Dear Basudeba,

I perused your explanations, and I offer the following remarks.

You say, "we have defined Language as the transposition of some information / command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system". So, I gather that for "transposition of information" to occur, a mind or a CPU is needed. But then mind already has a language to sense and express. No, I did not mean...

view entire post

Dear Basudeba,

I perused your explanations, and I offer the following remarks.

You say, "we have defined Language as the transposition of some information / command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system". So, I gather that for "transposition of information" to occur, a mind or a CPU is needed. But then mind already has a language to sense and express. No, I did not mean such languages which has an existence (dependence) over mind / CPU, I meant the one that can even express the function of mind without the help of any interpreter.

I meant a language that can express all meaning (semantics), all mathematics, and all objects, without having to base on mind. That is, such a language must be inherent to natural function of physical matter and their interaction.

You said, "you must remember that number is a quality of all objects, by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, it is one (एकत्वं केवलान्वयीति). If there are similars, it is many, which can be 2,3,4,…n depending upon the sequential perception of 'one's." Even for understanding the abstraction of numbers you depended on already existing mechanism (order, means, ability) of perception. Could you describe how from most fundamental consideration of physical interactions alone such an abstraction of numbers may arise? In your expression, "we differentiate", you helplessly depended on the perception of a differentiator, our existence. Someone may ask, how may such a differentiating system come about?

I do understand that you perused my essay, but then, this is what I described -- what kind of language could that be, which originates from the natural causation in the physical interactions alone, which forms even the basis of mind. You should tear my logic, my understanding, my explanations in the essay apart, but with proper understanding.

You are right, my knowledge is limited to translations of truly tiny few of such scriptures. My knowledge of Sanskrit is limited. I cannot read the original with fluency as you could. I also want to say, what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools. Thinking as well as demanding self consistency, they did manage to arrive at certain truths which either stood for long, or could even stand for eternity. As you are aware only mathematical proofs could stand for eternity. Firstly, what we experience is that no matter how deeply or sharply we think about physical universe, the ultimate understanding could not be produced. In fact, one is not even sure if there exists an ultimate definitive reality. I mean, if at the most basic level of physical matter, there is uncertainty or randomness then no matter how much you think, you cannot remove the randomness to make everything predictable. Secondly, what has also been observed is that no matter how sound an idea may appear to begin with, but nature has always proved them wrong / incomplete. So, the basis of science developed on the notion of empirical verification -- if one scientist proposes something, others carry out the observation in different contexts to test if that stands. This has been the basis of success of science. Could you name one scientist, whose all ideas have been proven right. So no ones idea is taken at face value any more. Scientists have failed, but the science has become more and more robust with time. So much so, that religious thinkers also have begun to take pride in saying their ideas match with science -- that is, placing the proof of credibility on science. Yet, the scientific understanding goes on evolving. Thirdly, only way to test someones idea is by observation alone. That is why your criticism of String Theory stands well. But then, the same yardstick must apply to these ancient thinkers as well. Let me ask, what have these thinkers said about the precise laws of electrodynamics (Maxwell's laws), general theory of relativity, or the wave function nature of smallest of quantum reality of physical nature. How would you produce a technology of radio communication device from the ideas of the ancients? They could not have been so specific, since tools and technologies did not exist.

All I am saying is that knowledge has certainly progressed since ancient times. So, at best one may take those thinkers' ideas as guidelines, not as final and most explicit and specific truths, and hypothesize new ones to make predictable models which can be verified with measurements. Quantification is the key, and I am sure you understand it better. Most successful are those, who question themselves and their ideas in perpetuity, never taking anything for granted. Nature has offered surprises to all, the moment you think this is how things have to be, you would have to face the most unpleasant surprise.

It has never served any one well simply trusting that what some one else has said is an ultimate truth. For example, it is not even good to trust that General Theory of Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics are the last words on the reality of nature. Your statements of even 'fictionalization of physics', and 'people voting for each other' may have an element of truth. With time, things will get straightened. Efforts must continue without being too judgmental.

If you happened to refer to any external source, I might peruse depending on my own limitations.

Rajiv

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is “not on the disc” and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behavior. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as “I know” or happiness, pain, desire etc.). Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behavior, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes “over-clocking” boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.

More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain’s known neural activity. But when someone says “macroscopic quantum phenomena”, we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.

