Pluto
Meowing to go out
- Dec 27, 2020
- 3,932
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.
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.
Last edited: