English Poem - "Fragrance stays" - a poem to my daddy

11 years ago, this day, I lost him. This poem is dedicated to him.

Fragrances stay, though he is gone.

I smell him so often at dusk and dawn.

I smell him in the milk and the burfi and jalebi,

I smell him in bhallas, in kheer, the ganga? yes, may be.

And now I smell him in me.

The smell that took me to my childhood in a flash flight.

That 'only-his' smell of body in sweaty summer night,

When frightened by a scary movie,

For months I could not sleep,

Scared that the ghosts in my bed shall creep

for months I slept wrapped in his mighty arms,

Sheltered from the vampire and all her charms.

His everlasting absence is a fact I can't resist,

Yes, he is gone but his fragrances persist.

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________________________________________________

Examinee, the Examiner.

A few years ago, while working with my six year old school-going son I had stumbled over an idea and had indeed registered a domain name ('Intellitute') to implement it. Nonetheless, I subsequently decided to call it off for the fear of loosing focus on a mammoth task, I had already set myself for. The idea, then relevant, is today apparent. And I wish someone takes up this opportunity to execute such an idea. I do not intend to pursue any financial gains from its implementation and would only require that whosoever executes the idea partially or fully, credits this blog/author for it on his product.

It is common for parents to help their children in understanding lessons in science or literature. We were no different. Once playfully, I proposed my son to set a test for me in order to compensate for him having to take tests constantly. Bang came the discovery - the lessons for which he tested me, were better and more in-depth studied and understood by him than those in which I tested him. When I carefully applied my mind it seemed logical - in a bid to trip me off, he ensured to set a test which was according to him exceptionally difficult. To set an exceptionally difficult test, rather than to answer it, one needs to know the lesson exceptionally well & in-depth. I repeated the experiment a few times and discovered a lucid pattern - the knowledge of my son in a topic of his liking would be further strengthened by getting him to invest in creation of a test, rather than taking one.

AI (Artificial Intelligence), BIG DATA Analysis, NLS (Natural Language processing) have all progressed fast enough to ensure that examinations can be personal rather than being set commonly for all the children of a nation (as it is now).

The idea is - ideal assessment should entail setting up of an examination (question paper) by an examinee first. An AI Engine can be built to scrutinize & evaluate the questions set by the students. Indeed, one can use various students to do the rating at the first instance even if the complexity of the question is not adjudged by an algorithm.

After substantial participation there will be an unimaginably large data bank of questions that can be ranked by the Engine. The Engine will then sort, shuffle and present back the questions set by students themselves ensuring that none of the questions that are set by the student appear back to him. The student would be examined for both his exam setting capabilities vis-a-vis others as also his answering capabilities. A question bank could always be made available to the AI Engine in case of mass collaboration in exam setting.

In learning, I also contemplated that every lesson provided audio-visually should have the capability of clearing doubts, inserted through chats, the AI Engine could very quickly learn all possible doubts about every lesson and have various approaches created and ranked on how best to clear a specific doubt of a specific type of student (depending on historical/prior success of clearing doubts). Every lesson would be followed by a testing & test-taking exercise. 

An AI Engine will not only be able to provide absolute and relative ranking/grades but would also be able to assess much better - special abilities in students. In talent assessment in most academic fields an AI Engine can trip off any human teacher.

AI Engine could provide the flexibility of letting students to dwell as deep as they desire, setting only the minimum limit of knowledge that a specific age student needs to know.

All lessons & the learning-output of students should be evaluated on the basis of DNSEA a methodology for description and quality-ranking, that I propounded in my work/book titled "Invention of Description" [ASIN: B072S1CT47 on Amazon Kindle]

This I believe will set a new paradigm in the field of education, which will allow more ability & knowledge in skill-building & competency-enhancing rather than being too general in nature, as is currently prevalent. The approach is all the more important as humankind shifts from degrees and diplomas to skills. And as self learning is becoming common (owing to an exponential rise in average human capabilities and information awareness) high quality assessment will be the key indicator, not tutoring. And it is a proven fact. IIT-JEE or other Entrance Exams are completely neutral to the school one has studied from. A student might have never gone to a formal school and may have accomplished education from open school. Yet if he/she surpass others they are admitted into university. Similar shall be the parameters for getting-good-jobs or excelling in future. 

The approach may be preferred by some and abhorred by others, but as I see it, it is an inevitable consequence for human progress to continue with a gusto that has been associated with last few decades.

... by Deepak Loomba

Letter of Gratitude from HAQ Centre for Child Rights

My badge of honour:

Consciousness, Evolution & Artificial Intelligence

Author Deepak Loomba

Excerpts from my Book 'Transformers' [ISBN 1514861240]
All information given below is proprietary and no party other than author can reproduce this information in any publication - private or public.

Multidimensional Structure Dependency Matrix & Knowledge, Consciousness, Evolution, Reproduction, Culture, Resources, Quality

Consciousness

Philosophically, consciousness has been constrained within the mythical and the religious for times immemorial. I have tried interpreting and defining consciousness in the context of assistance/consumption (give & take). 'Consciousness’ has its origin in the same assistance/consumption paradigm. We often consider non-living things to be devoid of consciousness and human consciousness being higher than animal or plant consciousness. When someone knocks off or collapses, we describe him as being unconscious. What is this ‘consciousness’ or ‘Chetna’ (Hindi) or ‘soznaniya’ (Russian)?

‘Consciousness’ is the capability to interpret changes, that is - sense and influence/alter or intent to influence/alter one’s internal and external environment/ambience for various reasons but with at least one of the below mentioned three aims being ubiquitously there:

(i)             survival of oneself or

(ii)      to resist one’s de-classification as a resource or

(iii)     survival of the ‘capability to interpret’ in those cases where survival of oneself is not possible for whatsoever reasons.

‘One’ here stands for any living or non-living object or phenomenon or a group of them both. ‘Ubiquitous’ means present at every moment & place while one is in the conscious state. ‘External’ means everything that essentially requires one or more of sensory organs (incl. but not restricted to the five known senses) and originates from beyond “one’s” physical limits. ‘Internal’ means that which does not require inputs from the sensory organs.

Those states of ‘one’ when one possesses capability to either only sense or only influence/alter, either only internally or only externally does not accomplish the phenomenon of ‘interpretation’ and is therefore not consciousness. Hence, deep sleep, is not a conscious state because, while sensing is available - both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (we do wake up on touch or noise), ‘influencing/altering’ is only ‘internal’ not ‘external’. Even if one is sleep walking the conditions are not fulfilled, because there is no ‘intent’ to perceive the external stimuli.

“Enhancement in the capability of interpreting, by sensing and influencing/altering, more and more number of changes in internal & external environs, leads to higher consciousness. Therefore, besides use of gadgets, there could be either discovery or evolution of newer senses as we address newer and newer challenges that recognition of more and more changes bring.”

The definition of consciousness is a discovery, not a derivation. I credit this discovery to Richard Dawkins. In one of the youtube videos of a panel discussion and narration of stories in science by nine panelists, Dawkins being one of them, “what is consciousness?” was proposed as one of the spontaneous queries for mankind which need to be answered. It so happened that I was editing the section on ‘Power’ in this book. The question got me thinking on the subject and resulted into the discovery of this chapter on Consciousness, Evolution and their link to other topics of this book like MDSM, Knowledge, Reproduction and Culture etc.

I have tried using the aforementioned definition in all possible situations and have failed to encounter cases, which do not satisfy it. Plants sense sunlight and bend towards (hence, alter) it to survive. Similarly, human consciousness increases with age, as the capability to interpret (sense & influence) changes in internal and external environs increases with enhancement of knowledge & memory. The capability to interpret (sense & influence) changes manifests not only in an individual being/object/thing but also in a group of beings/objects/things, where sensing & influencing could be done collectively. This is what happens in human societies and companies. In consequence, I bore the concept of Social or Corporate Consciousness, which is the capability of a group of people in a society or a Company to collectively interpret (sense and influence) changes in their internal and external environs. Better the capability, higher the consciousness.

Do robots & machines that sense & influence possess consciousness? According to my definition usually ‘no’. The reason is the last criticality in definition of consciousness, which is “with an aim of either (i) survival of oneself or (ii) to resist one’s de-classification as a resource (‘resources’ have been elaborated in next pages) or (iii) survival of the ‘capability to interpret’ in those cases where survival of oneself is not possible for whatsoever reasons”. Most machines are purposed to serve humans. Self-preservation is never the overriding purpose of existence of machines & robots. Hence, they are not imparted the capability of self-improvement through enhancement of their sensing and influencing capabilities. The first robot/machine, which is imparted overriding capability (superseding priority) to save himself or his ‘capability to interpret changes in internal or external environs, will be bestowed with consciousness.

Evolution

Evolution is the process of enhancement of consciousness (as defined above). Otherwise said, the higher the capability to sense & influence (interpret) changes in internal & external environment, the higher the consciousness of an individual or a group, the better  and hence more evolved shall it be.

Evolution & Quality, Resources

I defined resources as those that are constrained in supply in context of (a) Quantity or Dimensions, (b) Properties, (c) Location, (d) Ownership. Concurrently, I defined the sufficiency conditions for quality description as assessment & determination of changes in dimensions, properties, location and ownership, to enable resistance to de-classification as resources, of tangibles and intangibles. These four (‘a‘ to ‘d’) are nothing but four generic categories of changes. Therefore, I conclude that evolution is the enhancement in the capability (consciousness) of an individual or group to sense & influence (interpret) more and more number of four types of aforementioned changes (‘a’ to ‘d’) in their internal and external environs. From the quality view-point, evolution of a product or service is better elaboration of sufficiency conditions.

Evolution & Reproduction, Culture

The higher the consciousness the more evolved is the individual or a group. It is important to note that ‘consciousness’ is a capability and hence when ‘conscious’ object/being/groups fail to survive themselves, they bid to save/survive at least the ‘capability to interpret’.

Reproduction is a genetically coded process of survival (through transmission) of the ‘consciousness’ or ‘capability to sense & influence (interpret)’ all the four types of changes in the internal and external environs of objects/beings/groups.

Culture is a memetically coded process of survival (through transmission) of the ‘consciousness’ or ‘capability to sense & influence (interpret)’ all the four types of changes in the internal and external environs of objects/beings/groups.

Evolution & MDSM, Knowledge

Two important facts are revealed about MDSM ((Multi-dimensional Dependency structure matrix) ) - (i) MDSM is a relationship of all variables (changes) in an object/being/process/phenomenon, (ii) an MSDM is nothing but structured knowledge. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that (a) more elaborate the MDSM, the more is the knowledge & more evolved is the product. This indeed is how knowledge gets linked up with Evolution.

The links amongst various elements are exhibited in the graphical representation below.

The purpose of this link up is to exhibit, why higher consumption/assistance or connectivity amongst various elements/people will lead to higher number of change dependencies, the higher is the understanding of changes, the better is consciousness; the more is consciousness the higher is evolution. At the same time getting more elaborate understanding of sufficiency conditions of changes in quality description, recognition/discovery of a larger number of variables/changes in MDSM is more knowledge and will result into evolution of people/objects/products/phenomena.

.....................END OF SECTION.....................

This written material section is property of Deepak Loomba, the author of the book 'Transformers'.
Kindly do not reproduce without permission.