With permission and very interesting.

And yes, and no.

pax,
jb

Some Hindu Perspectives 5: Thoughts on Studying Consciousness

Metanexus: Views 2003.03.20. 1886 words

"In the last few years," writes emeritus philosophy professor Ramakrishna Puligandla, "a spate of books has been published on the scientific study of consciousness. Some of these are under cognitive studies, others under neurophysiological studies, and yet others under philosophical studies. But none of them seems to deliver the goods they promise, namely, the findings of scientific study of consciousness. The following are my reflections on these disappointing works.

And one of those observations is the following very interesting question:

"What is studying something scientifically? A scientific study involves a categorial framework -- primitive (undefined) terms, defined terms, a system of logic, axioms and postulates, and a set of criteria by which to determine whether a problem is genuine and a proposed solution acceptable. However, I have not encountered a single author who articulates the categorial framework underlying his study. I therefore assumed that these authors take for granted the prevailing framework underlying all modern scientific inquiries."

But the real question is whether consciousness is an object that lends itself to scientific, categorical study? Read on to discover Puligandla's surprising answer.

Today we continue our 7-part series titled Towards Bridging the Gap between Science and Religion: Some Hindu Perspectives by examining Thoughts on Studying Consciousness Scientifically by Ramakrishna Puligandla. So far in our series, we have enjoyed the following columns: Gopala Rao's Introduction to the series which appeared on Metanexus:VIEWS on 2003.03.06.; Cosmic Singularity--A Vedanta Perspective by Dharmbir R. Sharma which appeared on Metanexus:Views 2003.03.07.; Ancient Hindu Cosmology and Modern Cosmology also by Gopala Rao which appeared yesterday on Metanexus:VIEWS (2003.03.13.) and the Metanexus Views (2003.03.14) column Consciousness, Mathematics, Physics and Almost Everything Else by Mark MacDowell.

Today's columnist, Ramakrishna Puligandla, is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toledo. He holds graduate degrees in electrical engineering and theoretical physics and a Ph.D. in philosophy. His areas of expertise are logic, philosophy of science and comparative philosophy and religion within the context of both Eastern and Western traditions. He has published extensively in these areas and his books include Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy and Jnana Yoga: The way of Knowledge and Reality and Mysticism. The present article is based on his most recent book entitled That Thou Art- Wisdom of the Upanishads. His stance, like that of the other authors in this series, is that the Ground of Being, namely Consciousness is not a matter for scientific study. What can be studied scientifically are phenomena--objects of consciousness--all of which have form, name, and exist in time, while some also exist in space.

--Stacey E. Ake

Subject: Some Hindu Perspectives 5: Thoughts on Studying Consciousness Scientifically From: Ramakrishna Puligandla Email: <rpuli@buckeye-express.com>

In the last few years, a spate of books has been published on the scientific study of consciousness. Some of these are under cognitive studies, others under neurophysiological studies, and yet others under philosophical studies. But none of them seems to deliver the goods they promise, namely, the findings of scientific study of consciousness. The following are my reflections on these disappointing works.

What is studying something scientifically? A scientific study involves a categorial framework -- primitive (undefined) terms, defined terms, a system of logic, axioms and postulates, and a set of criteria by which to determine whether a problem is genuine and a proposed solution acceptable. However, I have not encountered a single author who articulates the categorial framework underlying his study. I therefore assumed that these authors take for granted the prevailing framework underlying all modern scientific inquiries.

Different sciences study different kinds of phenomena, physical, chemical, biological, mental, emotional, economic, political, and so on. A
phenomenon " may be defined as anything that is or can in principle be an object of consciousness. All phenomena exist in time and some also exist in space. This definition is at the very heart of the prevailing understanding and practice of scientific inquiry. Whatever one studies scientifically is always, inevitably and ineluctably, a phenomenon -- an object of consciousness. Thus, anything that is given as an object of consciousness can be studied scientifically and anything that can be studied scientifically is given as an object of consciousness. Being given as a phenomenon -- an object of consciousness -- is both a necessary and sufficient condition for its scientific study. Furthermore, the scientific study of anything results in a description of the object, its structure, its properties, and its relations to other objects.

It is a fundamental fact of the phenomenology of our experience that consciousness is never given to us as an object. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that consciousness cannot, in principle, be scientifically studied, in the prevailing understanding and practice of "scientific study."

Not being aware of this fundamental fact of the phenomenology of our experience, many self-proclaimed scientists and philosophers use such absurd phrases as "the phenomenon of consciousness" and "the structure of consciousness." Consciousness is not a phenomenon, an object, and hence cannot have a structure, properties, and relations. Have you ever perceived your consciousness as an object, in order for you to be able to describe its structure, properties, and relations?

It is not surprising, then, that people who claim to scientifically study consciousness and write books only end up talking about their observations on synapses, neuronal circuits, various perceptual, linguistic, and emotional centers, and so on, all of which are objects of consciousness. When a physicist studies a certain particle, he/she clearly gives us all the above. A biologist scientifically studying, for example, a genome also does the same. This is true of all scientists. Likewise, anyone who claims to study consciousness scientifically should also give us a description of consciousness, its structure, properties, and relations to other objects. Otherwise, the claim is an empty claim.

In this context, it is appropriate and important that a word be said about the relationship between consciousness and Yoga. Yoga is not a scientific study of consciousness, but of various states of consciousness
objects of consciousness. The aim of Yoga is to study varieties of modes of consciousness, ordinary as well as extraordinary, and learn to render the mind quiescent and still (cittavrtti nirodha), in order to be consciousness without objects.

