Hardware, Software, Cats and Consciousness

[Pluto]

Can the Vedantic perspective of consciousness be explained using the analogy of a computer?

Everybody knows the difference between hardware and software. Hardware is physical, like a graphics card. Software is non-physical, like a video game. But alas, a philosophical dilemma follows: if software is not physical, is it actually real?

This cat is real and unreal.

​

Imagine someone posts a cat picture (not that I would do such a thing). Everyone agrees that it is a cat. But then, everyone also agrees that it is NOT a cat.

Why? Because a picture is mere software; zeros and ones. And pixels of light on a monitor. Not a cat by any means. Even a faultlessly realistic AI cat capable of accurate movements and interactions still has zero reality. It relies on fooling the human visual cortex to simulate a sense of reality.

Are real cats real?
If it logically follows that everything on a computer screen is unreal, we can at least assume that an actual cat - a living being that can be petted, fed and bonded with - is real. But even this is problematic.

Take the word cat. It is merely a sound that is supposed to evoke the image of a cat. And in other languages - katze, katt, chat, gato, neko - completely different human vocal noises serve the same purpose. The conclusion is therefore: the word cat is not a cat.

And the concept of a cat - the thought that appears in the mind when the word cat is spoken, including any emotions, memories, opinions and feelings - is also not a cat. It is not a cat because it is software, this time with the human brain accessing an image of a cat in its memory bank.

​

What about an actual cat?
Say there is a cat right there in the room with you. Surely it is real, right?

This time, the problem is the mental overlay. A young child who knows no language, has no memories and is seeing a cat for the first time will view the feline furball with pure, unconditioned freshness; likely utter wonderment. An adult, however, will be partly interacting with the animal, and partly overlaying the experience with their conditioning. That includes the label 'cat', the identity as a 'cat person' or 'dog person' and a slew of past memories or judgements that corrupt the experience into oblivion.

Is it possible to be living in the immediate present moment, with the conditioned mind switched off, and interact directly with a cat, just as a young child would?

What about the self?
There is no part of brain physiology called a personal self. Neurologists may talk of a frontal lobe or a hippocampus, but not a self. Why not? Because the self is software. It is virtual.

Everything that defines the self - family history, opinions, gender, socioeconomic status, etc - is learned. It forms an overlay that in most adults feels dense, heavy and uncomfortable. Through identifying with this software-self (that is, taking it to really be who we are) the heavy burden of ego emerges.

The body and brain may be the hardware in this example, though by itself they are completely harmless, innocent and without judgement. It only exists in the immediate present since past and future consist of thoughts - memory and anticipation - and it is not compulsory to view the software as real.

Yet indisputably, you exist as consciousness regardless of whether any definitive identity is real or unreal; actual or virtual. What is really true, and how to reveal it?

​

And what of the capital-S Self?
The oft-repeated analogy of Advaita Vedanta is the rope and the snake. What looks like a snake turns out to be a mere rope. Another analogy used by Swami Vivekananda was the mirage in the desert, which looks like water but is actually not. Or Ramana Maharshi spoke of the cinema screen, which displays movie scenes with water and fire, yet never gets wet nor burned.

The conclusion is that reality of the Self must be sought beyond the mind via deep and persistent contemplation of the question "Who Am I?". The 'correct' answer will take the form of seeing the software as unreal, just as a picture of a cat is not a cat. Yet the ego is the centre of experience, so its exposure as a mirage is a transformative insight.

Pure consciousness is beyond any sort of belief system, philosophical outlook or religious perspective, since all these are mere software, no matter how mighty. It is beyond memories, even those of past profound insights or mystical experiences. Unspeakable, since any words spoken will be inaccurate.

I conclude with Ramana Maharshi answering questions about the method of being freed of the false ('software-self') ego.

​

Q: How is the ego to be destroyed?

A: Hold the ego first and then ask how it is to be destroyed. Who asks the question? It is the ego. This question is a sure way to cherish the ego and not to kill it. If you seek the ego you will find that it does not exist. That is the way to destroy it.

Q: How is realization made possible?

