Perception theory in India and the West

In the last post, we saw how the concept of consciousness has some fundamental differences between Indian thought, and Western thought that is now the mainstream method of scientific inquiry. 

In this post, let us look at how the concept of perception, or our interaction with the world outside, is modelled in Indian thought and in Western science. 

In Cognitive Science today, perception is defined as the process by which we segment raw signals received by our sense organs into semantic objects and relationships between them. Sometimes, perception is distinguished from cognition in the following way: perception is a recognition process where we identify objects and relationships, while cognition is a process of sense making where we try to interpret what we have perceived. 

For example, suppose we see something like the following picture: 

Image Source: Google image search

Our perception mechanism recognises a dog in the picture, standing up behind a fence, and looking somewhat sad. Our cognition mechanism provides one or more explanations or interpretations for what we have seen-- maybe the dog waiting for its owner, maybe it is calling for help, maybe it is abused, or maybe it is just missing its friend on the other side of the fence, and so on. 

Cognition is greatly influenced by our mental model, which in turn is influenced by our emotional state. If we are in an angry or sad emotional state, we are much more likely to value negative interpretations, and if we are in a happy mental state, we are much more likely to value positive interpretations. (The reality of course, may be independent of our emotional state). 

Perception is also aided by our attention mechanism-- which decides which signal to keep among the several raw signals that are coming in. Attention attenuates most of the raw signals, and focuses the perception to segment only that part of the signal on which, we are paying attention to. 

*~*~*~*~*

Let us now turn to how perception is understood in Indian philosophy. 

In Indian philosophy, the essence of our being is pure awareness-- called by different names in different contexts. The awareness that is us, uses our mind-body complex to interact with the world around us (called Prakriti).

Our mind is said to cast a field of perception around us. This field of perception experiences a disturbance or "whorl" (called Vritti) either through external or internal stimuli. For instance, if an object comes into our field of vision, it forms a Vritti in our minds. 

Vrittis can also be caused by internal stimuli-- from our memories. Be it external or internal, the mind experiences a whorl which is the beginning of the perception process. Note that, there is no specific mention of sense organs or the different kinds of signals (vision, speech, touch, etc.) Vrittis are considered to be "multi-modal" in nature. A stimuli on our mind's field creates whorls that have all sense components-- vision, sound, emotion, touch, etc. This holistic unit of signal (that is called a "chunk" in Cognitive Science) is the fundamental building block. Raw signals of a particular type-- like vision, sound, etc. are just components of the holistic signal, which by themselves have no meaning. 

Vrittis are also called avidya (non-knowledge). It is only when they are interpreted by our awareness, can Vrittis be converted to knowledge. 

There are multiple models of how Vrittis are interpreted. But all of them agree that the interpretation of Vrittis depends on the "modulation" of our mind. The Upanishads mention five forms of modulations for our mind: Pramana, Viparyaya, Vikalpa, Smriti, and Nidra. 

In a Pramana state of mind, we are in a state of inquiry-- we want to explore, examine, ask questions, etc. In Viparyaya, we are in a distracted frame of mind-- we cannot decide which of the whorls to focus upon, and keep switching contexts. In Vikalpa, our mind is in a deluded state-- it has already decided the interpretation, and tries to cherry-pick for confirming signals from the different Vrittis. In Smriti, we are in a state of nostalgia or reminiscence-- every Vritti is interpreted for what it reminds us of from our episodic memories. And in the state of Nidra, we are asleep-- and ignore all the Vrittis. 

Patanjali's Yoga Sutra proposes another model mentioning the following five modes of our mind: Mudha, Kshipta, Vikshipta, Ekagra, and Nirudha. 

Image Source: Google image search

The above slide explains the five modulations of mind, each of which, affects the way in which we interpret our Vrittis. 

Note that Vrittis can be formed from internal stimuli as well-- from our memories. By "memory" what we mean is some cognitive element that is stored in our minds-- not necessarily an exact replica of a past event. Memories in the human mind are not passive data banks, they are active, autonomous units, that can generate Vrittis in our minds, leading to downstream mental (and even physical) activity. 

Memory elements that are repeatedly encountered, and which become deeply embedded in our minds, are called Samskara. These refer to hermeneutic elements that drive our thinking and interpretation. We are most often, not even aware of our Samskara and how it may be affecting or even biasing the way we interpret our world. 

For the mind, there is only a theoretical knowledge that distinguishes between internally induced and externally induced Vrittis. If this knowledge signal is weak, or the Vrittis are too strong, the mind may be unable to determine whether this Vritti is being caused by something external or internal. This often happens in a state of trauma or paranoia, where a person be experiencing real pain within, from internally induced Vrittis, even though there is no external stimuli. 

The more deep-rooted such memories are, the tougher it is to recognise them and remove them from our memories. 