Am I then saying that consciousness cannot be studied scientifically? Yes, that is precisely what I am saying, insofar as "scientific study" means study of phenomena, objects. Am I suggesting that we not engage in scientific investigation as we actually conduct it? Certainly not. Quite to the contrary, we should rigorously continue our scientific inquiries by which to discover various phenomena, their structures, properties, and relations, hitherto unknown.

My thesis that consciousness cannot, in principle, be studied scientifically is to be regarded as an impotency - principle (an impotency
principle is a statement that something cannot, in principle, be done). Examples of the impotency principle are the second law of thermodynamics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Godel's second incompleteness theorem, etc.

There is, however, an important and significant difference between my impotency principle and the others: my impotency - principle is directly based upon the phenomenology of our experience, whereas the others are based on logico-empirical considerations. Let me emphasize, however, that these logico-empirical considerations themselves are fully founded and grounded in the phenomenology of our experience.

If someone has an argument, along with adequate evidence, to refute my thesis, I should be most happy to hear.

Let me now place the above observations on the scientific study of consciousness in the context of Advaita Vedanta -- non-dualistic Vedanta. The pivotal message of Advaita Vedanta is that ultimate reality, Brahman, of which the myriad worlds are appearances, is non-different from Atman, pure, objectless consciousness. Neither Brahman nor Atman can be perceived by the senses and mind -- imperceivable and inconceivable -- but can only be experienced in non-dual intuition, prajna, by rendering the mind wholly quiescent and still, through various yogic techniques.

Why there is something rather than nothing cannot be explained by science. Explanation, demonstration, proof, etc., belong in the domain of the dual; and since Brahman is that beside which nothing can in principle exist, the existence of the world in the last analysis is anirvachaniya
indefinable and inexplicable. This is the reason cosmologies become mere stories. Thus no one can explain what caused the Big Bang; for space, time, and matter come into existence with the Big Bang, and therefore there cannot, in principle, be any talk of cause and effect prior to the Big Bang. Yes, cosmologists tell us that the Big Bang happened because of spontaneous quantum-fluctuations. But is this really an explanation? Certainly not. We cannot, in principle, have any initial conditions by which to explain the Big Bang. Hence Brahman, ultimate reality, is inexplicable. Since Brahman is non-different from Atman, pure, objectless consciousness, Atman too cannot be explained by science, for like Brahman, Atman, cannot be an object of consciousness and therefore cannot be scientifically studied. Every discipline that is genuinely scientific will have laws, formulated by systematically studying reproducible and repeatable phenomena; and since the cosmos as a whole is not a reproducible and repeatable phenomenon, cosmology cannot, in principle, be a science as "science" is understood and practiced.

It is to be emphasized that Brahman (Atman) is not God (Ishwara, creator, preserver, destroyer, and judge of the world). God is merely a conception of the inconceivable. Different religious traditions are centered around different conceptions of the inconceivable. Hence different religions and different Gods, each religion claiming that its own conception is the true and real conception and condemning other peoples' religions as false. No wonder, then, that people from one religious tradition try to convert others; and if conversion cannot be achieved through persuasion, they will resort to any means they deem fit, including violence. In this manner arise religious wars, resulting in unspeakable bloodshed and horrors.

If unity were to be found among different religious traditions, it could only be found at the mystical level, never at the level of doctrines and dogmas; and all religious traditions have two sides, the exoteric (the public and visible) and esoteric (the private, invisible and mystical). Mystical experience comes only by transcending doctrines, dogmas, and authorities. Doctrines, dogmas, and authorities only give you second-hand truth, which is always open to the assault of doubt and therefore can be lost. Only truth certifiable through one's own authentic experience is first-hand truth. Mystics from all traditions exhort us to attain the first-hand truth, by transcending all conceptions of ultimate reality, non-different from one's true being, Atman. Mysticism is marginal and peripheral in religious traditions controlled by central authorities. The Vedic tradition is unique in its emphasis upon the mystical experience and therewith first-hand truth. Hence Advaita Vedanta is the mystical tradition, par excellence.

People should remain in the traditions they inherit and most earnestly pursue the way of the mystics and hence first-hand truth. Converting other peoples to one's own religious tradition is the highest violence and indignity one can inflict on human beings. Converting people to one's own religious tradition is the hallmark of ignorance (avidya). First-hand truth is too important to be left for others to determine. [jb's note: I would more heavily nuance this assertion but I am in a fair measure of sympathy with it. Could be, too, that the Pope is coming around to at least partly appreciate what the Indians have complained about re: evangelization ? I think much of the consternation derives from a misunderstanding of the concept of "conversion" vs "evangelization" ??? ]

To conclude, 1. consciousness cannot, in principle, be studied scientifically; and 2. cosmology cannot , in principle, be a science.

This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online <http://www.metanexus.net>. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors. To comment on this message, go to the browser-based forum at the bottom of all postings in the magazine section of our web site.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to Dr. Stacey Ake, Associate Editor of Metanexus at <ake@metanexus.net>.

Copyright notice: Columns may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science <http://www.metanexus.net>". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 by William Grassie.

Finally catching up on a bit of reading and this was good. Thanks for posting it, JB.

I see the point being made and think it has merit. I've always wondered about studies of consciousness and self--just what can or cannot be considered appropriate methods of investigation. When you consider that consciousness/self is what is actually doing the investigating and is attempting to evaluate itself in something of an "objective" manner, then the irony stands out. Consciousness-as-subject can no more see itself objectively than an eye can see itself or a knife cut itself. We can report on the experience of "seeing" and what kinds of things influence our seeing and how, but the moment we make the act of seeing an object of scrutiny, we've placed ourselves in an impossible position.