A: There is an absolute Self from which a spark proceeds as from a fire. The spark is called the ego. In the case of an ignorant man it identifies itself with an object simultaneously with its rise. It cannot remain independent of such association with objects. The association is ajnana or ignorance and its destruction is the object of our efforts. If its objectifying tendency is killed it remains pure, and also merges into the source. The wrong identification with the body is dehatma buddhi ['I am the body' idea]. This must go before good results follow.

The 'I' in its purity is experienced in intervals between the two states or two thoughts. Ego is like that caterpillar which leaves its hold only after catching another. Its true nature can be found when it is out of contact with objects or thoughts.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I love your posts. Always so thought provoking.

Not sure if this will be a strong parallel for you but your post reminded me of when we learnt about copyright law at uni. One of the major questions they will ask when deciding whether copyright law has been infringed is: 'Would this thing (whatever it is- a cartoon, piece of music, essay, book, painting, logo) likely exist if the previous item didn't exist?' If the answer is- likely not then, it's possible there has been an infringement of copyright- because there is an original and a copy.

The picture of the cat couldn't exist without someone taking a picture of an actual cat. Or, seeing a cat and drawing it from memory. Most of what humans create is an interpretation. Impressively, we can create things that don't exist, like purple dragons. Still- we seem to be pretty good at recognising living creatures as opposed to fantasy ones or drawings or pictures or models of ones.

I guess interestingly, we could use this and apply it to a human life. If a person lives a comfortable, happy life, will they not turn out differently to the same person that lives a very difficult, traumatic life? Their sense of self would likely be different because of their different experiences. How can you take a person away from their experiences and them still be a person with memories and a character? Does the ego exist without experiences? Do babies have strong egos? I'd say the ego does exist though. I'd define it as our character. Who we have become after living as long as we have and going through what we've gone through. It can certainly change. It can receed and become more humble but- it's still there.

Consciousness is a puzzle but I suspect how we experience ourselves is different to how other people see us. Because we maybe only reveal part of ourselves to people. Maybe both are interpretations. Other people obviously can only interpret who we are from how much we reveal of ourselves. But- we are also limited in our understanding of ourselves. Or- we can be. Mental illness, drugs, alcohol, brain damage, spirituality, religion, learning can all change how we think of ourselves. How can you be sure when you are closer to understanding your true self? A neighbour of mine had a kind of mental breakdown once and he said he'd never experienced such clarity.

My feeling is that consciousness is mostly reliant on hardware. Maybe the stuff that makes us who we are- our experiences are the software but- if you get a virus in your software, it can f*ck up your hardware. I think our most extreme experiences can entirely change how we experience the world. They can re-write us as people. Similarly- brain damage can entirely change a person's character. I think our phisiology and psychology are inextricably linked.

Maybe I've misinterpreted your post. It's a bit beyond me to be honest. In fact, I'd be interested to get some clarity. I think I came across something similar in Eckhart Tolle's 'The Power of Now.' What really struck me and made sense was the way he described that we are able to look at ourselves and annalyse how we feel- I'm not ok. I'm not happy. Almost like we are our own annalyst- maybe I feel like this because this situation is reminding me of something in childhood I found traumatic etc.

The major thing was- that there was more than one 'me' present there. The person experiencing those things and the person realising they are a person experiencing those things. But then, is that calm observer totally unbiased? Totally without ego or influenced by genes or illness or spirituality or learning? Is that really our true self and are all those passive bystanders in all of us the same? Do we all have DID to some extent? Multiple personalities? Is that what you're refering to as 'pure consciousness'? The part in us that is trying to seek out all this stuff? But- that's just more thinking- surely? Why would that point to something greater? Maybe that is just the way the brain functions.

 

[Pluto]

A lot of great questions! Let's start with the most important one.

purple dragons.

Would this thing (whatever it is- a cartoon, piece of music, essay, book, painting, logo) likely exist if the previous item didn't exist?'

This could be a great analogy for consciousness in Advaita Vedanta. Consciousness is the ultimate predicate for all things and all experience. It must be there first before anything else can appear. Lao Tsu makes a similar comment about the Tao, saying "All things are born from it."

Spoiler: Full verse

All things are born from it, yet it doesn't create them. It pours itself into its work, yet it makes no claim. It nourishes infinite worlds, yet it doesn't hold on to them. Since it is merged with all things and hidden in their hearts, it can be called humble. Since all things vanish into it and it alone endures, it can be called great.

Does the ego exist without experiences? Do babies have strong egos? I'd say the ego does exist though. I'd define it as our character.

Vedantic scholars like to reply with stories, so here's one.

Swami Vivekananda was walking through the desert when he saw some water in the distance. (Yes, you already see where this is going.) But upon walking further, it was just a mirage. The next day, he was walking and again saw water. But this time he knew that it was not real.

The brain, the character and its memories are still fully intact and normal functioning is possible, but the thought of identifying with it seems silly. Another teacher, Jim Newman, used the analogy of no longer believing in Santa Claus.

As for babies, they have no developed egos. That could be why some people have described awakening as a 'second childhood'.

Spoiler: Carl Jung has more to say about that.

Or- we can be. Mental illness, drugs, alcohol, brain damage, spirituality, religion, learning can all change how we think of ourselves.

According to Vedanta, consciousness has no qualities. Hence it is inherently unspeakable and unknowable, though language is used poetically to point the way home. Brain damage, personality, religion are all 'content'. Consciousness includes all those things, yet is beyond them.

Eckhart Tolle once used the analogy of empty space, which must be there first before there can be a room, objects and furniture. Yet the space itself is invisible, has no particular boundaries and no qualities.

How can you be sure when you are closer to understanding your true self? A neighbour of mine had a kind of mental breakdown once and he said he'd never experienced such clarity.

This is a common question and there are various answers. I'll give my own answer this time.

Firstly, it cannot be understood as there is no content. But the realisation of the Self - or the exposure of the non-self - can be happen spontaneously in various ways. Some people have had massive realisations caused by a stroke. Sometimes extreme stress (including a man interviewed on a James Twyman documentary whose awakening happened in New York in the aftermath of September 11) makes the ego go 'pop'.

Eckhart's own story, in the midst of an intensely suicidal night, is another example. For Ramana Maharshi, it happened during a sudden panic attack when he thought he was going to die, only to discover that he is not the body so cannot die. Then there's some NDEs, some psychedelic insights, etc. I might expand on this on another thread.

However, if it is a passing experience, this does not count as realising the Self. Yet any inner feelings, deep-seated grumblings from within that you already know all this stuff, or the mind becoming deeply still are positive signs.

My feeling is that consciousness is mostly reliant on hardware.

This is the reductionist materialist theory but Vedanta says the exact opposite. Consciousness has to be there for anything to be perceived. It is obvious when you look at a human lifetime. A so-called person has a radically different experience as an adult compared to a child, yet the 'I am' is identical throughout. Dream-states and other altered states of consciousness come and go, yet the 'I am' is the only constant.

The big insight comes when it is obvious that the same 'I am' consciousness was there even before this body, and will be there after the body's death. The whole body-story is fictional. Consciousness is also one with all things, places and people, in any universe or afterlife. None of it could be without consciousness.

It's a bit beyond me to be honest.

This is a profound insight if you read it carefully.

The 'me' is the separate self trying to figure stuff out. We are talking about something beyond it.

But then, is that calm observer totally unbiased? Totally without ego or influenced by genes or illness or spirituality or learning? Is that really our true self and are all those passive bystanders in all of us the same?

It gets very subtle here. One of Eckhart's primary practical teachings is 'watch the thinker'. Stop everything, pay close attention to see what your next thought is going to be. He even says, "Be like a cat watching a mouse hole."

​

The very fact that it is possible to stand outside of the 'voice in the head' and watch it easily delivers the insight that you are not that voice.

The word 'observer' is a bit slippery because it still implies an entity, like a more subtle 'me' who is witnessing stuff. The process goes beyond that, but perhaps this is an intermediate step.