There are differences between brain’s software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc., are hardwires that operationalize the life’s software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots. Here we are with you.

However, since human mind is like a computer, it cannot write its own program. And for writing a program, we need a language. For any language, there is a need for a concept (भाव) of some deficiency and its rectification (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति). If we have the knowledge (ज्ञानम्) of the mechanism for rectifying the deficiency, we have a desire to undertake such operation (ज्ञान जन्य भवेदिच्छा इच्छा जन्य कृति भवेत्). This desire could be of two types. When it has a form “I should have this” (ममेदं भवत्विति), it is internal thought, which draws from similar information stored in the brain to act as the inertia of mind (भावना संस्कार). When it is directed at others (तस्येदं भवत्विति), it needs a language that must as you say “express the function of mind without the help of any interpreter” and “that can express all meaning (semantics), all mathematics, and all objects, without having to base on mind - a language inherent to natural function of physical matter and their interaction”.

You are right that even for understanding the abstraction of numbers we depend on already existing mechanism (order, means, ability) of perception. Kanaada has listed 17 fundamental (स्वाभाविक) qualities (गुण) and 7 emergent (नैसर्गिक) qualities. By quality, we mean analysis (मन्त्रणे) by which we come to a conclusion about real nature of anything. For example, when you are looking at the pen you are holding, do you see the same thing that you are holding? No. Because what you “see” is the reflected radiation that comes out of the object (and not the object proper) in your hand, which interacts with your eyes and gets measured. But what you are holding is the object proper which emits radiation and not the radiation. Both ways, it is incomplete information (अनवर्णे इमे भूमिः). Then how do you “know” that it is the same object? Because both these partial inputs are “mixed” in your brain to give you a composite picture through proper analysis.

How do we analyze? We cognize objects or concepts only when they are in transition (रजसा उद्घाटितम्). We could perceive only when energy exchange takes place leading to transfer from one state to another. Without such transition, nothing ever will be perceptible. In fact this is the explanation for the state before creation. Thus, existence itself dependent on such transition. But cognition through all such transitions have a universal form as “I know (जानाम्यहं)”, though the objects of cognition differ infinitely. That universal consciousness, when confined in a limited body (जीव) appears differently just like the water of the ocean and the same water inside a pitcher appear different and show different characteristics. We have discussed about it in detail in our previous papers. Thus, there exists a differentiator.

We beg to differ from you regarding “what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools”. They practiced “observe (द्रष्टव्य), learn from others (श्रोतव्य), analyze independently (मन्तव्य) and then put to practice (निदिध्यासितव्य). Our research methodology as described by Gautama is much more exacting and tasking than modern methodology. Unfortunately, most of our ancient texts were burnt by Moguls and distorted by the British. Now people have forgotten about those and you will not find anyone talking in this language. ALL translations and commentaries of our scriptures are wrong. We interpret these from originals based on the traditional method transmitted to us from our forefathers. But our ancient science was far superior to modern science. Here we give just one example.

One of the emergent qualities listed by Kanaada is mass (गुरुत्व). Elementary physics text books say that weight is a product of mass and g and that a stone weighing 1 kg on Earth will weigh about 250 grams on Moon. But how do we “know”? Has anyone actually measured? If yes, which balance and which weight did they use? If they used the same balance and weight measure as on Earth by taking it to the Moon, will g affect only the stone and not the balance or the weight measure? If not why not? If yes, then the effect will cancel each other and the stone will weigh the same as on Earth. If they use another balance and weight measure, then we must apply a conversion factor not only to the stone, but also to the weight measure, leading to the same result. Thus, multiplying mass by g is superfluous. Yet, Kanaada says it is an emerging property because it is regulated not by g, but by another variety of gravitational effect (आवह), which makes objects “fall”. This “fall” through any medium changes its impact. For example, the same stone held under water, will appear light. If we take the same stone to a hill top, it will appear heavier not because of g, but because the lesser density of air affects us more than it affects the stone, which falls at a faster pace. You may say it is the same as g and nothing new. Hence we will give another example.

