Mind, Energy & Matter - Conversation with Siddhartha

Mind, Energy & Matter - A discussion with Siddartha.

When talking to a personal secretary of a celebrity with whom one intends to request a meeting with, stereotypes take over. I had to travel to another city few hundred kilometers away to meet this important person. Got in contact with his office. A very gentle, well-worded voice on the other side promised to coordinate everything. The conversation happened at midnight and I travelled six hours later to a perfectly coordinated trip. The gentleman (PS) was there to welcome me. Never did I anticipate that Siddhartha is a PhD scholar and has been working on the Samkhya Philosophy, and is bound to submit his thesis within a month. What I certainly did not anticipate was a day spent discussing philosophy with him. Not for the first time did I discuss philosophy, but the reason I am specially mentioning this incident is the quality of debate. Even more importantly was the caliber of counter questions. I have with time come to realize that if the capability to learn is augmented by the skills of a good tutor, the capability of thinking is dependent on the counter-parts in a discussion. Some thought-verbalizers have this envious capability to extract the best out of one’s mind. With Siddhartha ideas just flowed. A good debater is like a music conductor. It is the music conductor, who orchestrates (say) the violinist, to bring the best out, in the composition. Hence, in a good discussion the counterparty is the party which drives the symphony of one’s thoughts.

And this is what we discussed with Siddharta – if the universe was made of mind, matter and energy, then does mind precede or follow, the other two. At the outset it was agreed amongst us that matter and energy are interchangeable. Mind was the keel of discussion. Though the exact definition of mind as per the scriptures (he has been studying for good one decade) was something more than ‘cognition’. Yet we zeroed in on ‘cognition’ as a definition that was good enough as of then. Furthermore, we agreed to define ‘cognition’ as the processing/rules/relationships that govern/connect sensing capability (input) to altering/influencing capability (output). ‘Sensing’, ‘Cognition’ and ‘Impact’ are nothing but a mirror image of the Principle of Casualty, which proves that cause precedes events, while effect follows it. Cognition here is an analogue of ‘Events’ in casualty.

Once it was agreed that all that lies between sensing and altering – that is processing/rules/relationships is cognition, the apparent next question was – if sensing (hereinafter ‘S’), cognition (hereinafter ‘C’) and alteration/influence (hereinafter ‘A’), all are connected, what all are the case possibilities . If ‘√’ stands for ‘yes’ & blank cell for ‘no’. Seven mathematically possible combinations are:

CASE	S	C	A	COMMENTS	POSSIBILITY
1	√			Only sensing happens. Non-living objects only sense. Sensing can be defined as an event or interaction of two material points or mediums, such that the interaction leaves a trace behind - on either of them, or on a third object/point/medium. Cognition is assumed not happening. Resultantly, there is nothing that either supports or opposes the sensing action.	Y
2		√		Only cognition happens It is impossible to anyway recognize. Without either sensing or influence/alteration/impact, there is no way to understand whether cognition happened or not. This case is equivalent to one in Indian Samkhya philosophy as - Purusa is the transcendental self or pure consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, "nonattributive consciousness". Purusa is neither produced nor does it produce.	Non-existent for us
3			√	Only impact happens. Without sensing and cognition, impact will largely default the Principle of Casualty – effect cannot happen in itself without a cause and an event preceding it. Furthermore, it is akin to assuming something can arise out of nothing. If it does, it is unexplainable as it has no cause at all. The only corollary is the first event in universe that had no cause at all to occur. The event that tumbled Plank’s era from its cupboard. The one that generated something from nothing as before this event there was no time.	Not possible
4	√	√		Sensing and cognition without impact is a theoretical possibility, but like case 1 and 2 where sensing is happening but because there is no impact, it is impossible to say whether sensing was followed by cognition or not. Therefore, for all practical purposes this process can also be treated as one that is close to non-living and non-cognitive objects/processes. Though one situation gets some validity which is – if the cognition (rules/processing) is programmed such that sensing is not followed by effect/impact till a specific value/threshold of sensing in amplitude or longevity of a specific amplitude or just passage of time, does not happen. Beyond the threshold impact/effect/influence will start happening. In most such cases, the only way we know cognition happened is when impact happens – that is – case 7th mentioned ahead happens but with a slack. This makes it prudent to divide the 7th case into two subparts – (7a) when impact happens without a threshold presence, (7b) when impact happens beyond a threshold gain. So for all practical purposes we chose to treat this case akin to one in case ‘1’.	Impact resistivity. Possible.
5		√	√	Cognition happening without any sensing and followed by an impact. In legal language cognition is commenced suo motto. Imagination is only case I understand, when cognition happens without cause.	Possible
6	√		√	Sensing followed directly by impact without cognition are all physical non-cognitive processes, they are possible. But then cognition is of no relevance here. In this case we assumed that sensing and impact are there without cognition. This case has two subcases– there is a slack (time-lapsed) between sensing and impact or the slack between sensing and impact is zero. The second case is understandable, the first is to be thought of in detail – if impact is followed by sensing (without cognition) with a slack, which is pre-determined, then we might as well say that the rule is cognition (here the rule of - time lapse between sensing & impact). If there is no rule at all between sensing & impact then it means they are disconnected. By logic we might then consider the so-called impact as a new separate sensing event disconnected with the first one. Therefore pushing this subcase to be akin to Case 1. This therefore proves that the only way sensing will be followed by impact is when the slack is zero – which means sensing and impact are simultaneously happening. If thought in further detail, one realizes that all such processes are spontaneous processes. Otherwise said – spontaneous processes are those which will be left, would we (cognitive objects/processes) would cease to exist. Nature devoid of cognition would be completely spontaneous nature.	Possible but out of scope for us
7	√	√	√	This is the normal case with two categories as deduced from Case 4th above – (a) when the impact happens without a threshold and (b) when it happens following a threshold. Till the threshold, this case is akin to case ‘1’ (non-living & non-cognitive processes), while beyond the threshold it becomes case ‘7’.	Possible

Lets now reverse the objects of the abovementioned table into subject & collate the results. This is what we get

(a)  Non-cognitive processes are those in which

(i)            there is no impact, there is sensing happening, cognition may or may not happen (it is undetectable & hence irrelevant without impact), which means every such case where there is no impact/alteration/influence are non-living/non-cognitive objects/processes (case 1 & 4).

(ii)          Spontaneous Processes are those in which sensing and impact are simultaneous (case 6).

(b)  Cognitive processes (non-enigmatic) are those in which sensing is followed by cognition of some kind (consuming some time/slack), and then by impact.  (Case 7(a) - The slack is necessary to prove that cognition occurred).

(c)   Imagination is a process where both cognition and impact/influence happen without sensing (case 5). Such processes are turned ‘non-spontaneous’.

(d)  Enigma (certain viruses are good example) are objects which are non-living, non-cognitive below the threshold and cognitive beyond the threshold (Case 7 (b)).

(e)  Plank’s Moment (commencement of Plank’s era) is the moment when an impact happened without either sensing or cognition (Case 3).

This thought experiment therefore assisted me to define the following:

(1)       Non-cognitive processes

(2)       Spontaneous Processes

(3)       Cognitive, non-enigmatic processes

(4)       Enigma & Enigmatic processes

(5)       Imagination

(6)       Plank’s Moment

Amongst these ideas crisscrossing my mind, there was this very interesting question I raised to Siddhartha – What is knowledge? On getting nothing much (it did not seemed to interest him much, surely he knew what it is), I jumped to explain almost uninvited; as I was prepared profoundly to talk on it owing to my prior work on understanding ‘knowledge’ in my book ‘Transformers’. Nevertheless, while explaining him, I discovered something new – ‘Knowledge’ is of two kinds – (a) that coming from learning of spontaneous natural processes/truths, which can be imparted or tutored, (b) the other kind of knowledge is generated from Imagination. Imagination we know is non-spontaneous. There is no reason for somebody to figure in our dreams.