As for the seeker, this gets more subtle again. Deliberate effort like self-inquiry usually precedes awakening, yet the seeker is itself exposed as a false entity at some point. The realisation cannot in any way be predicted by the mind; 100% of people find it a surprise even if they are well-read on the subject.

We are not talking about dissociation. Again, it is the exact opposite. The mind-identified state is seen as a crazy illusion and a gross detachment from reality.

Ultimately, it is a big subtractive process that gets subtler, more paradoxical and more abstract as it goes along. What is of greatest value is your own inner exploration, quietening the mind to better access your own subtle promptings and being willing to go all the way, even if it starts to get scary.

 

[Iamtired]

Well what happens when the body is destroyed by the hands of another and all you have left is your mind and you are in constant pain. Who even has time to think about this stuff when they are in constant pain.

 

[Tears in Rain]

What about the self?
There is no part of brain physiology called a personal self. Neurologists may talk of a frontal lobe or a hippocampus, but not a self. Why not? Because the self is software. It is virtual.

If the self is virtual, then why do you identify with it?

My feeling is that consciousness is mostly reliant on hardware. Maybe the stuff that makes us who we are- our experiences are the software but- if you get a virus in your software, it can f*ck up your hardware.

Maybe our own egos are a type of (software)virus, sucking up our energy, and causing internal stresses that end up damaging our physical bodies.(physical hardware).

Well what happens when the body is destroyed by the hands of another and all you have left is your mind and you are in constant pain. Who even has time to think about this stuff when they are in constant pain.

Maybe when you are in constant pain is the very time that you should be thinking of some of the above things, to maybe use it as a fuel to potentially get out of your suffering?

 

[Iamtired]

If the self is virtual, then why do you identify with it?


Maybe our own egos are a type of (software)virus, sucking up our energy, and causing internal stresses that end up damaging our physical bodies.(physical hardware).


Maybe when you are in constant pain is the very time that you should be thinking of some of the above things, to maybe use it as a fuel to potentially get out of your suffering?

I liked the post a lot but I'm in so much pain I wish I could even focus on it. When you are not well it's not always possible. I feel my life completely draining

 

[Tears in Rain]

I liked the post a lot but I'm in so much pain I wish I could even focus on it. When you are not well it's not always possible. I feel my life completely draining

I agree with what you're saying, it's hard to focus on anything when in pain.

To answer your question on another thread about consciousness, the type of consciousness you referred to, the personality, cannot be transferred to another body.
The consciousness referred to above, the consciousness mystics refer to, can transcend the individual body.

 

[Pluto]

Well what happens when the body is destroyed by the hands of another and all you have left is your mind and you are in constant pain. Who even has time to think about this stuff when they are in constant pain.

Believe it or not, I have a similar problem; in my case it's emotional distraught that manifests as non-stop physical discomfort.

The standard advice would say that the root problem is the inner resistance to reality as it is; an inner thought which seems to say, "This should not be happening; I don't want this." This is analogous to the 'second arrow'. But I think it would take a saint to actually live that way in the face of chronic pain; it is said that Sri Ramakrishna achieved this in his later years with throat cancer.

That said, the other day I had a massive upliftment in my experience just from listening to an Eckhart Tolle video about suffering. I can see why many people have had more permanent benefits from his work. There are still times when I am able to get into that space. I'm convinced that this is all true, though the tendency to sink back into identification is constant for most of us.

 

[Iamtired]

Believe it or not, I have a similar problem; in my case it's emotional distraught that manifests as non-stop physical discomfort.

The standard advice would say that the root problem is the inner resistance to reality as it is; an inner thought which seems to say, "This should not be happening; I don't want this." This is analogous to the 'second arrow'. But I think it would take a saint to actually live that way in the face of chronic pain; it is said that Sri Ramakrishna achieved this in his later years with throat cancer.

That said, the other day I had a massive upliftment in my experience just from listening to an Eckhart Tolle video about suffering. I can see why many people have had more permanent benefits from his work. There are still times when I am able to get into that space. I'm convinced that this is all true, though the tendency to sink back into identification is constant for most of us.