Let us take the example of fluidity (द्रवत्व). Why does it behave differently from solids even though both have mass? It flows laterally over any base. You will say it is not as tightly held (तरलावयव) as solids (निविडावयव). But then it is different from gas which is also not held tightly (विरलावयव). Then why does not the fluid evaporate like gas? If it is an intermediate stage between solids and gases, what made it like that? Kanaada says: it is another variety of gravitational effect (प्रवह), which is the generally understood gravity. Gravity is considered by our ancients as an inter-body force (उद्याम), whereas the strong (अन्तर्याम), weak (beta decay only - वहिर्याम) and electromagnetic (उपयाम) interactions are intra-body forces – they arise from within the body. They divide the weak force into two different categories, which is now being called the fifth fundamental force of Nature (यातयाम). (Recently a 6.8σ anomaly has been reported in the opening angle and invariant mass distributions of e+e− pairs produced in 8Be nuclear transitions. The data are explained by a 17 MeV vector gauge boson X that is produced in the decay of an excited state to the ground state, 8Be∗→8Be X, and then decays through X→e+e−. The X boson mediates a fifth force with a characteristic range of 12 fm and has millicharged couplings to up and down quarks and electrons, and a proton coupling that is suppressed relative to neutrons. The protophobic X boson may also alleviate the current 3.6σ discrepancy between the predicted and measured values of the muon’s anomalous magnetic DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803.).

Our ancients held that gravity is a composite of seven different forces with one single and 3 pairs (साकञ्जना सप्तथमाहुरेकजं षडिज्जमा). These have different functions. The generally understood gravity is not an attractive force, but a stabilizing force that stabilizes orbits of bodies at the maximum possible distance (उरुगाय प्रतिष्ठा) from their common barycenter. Obviously, this is related to their respective masses. Since distance is measured from the respective centers of masses (हृदयम्), the bodies are treated as point particles. The other varieties of gravity can explain the Pioneer Anomaly (अनुवह), the sudden deflection of Voyager 2 beyond the orbit of Saturn (संवह), and the fly-by anomaly etc. Interestingly, these could describe many other properties of substances including inertia and sound.

All you are pointing out is limitedness of human beings. This is true. That is why we call schools – विद्यालय and not knowledge centers - ज्ञानालय. विद्या is related to its complement ignorance – अविद्या. Then it is different for different persons. Hence you cannot put any universal limit on it. Nature neither proves anyone right or wrong. It is the degree of knowledge that is exposed.

We are sure you are aware of the many limitations of Maxwell's laws. Prashastapaada, whom we have referred, had discussed relativity – specifically the equivalence principle in his book. Russell used it as his paradox in set theory. Even string theory got its name and concept from वायुर्वै गौतमः तत् सूत्रम्. We have books dealing with technical subjects dealt with in ancient times, which have been acknowledged as valid scientific books by the world scientific community. Thus, it is not correct to say that “tools and technologies did not exist).

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Basudeba,

I can see that you are extremely passionate about your views, and you make good efforts to put forward supportive arguments. I can also see that your main intention here is to bring your views to light, which you feel to be right, than just winning the competition. Having said that let me place the counter rationality, and again, I must confess, my arguments are limited to my...

view entire post

Dear Basudeba,

I can see that you are extremely passionate about your views, and you make good efforts to put forward supportive arguments. I can also see that your main intention here is to bring your views to light, which you feel to be right, than just winning the competition. Having said that let me place the counter rationality, and again, I must confess, my arguments are limited to my knowledge of science or observable nature.

First, I have no idea why you drew parallel between a computer and the brain. To my understanding, there is no comparison what so ever, and your arguments about the mind-brain relation is stronger without it. There is no software in the brain, brain processing is entirely by its hardware organization. The brain function is such that it continuously modifies itself, computer programs cannot do that.

I can see that, you, like ancients, take consciousness for granted, as fundamental entity in the universe. No problems, as long as you explain every phenomena correctly and objectively. Objective consideration comes from the fact that others also must observe the things the same way. Others will have to be forced by your arguments and proof of concept with observation. In a statement like this, "For any language, there is a need for a concept (भाव) of some deficiency and its rectification (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति). If we have the knowledge (ज्ञानम्) of the mechanism for rectifying the deficiency, we have a desire to undertake such operation (ज्ञान जन्य भवेदिच्छा इच्छा जन्य कृति भवेत्)", I observe several concepts, and feelings are introduced as granted existence, e.g. 'need' or 'deficiency', and 'desire'. Do they naturally originate from consciousness, or do they have independent existence? I cannot argue on every such point, but one has to be watchful, whether we introduce anything without having brought out its genesis first. I appreciate very much that you also quote the Sanskrit version from the scriptures, so that I can at least figure out whether your remarks are true to the scriptures.

From these quotes, (भवतु इति चित्तवृत्ति), or, (ज्ञान जन्य भवेदिच्छा इच्छा जन्य कृति भवेत्), I observe that knowledge of the seers is expressed as qualitative facts, as 'what' of things, not why or how it connects to measurable physical things. I read the second quote as, "Knowledge gives rise to desire for things, and desire causes the action to achieve the same." Now, how is knowledge, desire, and action related to the measurable physical world, such that I make an observation and verify the facts. That is why I called them qualitative, not quantitative. I can certainly feel it, but in this essay context, or in our discussion that is what we are trying to establish, how the feelings originate. And why the same logic of ancients do not apply to non-living things? Several living things also do not have (चित्तवृत्ति), why? Then, you will need to propose new laws about why only certain kinds of living things can have (चित्तवृत्ति). And then the question would arise, why there is a multitude of feelings, and their types; one cannot create a fundamental law for each type, and we do not know what kinds of feelings animals have. So, while these scriptures do fantastic job of making us understand our mental phenomena, so that we understand ourselves at mental level, but they do not connect to the natural phenomena of the universe.

In between, I find several right statements, but they must be connected in one stream of observable logic. For example, "when you are looking at a pen you are holding, do you see the same thing that you are holding?". I agree, a mental representation of something is not the thing itself, it is only a model of the thing, that is useful in deriving conclusions. "We cognize objects or concepts only when they are in transition (रजसा उद्घाटितम्). We could perceive only when energy exchange takes place leading to transfer from one state to another. Without such transition, nothing ever will be perceptible." Yes true, then why should not we construct the model (knowledge) also based on these perceptions?

Yes, you must differ with me on, "what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools". As you said, "They practiced “observe (द्रष्टव्य), learn from others (श्रोतव्य), analyze independently (मन्तव्य) and then put to practice (निदिध्यासितव्य)." Yes, they were as scientific as they could be, but did they have 'electron microscope, a telescope, advance chemical / biological technologies' to perform experiments and test their theories. That is what I meant when I said, 'with limited tools'.

You mentioned about remarkable ancient knowledge of gravity. What must I do with this knowledge to determine, how many seconds will a massive object take to fall to the ground if I drop it from a height of 4 meters? How, do I compute the exact height of the tides that will occur at 12 noon, say at Calcutta, from the position of the sun, moon? How do I make a measurement on the cellular structure of cells of a plant or animal to determine if they belong to a particular phylum. This is why I said, a qualitative knowledge is different from quantitative knowledge. There is a book I read a long time ago called "Surya Siddhanta", there I found methods to compute the position of planets and sun, moon. It was a remarkable quantitative achievement, even though predicted positions mary vary by a deg of arc or so from measurement, where as today's measurements given better than a microsecond of arc of accuracy. But then, like in the west, scientific inquiry stopped in India too, before 1000 AD, but the second wave of resurgence of quantitative observation did not happen in India. When I read your statements, I feel, you have far more knowledge of many natural phenomena than the ancients you quote. For example, could Kanada have made this statement, "The data are explained by a 17 MeV vector gauge boson X that is produced in the decay of an excited state to the ground state, 8Be∗→8Be X, and then decays through X→e+e−."

Dear Basudeba, let me repeat, I do not question the knowledge of the ancients, but they are limited like most of our knowledge of modern physics. They apply in certain domain, but not in all domains. Animals also appear to be conscious, but do these rules apply to them, and what if we happened to find very advanced life on another planet, would they be bound by these rules? In the realm of consciousness, any idea is good enough at the moment. There is one very strong positive aspect of your argument is that ancients took it as one fundamental element of nature as is space or matter. So, you have a base. Unfortunately, I am proposing a method, how consciousness may originate in any system that has certain complex physical organization.

Sometimes, I have a self doubt, if I should be judging your views from the perspective of modern science. But then I take solace in the fact that you are as scientific in your approach as any one of others. You also put forward your arguments with humility and patience. My request would be to keep adjusting your views till you find a ground that is empirically demonstrable. You may peruse my essay with the intention to find anomalies, faults, and to discover statements that are not logically derived or derivable, and shred my arguments on scientific basis. If you find it easy to do that, my essay is worthless, if you find difficulty in doing that, it is strong.

Rajiv

view post as summary