Similarly, dreams are made from internally induced Vrittis. In a state of dream, the mind feels that the dream is as real as the real thing. As the Upanishads say: Dreams are real as long as they last-- so is life. 

Yoga psychology - 3: Consciousness and Witness

In the third post in this series on Yoga Psychology, let us visit some of the core concepts of our sense of self and understand some of its nuances. The concepts presented here are not directly from Yoga Sutras. They stem from Vedanta, which in turn form the basis for the psychology of Yoga. 

In the first post in this series, we saw how our "sense of self" as an entity is different from our body, thoughts, emotions, and even our hard-coded genetic "nature". We can talk about all of them as if they were objects of inquiry while we, or our "self", is the inquirer. 

One of the postulates of Vedanta is that our sense of "Self" can never be the object of inquiry. It is always the inquirer. Just like the eyes can't see themselves, the "Self" cannot see itself. Our eyes can however, see an image of themselves (say in a mirror or a photograph) and realise that this image represents the very eyes which are doing the seeing. 

Similarly, we cannot "see" our self-- but we can become "conscious" of its existence. We become conscious of our self when we detach our sense of self from our body, mind, thoughts, emotions, nature, etc. 

Earlier, we also said that the universe is but an all-pervading consciousness. But now we are saying that the consciousness is not our "self" itself. Consciousness can make us aware of something. It is consciousness that makes us aware of objects in our vicinity. When consciousness is focused on some element of our surroundings, to the exclusion of others, it is called attention. When we become conscious of our thoughts, we enter into a state of meta-cognition, which helps us become aware of our own thinking. When we become conscious of our emotions, we become "mindful" and aware of how we are being driven by our emotions. 

In Vedanta, consciousness and our sense of self are distinguished from one another. Consciousness is called chitta, while the self is called the "witness" or sakshi. When we become aware of our "witness" we are indeed our own witness. Hence the witness cannot inquire about itself directly as it inquires about the world outside. It has to inquire about itself indirectly-- via our consciousness or chitta. The self needs to "project" some part of itself on the consciousness and witness the reflection it creates in the consciousness. 

Because of this, our reflection in our consciousness needs to be "clear". It cannot be smudged by our emotions, thoughts and delusions. A large part of Yoga psychology is geared towards how to make our consciousness clear, so that our self can reflect itself. 

*~*~*~*~*

We now turn to other nuanced differences between Vedantic models and how modern science views these concepts. 

In modern science, consciousness is seen as something that emerges from the physical interactions of neurons in the brain. In contrast, in the Vedantic models, our brain (and body) can only "tune" into consciousness that is already all pervasive. Consciousness that lead to present-day science and mathematics existed during the time of dinosaurs too-- except that their brains couldn't tune into it. Consciousness exists on Mars and Jupiter too-- except, no physical device exists that can tune into it there and make an impact. We don't "invent" mathematics we "discover" mathematics from the consciousness that is already there. Any machinery that can discover mathematical truths on Earth, can also discover these truths on Mars or Jupiter, if it can only physically sustain itself. 

Hence, according to Vedanta, conscious AI (or what might be termed AGI or Artificial General Intelligence) is very much possible-- if only we can figure out the logic for tuning into the all-pervasive consciousness. 

Because in modern science, consciousness is seen as an emergent property of neural interactions, it is considered that when we are in deep sleep, we have no consciousness. This is another point where Vedanta differs from modern science. In Vedantic models, when we are in deep sleep, we have no witness, but all we have is consciousness. Even in deep sleep, our body and mind are kept alive by our consciousness-- but because there is no one to "witness" it, there is "no one" to be aware of what is happening. 

The "witness" is so important to our existence that, without the witness, our consciousness cannot take decisions and keep us functioning for long. If the "witness" is away for too long, we may never wake up from our sleep. 

Samkhya philosophy of Vedanta proposes a complete model of universal reality based on this duality between consciousness and witness. It is called Prakriti and Purusha. Prakriti refers to existential reality of the physical universe that functions by the laws of physics. Purusha refers to the eternal reality of the universal Self or universal truths whose presence is critical for Prakriti to keep functioning. 

*~*~*~*~*~*

Coming back to Yoga psychology-- we had earlier noted that Yoga means "to unite" or "forge" or "harmonize". The ultimate goal of Yoga is to harmonise our consciousness with our witness. Our consciousness is our driving force, while the witness is our driver. Our driving force is very powerful and autonomous-- in other words, it is an extremely advanced form of machinery-- not seen so far in the machines that we have built. And as is with any advanced machinery, configuring it to function properly (in this case, to harmonise with the witness) is not an easy job. 

Hence, the need for a complete philosophy of Yoga.

Yoga psychology - 2: Gunas

In the previous post in this series, we saw how our "sense of self" is different from our body, thought, emotions, and even our hard-coded emotional disposition. We can separate ourselves from all of them and inquire about them as if they were separate objects. 

We also introduced the model of universal consciousness that is central to Indian thought, and that our self is very much this all-pervasive universal consciousness. 

We also talked about "identity" and how our existential self (somewhat analogous to the "Ego" of Freudian model), called our "jivatma" has a lot of energy and cannot but identify with something or the other. A "enlightened" person would hence, manage this energy and carefully curate the set of identity objects to which it would attach to. 

In this post, we will talk about the "states of being" of our existential self and what does it take to curate its identity. 

The Mandukya upanishad talks about the story of "two golden birds perched on the self-same tree". It starts thus: 

We are made of "two golden birds" who are "inseparable companions" perched on the same tree. The jivatma or the individual self actively engages with the world outside. It wants to experience life and taste the fruits. The jivatma is the doer and the experiencer. Behind this golden bird is the universal self or the awareness, also called the "atmasakshi" (sometimes translated as "conscience") which is our own witness. 

This is a fundamental postulate of Indian philosophy, that we are our own witness-- and we can be both the subject (the inquirer) and the object of inquiry. 

The story goes on to narrate how the jivatma is tethered to the atmasakshi-- its inseparable companion. The more it tries to fly away, the more it comes back to rest in the universal self. 

A deluded jivatma fights its tethers and wants "freedom" from its own inseparable companion. But an "enlightened" jivatma does not consider this a state of bondage, to be tethered to the universal self-- instead, it realizes that all its awareness comes from the universal self, and actively seeks its guidance to engage with the world outside. 

*~*~*~*~*

The jivatma may be deluded because it is in a "state of being" where it is unable to listen to or tune into the universal self. Swami Vivekananda gives the analogy of a lake at the base of which, lies a precious gem. But often, the waters of the lake are turbulent, or turbid, which masks our view of the gem residing underneath. It is only when the waters are calm and clear, is the gem visible. 

The turbulence and turbidity in the lake refers to the state of being of the jivatma. Broadly our individual self can be in three different classes or states of being, which are called: tamas, rajas and sattva respectively. These are called our gunas.

Before we explain the gunas, let us connect them with analogous concepts from Cognitive Science, so we can understand them better. Cognitive Science today, classifies our emotional state into two broad classes based on their "arity". These are the so-called "negative" and "positive" emotions respectively. 

An emotional state is a "psychosomatic characterization" of our being. What this means is that an emotional state, "primes" our body and mind, for a specific class of responses. The same stimulus can elicit different kinds of responses, based on the emotional state that we are in. 

For instance, suppose we are in a state of fear after seeing some dreadful news trend on social media, and we are walking alone in the darkness. A stranger suddenly starts approaching us. Our immediate response would be driven by this fear, and prompt us to avoid, flee or make ourselves defensive. On the other hand, suppose we are walking alone in the darkness after we come out from a party and celebration, where we had a great time with friends. In this case, we are much less likely to feel threatened by a stranger approaching us, and would more likely believe that the stranger is lost and may be asking for directions, or some such. 

"Negative" emotions like fear, sadness, anger, etc. primes our body and mind to disengage from the world, while "positive" emotions like joy, pleasure, happiness, etc. primes our body to engage with the world. In a negative state of mind, we build defenses, we disengage, we are distrustful, we avoid interactions, we are stingy, we are risk averse, and so on. While in a positive state of mind, we are proactive, generous, trustful, assertive, willing to take risks, and so on. 

*~*~*~*~*

The state of tamas pertains to a state of being where we seek to disengage from the world. It is characterized by lethargy, lack of motivation, sluggish behavior and so on. The state of rajas seeks to actively engage with the external world. In a rajasic state, we are assertive, expressive, feel entitled, full of energy, and so on. As we can see, the tamasic and rajasic states roughly correspond to negative and positive emotional states, respectively. 

The sattvic state of being is where the mind is optimally tuned to awareness. It seeks to neither disengage from the world, nor to proactively engage with it. A sattvic state is where one is guided by awareness, rather than by emotion. 

Often, we come across moral posturing that calls sattvic state of being as "higher" and rajas as tamas as lower down in some of a cosmic, spirit hierarchy. This kind of moral posturing, in my opinion, only makes our mind's lake turbid and takes us away from really understanding these gunas. The moment something is regarded "holier" than something else, we get questions like, why did "God" create the less holy things, and so on. 

Note the copious absence of terms like "God", "Almighty", or any discourses on morality from the description of Yoga psychology. We are talking about consciousness, and positing that consciousness is something that is beyond our body, mind and emotions-- including intuition. This is a very specific postulate that forms the core of Indian worldview-- that there exists a universal consciousness that is the universe, and that is what gives us our sense of awareness. And that the core of our self is this universal consciousness that unbounded and eternal. 