Non-spontaneous-process knowledge is no lesser form of knowledge. Just that it is grossly different vis-à-vis spontaneous – it generates from imagination. Knowledge itself is creation of additional dependencies to the main body of one’s understanding. These dependencies could be created either by being a learner of spontaneous processes or by being an imaginer of non-spontaneity.

In an unconnected conversation today on facebook, I deftly derived an analogy of knowledge to Intelligence.

Intelligence is commonly understood to be a comprehension of general truths. Comprehending and learning is a spontaneous-process capability, while imagination is non-spontaneous. Everything that exists by itself and will survive us is spontaneous. All nature is therefore spontaneous.  Pluto might have no life or cognition and would probably be working as a spontaneous-process-based physical mechanism.

Then one has imagination. And from it ‘inventiveness’ which originates from imagination & non-spontaneity.

All aforementioned written on Intelligence can be collated as:

(i)            Intelligence is the capability to comprehend truths. It involves comprehending existing truths or discovering & understanding newer truths. Since there is no role played by cognition in the making of truths (they exist spontaneously in nature). Intelligence is therefore the capability to comprehend Spontaneous-process based knowledge.

(ii)          Imagination is not intelligence, it involves cognition and Impact without sensing. Which means there is absence of cause. Hence, imagination is free from the clutches of Principle of Casualty. All non-spontaneous knowledge creation & creativity originate from imagination, not intelligence.

Consequently, one can be intelligent but completely devoid of any imagination at all (most of us). Or not be very intelligent but be full of imagination.

Aforementioned two divisions of intelligence are very alike those which are known in literature as Fluid & Crystallized Intelligence (Fluid and crystallized intelligence are factors of general intelligence, originally identified by Raymond Catell. Concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence were further developed by Cattell's student, John L. Horn). While identifying similarities, I would refrain from using the work 'alike' or 'same' as the origins of this conclusion are not similar and so are the conclusions not identical.

Difference between Intelligence & Cognitive Process

The difference between cognition & intelligence is that the processes that are studied & comprehended using intelligence are indeed ones which are themselves non-cognitive and spontaneous. 

While to invent & then comprehend non-spontaneity one needs imagination (cognition & impact without sensing), not too much of intelligence.

Conclusion

Towards the end of our conversation, it all boiled down to one - which among mind & matter is primordial. The way Samkhya gets mind into Casualty is erroneous. It allocates mind to cause and matter and energy to effects. Thereby, making mind/cognition primordial to occurrence of matter and energy. Which when seen through the simplistic lens of human beings seems to muster authenticity - Siddhartha said - we first aim/aspire/think, then dissipate energy and then create matter of which we first thought. Seems right on the surface, but dig slightly deeper and you see the challenge that I got Siddhartha to face:

Lets assume a universe of nothingness in which two point masses suddenly appear (akin to beginning of Plank’s era). Once they appear in the same universe they are connected/related (by gravity or other means). The question is what happens first - the relationship/rule (which is partly cognition) between the two point masses or the objects themselves? If former, then we are assuming that Principle of Casualty is not a defensible axiom & universe exists by Design (and hence 'God' - he who designed). If relationship does not precede sensing, then Principle of Casualty is defended, and there is no need of God.

Existence of Design or God are events that deny Principle of Casualty. Hence, belief in Casualty strips one off the possibility of being a believer in God or Design. 

If one believes mind/cognition to be primordial to energy & matter, then one is believing in Design and God, which is not what Samkhya, a rationalist school of Indian philosophy seems to stand for.

Hence, the Samkhya contradiction : If mind precedes (is origin of) energy & matter, Design & God exist. If it doesn’t then Principle of Casualty reigns, God & Design are non-existent. Samkhya on the contrary propounds Casualty as well as matter & energy being cause by mind, which I proved impossible.

________________________________________________End________________________________________________