Oh I believe it. it was a dumb thing to say- why else would anyone be on this site. I was able to grasp some of it I just have a severely altered nervous system & wow I also am reading the power of now. My coach is having me read it. A new earth is also beautiful. Thank you for your insights

 

[Pluto]

It so happens I'm currently reading A New Earth for the first time in over a decade. There is definitely something to it (even if the mind will always protest that it doesn't understand it). I have known of people who had awakening or similar experiences through Eckhart's work alone. Others move on to more hardcore teachers like Angelo Dilullo. Please let me know if you have any other questions as at least I am well read on the topic.

 

[soulkitty]

 

[Pluto]

I'd been debating whether to write something about Ramana Maharshi's question, "Who Am I?" Now that this thread is back, there is permission to proceed.

Who was Ramana and why ask "Who Am I?"
Ramana Maharshi (commonly addressed as Bhagavan) was a 20th century Indian saint who spontaneously attained enlightenment in his youth. The purity of his state, and his lifetime of dedication to helping others, makes him a master among masters.

It is worth noting that his highest teaching was silent sitting; mature seekers were prone to having awakenings by merely being in his presence. Failing that, his most common verbal message was along the lines of, You are already the Self, You are consciousness.

If even that did not trigger a shift, the practical method of self-inquiry via the question "Who Am I?" was his teaching.

What is "Who Am I?" NOT?
It is important to start with what we are not talking about.

* A means of adopting a new belief system.
* A self-improvement hack to feel better.
* A self-help system to replace negative with positive thoughts.
* An attempt to have a spiritual experience.

What is special about asking "Who Am I?"
Every other question in existence directs attention to some sort of object outside of you. Let's look at some examples.

"Why was the Berlin Wall built?" directs attention to a history book.
"When is my appointment?" directs attention to a calendar.
"What did I have for breakfast this morning?" directs attention to past memories.

So, "Who Am I?" should be no different. It directs attention to the structure of childhood conditioning and memories that makes up the sense of identity. If asked, "Who are you?" you can talk about your story, your family, your profession or any groups you associate with.

Or, the question "Who Am I?" can turn attention to direct, immediate experience. It turns attention inward. It is a 'hack' in the sense that it takes the restless mind - which is forever in a cycle of misery, trying to use thought to solve the problem created by thought - and directs its attention to the one place that is normally avoided.

What is "Who Am I?" seeking to find?
Consciousness is the true Self. It must be there before any experience can manifest. Even the subtlest experiences, like deep sleep, require consciousness. Even the mightiest experiences, heaven and hell, require it. Thus, nothing else is worth discovering.

Despite this, it is easy to go for an entire lifetime without even wondering who or what is at the centre of experience; to ask who or what is actually looking out through your eyes right now, without reaching for a flimsy conceptual answer.

The mental habits are powerfully addictive, yet also the primary cause of suffering. Only with maturity is it clear that there is nothing of lasting value that can be attained in the world. The mind's game of seeking objects, relationships or experiences to feel better is a persistent fraud.

The question "Who Am I? seeks to destroy the false self at the centre of the mind's activity by exposing it as non-existent. By shining the light of attention on a place that is normally ignored, it becomes clearer what we are not. Everything that seemed real turns out to not be. The final answer takes the form of a revelation and a permanent shift in identity.

Ramana's Teachings.
A handy and to-the-point summary of Ramana's decades of teachings can be found in a booklet entitled, you guessed it, "Who Am I?"
I shall now conclude with a quote from this text.

10. How will the mind become quiescent?
By the inquiry 'Who am I?'. The thought 'who am I?' will destroy all other thoughts, and like the stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-realization.

11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought 'Who am I?'
When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, but should inquire: 'To whom do they arise?' It does not matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, one should inquire with diligence, "To whom has this thought arisen?". The answer that would emerge would be "To me". Thereupon if one inquires "Who am I?", the mind will go back to its source; and the thought that arose will become quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind will develop the skill to stay in its source. When the mind that is subtle goes out through the brain and the sense organs, the gross names and forms appear; when it stays in the heart, the names and forms disappear.

More from the great scholar David Godman: