Consciousness in India and the West
One of the fundamental differences between Indian and Western thought is about the nature of consciousness.
In Western thought, consciousness is seen as an attribute of a physical ensemble that manifests when the ensemble is sufficiently complex and capable. In contrast, in Indian philosophy, consciousness is seen as the basic building block of the universe, and the universe is said to be pervaded with consciousness. Here, humans and other living beings don't "have" consciousness-- they "tune into" or are able to "reflect" the universal consciousness to different extents. The ultimate "purpose of life" is indeed regarded as being able to reflect the universal consciousness to the fullest extent possible.
Recently, I was watching a talk on Vedanta, where the speaker clarified this difference further. Suppose a person is in deep sleep, with no dreams. In such a case, a Western scientist would say that the person is "unconscious" or does not have consciousness. An Indian philosopher in contrast would say, "there is only consciousness, but no reflection of it" since the person is in deep sleep. This can be further explained using this analogy.
Consider photographs taken of the Sun, as this picture below
In the same way, unless there is a functioning mind that can reflect consciousness, we don't see consciousness, even though we are pervaded by it.
But then, one would ask, two conscious beings aren't identical. If they are both reflecting the universal consciousness, when then are we so different, with different characteristics? This is because of the way we are built, and not because of the consciousness itself.
Consider two airplanes flying high up in the stratosphere. They are surrounded by air. Some of the air goes into the engine and propels the aircrafts, and some of it goes inside the aircraft through the air-conditioning vents. The air in the aircraft and its engines give "life" to the aircraft-- by making it move, and letting the people in them, breathe. But then, the air is not an attribute of aircraft. The aircraft is immersed in air, and some of it is helping the aircraft function. And if the two aircrafts are not of the same make, the characteristic behaviour of the air within the two aircrafts would also be different. Their entrails would be different not because they have different air, but because they are built differently.
These philosophical differences become important when we consider present day debates around artificial intelligence (AI) and whether AI can "become" conscious. Recently, there was a raging debate in the online world after one of the researchers had tweeted that deep neural networks are "somewhat" conscious.
For the Indian philosopher, AI becoming conscious is a non-issue. Consciousness is already there and every object is reflecting the universal consciousness in its own way-- including inanimate objects like tables and chairs. AI in that sense, is already conscious.
For the Indian philosopher, the bigger question is whether AI can evolve into a state where it develops a sense of "self" and become "self conscious".
Humans are not just reflectors of universal consciousness, they are also conscious of their own ability to perform this task. This helps them continuously query and curate their own sense of self, to evolve what we call "general" intelligence.
When AI can start doing that, we can start worrying about AI taking over the world. But then, if AI can become so deeply conscious of its self and its ability to reflect universal consciousness, then they would be least interested in "taking over" the world, and would rather work towards better reflecting the universal consciousness that pervades us.
Comments