the question of the observer.
In the Vedic view, reality is unitary at the deepest level since otherwise there would be chaos. This reality is called Brahman, which engenders and, paradoxically, transcends the mind/matter split. It is identical to consciousness at the cosmic scale and it informs individual minds. Turning focus to the very nature of the mind provides insight about consciousness.
Since language is linear, whereas the unfolding of the universe takes place in a multitude of dimensions, language is limited in its ability to describe reality. Because of this limitation, reality can only be experienced and never described fully. All descriptions of the universe lead to logical paradox, and Brahman is the category transcending all oppositions.
Vedic ritual is a symbolic retelling of this worldview. Knowledge is classified in two ways: the higher or unified and the lower or dual. The higher knowledge concerns the perceiving subject (consciousness), whereas the lower knowledge concerns objects. The higher knowledge can be arrived at only through intuition and meditation on the paradoxes of the outer world. The lower knowledge is analytical and it represents standard sciences (?h?stra) with its many branches. In addition, dar?hana represents philosophy where the problem of self is taken together with some aspect of outer reality. There is a complementarity between the higher and the lower, each being necessary to define the other. This complementarity mirrors the one between mind and body.
Prospects
Let’s now briefly look at the prospects of this knowledge from the perspectives of contemporary society and technology. There is excitement, and fear, that machines will replace humans at literally all jobs. That would save humanity from workaday drudgery, but it would also shake many societal foundations. A life of no work and only play may turn out to be a horrible dystopia.
Conscious machines would also raise troubling legal and ethical problems. Would a conscious machine be a “person” under law and be liable if its actions hurt someone, or if something goes wrong? To think of a more frightening scenario, might these machines rebel against humans and wish to eliminate us altogether?
Researchers are divided on whether these sorts of hyperaware machines will ever exist. There’s also debate about whether machines could or should be called “conscious” in the way we think of humans, and even some animals, as conscious. Some of the questions have to do with technology; others have to do with what consciousness actually is.
Is awareness enough?
Most computer scientists think that consciousness is a characteristic that will emerge as technology develops. Some believe that consciousness involves accepting new information, storing and retrieving old information and cognitive processing of it all into perceptions and actions. If that’s right, then one day machines will indeed be the ultimate consciousness. On the other hand, there are physicists and philosophers who say there’s something more about human behavior that cannot be computed by a machine. Creativity, for example, and the sense of freedom people possess don’t appear to come from logic or calculations. Yet these are not the only views of what consciousness is, or whether machines could ever achieve it.
Quantum views
Another viewpoint on consciousness comes from quantum theory, which is the deepest theory of Physics. According to the orthodox Copenhagen Interpretation, consciousness and the physical world are complementary aspects of the same reality. When a person observes, or experiments on, some aspect of the physical world, that person’s conscious interaction causes discernible change.
Since it takes consciousness as a given and no attempt is made to derive it from Physics, the Copenhagen Interpretation may be called the “big-C” view of consciousness, where it is a thing that exists by itself—although it requires brains to become real. This view was popular with the pioneers of quantum theory such as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger.
The interaction between consciousness and matter leads to paradoxes that remain unresolved after 80 years of debate. A well-known example of this is the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, in which a cat is placed in a situation that results in it being equally likely to survive or die—and the act of observation itself is what makes the outcome certain.
The opposing view is that consciousness emerges from biology, just as biology itself emerges from chemistry which, in turn, emerges from physics. We call this less expansive concept of consciousness “little-C.” It agrees with the neuroscientists’ view that the processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain. It also agrees with a more recent interpretation of quantum theory motivated by an attempt to rid it of paradoxes, the Many Worlds Interpretation, in which observers are a part of the mathematics of physics.
Philosophers of science believe that these modern quantum physics views of consciousness have parallels in ancient philosophy. Big-C is like the theory of mind in Vedanta—in which consciousness is the fundamental basis of reality, on par with the physical universe. The pioneers of quantum theory were aware of this linkage with Vedanta.
Little-C, in contrast, is quite similar to Buddhism. Although the Buddha chose not to address the question of the nature of consciousness, his followers declared that mind and consciousness arise out of emptiness or nothingness.
Big-C and scientific discovery
A dramatic piece of evidence in favor of big-C consciousness existing all on its own is the life of self-taught Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, who died in 1920 at the age of 32. His notebook, which was lost and forgotten for about 50 years and published only in 1988, contains several thousand formulas, without proof in different areas of mathematics, that were well ahead of their time. Furthermore, the methods by which he found the formulas remain elusive. He himself claimed that they were revealed to him by a goddess while he was asleep.
The concept of big-C consciousness raises the questions of how it is related to matter, and how matter and mind mutually influence each other. Consciousness alone cannot make physical changes to the world, but perhaps it can change the probabilities in the evolution of quantum processes. The act of observation can freeze and even influence atoms’ movements, as physicists proved in 2015. This may very well be an explanation of how matter and mind interact.
I conclude with a plea to the educationists. Indian sciences are universal and they have within them the power to inspire people to find their true potential and find meaning in life, as also having the potential for the next advances in both physical and biological sciences. They ought to be a part of the school and college curricula but are not included there. They are a marvelous gift to humanity and it is a pity that those who are not lucky to learn of them at home have to struggle just to know what they are.
(The writer is an eminent scientist and a previous Head of Computer Science Department at Oklahoma State University)
Leave a Comment