Someone who claims to be in a sattvic state of mind all the time is either fully enlightened (in which case, others would be saying this about them-- not they themselves), or is telling a lie. A sattvic state of mind is very resource intensive. To be acutely aware and direct that awareness at will, requires a lot of energy and control. This is where the other states of being become important. 

A tamasic state of being is what we would typically experience on a lazy weekend. We need this "laziness" to recharge ourselves and bring some succor. This is when our mind and body relaxes, and our long-term (or subconscious) memory takes over and processes all that we have experienced. We need the tamasic state to prevent ourselves from burning out, and learn from our experiences. Disengagement from the world, is a fundamental survival instinct. Nothing "less holy" about it. 

Similarly, we need passion, drive and gumption to make an impact in the world outside. All these are part of the rajas guna. We need the rajas to bring enthusiasm and joy, and the drive to make things happen. 

However, tamas and rajas that are not guided by awareness, can get into an uncontrollable intensity, where they take our mind into a state of trauma. An uncontrolled tamasic state where we cannot come out of our urge to disengage from the world, leads to depression, suicidal thoughts, anger, frustration, and so on. Similarly, an uncontrolled rajasic state where we cannot control our urges to express and experience, leads to indulgence, lack of empathy, addiction, vice, and even psychopathic behavior. 

One who is guided by awareness, knows how much and when to engage and disengage with the world. Both tamasic and rajasic states of being are important aspects of our being-- and their optimal orchestration comes from a sattvic state of being. 

Yoga Psychology - 1: Self and unity

Over the last several years, I have had a growing interest in Cognitive Science and models of the mind. A chance encounter with some learned scholars, lead me to rediscovering the roots of Indian thought through a completely different hermeneutic framework from the machine hermeneutics that we study in school. I have documented my thoughts in several different ways-- Facebook posts, a series of posts on this blog with the label "Theory of Being", and a self-published Kindle book by the same name. My dream is to recreate a full-fledged theory of complex systems based on the theory of "being" with tools and methodologies to implement them in practice. 

More recently, I stumbled onto the theory of Yoga-- a practice spanning over several centuries, and which was documented and formalised by Maharshi Patanjali who is thought to have lived sometime between 7th to 2nd century BCE. This post is part of a series on my understanding of the human psyche based on the theory of Yoga. 

We start this series with the first post trying to understand the core of our existence through Yoga psychology. 

One of the fundamental things that Yoga psychology teaches us is that our body, mind, emotions, including our emotional dispositions hard-coded in our genes, are objective to our existence. We can separate them from our "self" and inquire into them as if it were an independent object. We can talk about our body as if it is something different from us; we can talk about our thoughts, beliefs and even prejudices as if they were different from us; we can even engage with our emotional dispositions and for example, say things like, "I am nervous by nature, and know why this is hard-coded into me and what evolution is trying to tell me, and I have also learned how to manage this nervousness"-- going on to show that, "my nervous nature" is something different from "me." 

Ordinarily, we "identify" with a lot of things-- including our body, thoughts, emotions, etc. This means that our "self" attaches itself to these objects, and acts as if it were these objects. When we identify with our body, we act as if we are our bodies. When we identify with our thoughts, we act as if we are our thoughts. Hence, when someone strongly identifies with an idea, like say, their gender, their nationality, their race, their ethnicity, etc. they act as if they are that object. Any reference by anyone to that object, is construed as a reference to them. Hence for example, if someone strongly identifies with their assigned gender, and say someone else rejects a gendered approach to life, it is construed as a rejection of their person. People with a strong sense of identity, actively work for the interest of their object of identity, expend time, energy and other costs to defend it from perceived threats, and do not ask what benefit they are getting from this association. 

Identifying with something is hence, fundamentally different from rational association. Rational associations are based on expected benefit versus cost. But identity is something that is beyond considerations of benefit and cost. We are what we identify with. 

Much of the upheavals-- both positive breakthroughs and human-induced disasters, in the world have been due to some core set of people strongly identifying with an idea. The passionate curiosity of Marie Curie led to the discovery of Radium and also radio-activity, when her discovery ultimately ended up killing her. Similarly, it is the passionate bigot who "becomes" her/his prejudice that create enormous conflict and crises. 

Curating our identity is hence a very fundamental and deeply important activity. We have a lot of "self-energy" (if there is such a term) within us, and we cannot but identify with something or the other, through our lives. We need to be very careful in choosing what we identify with-- what is that idea that we let become a part of who we are. Because, this is going to have irreversible consequences. 

The psychology of Yoga tells us something very deeply profound-- that our "self" is different from all the ideas and emotions that we possess, as well as our physical bodies. Yoga sutras teach us to objectively inquire into our body, thoughts and emotion by first disassociating from all of them. 

So, if we are not our body, nor our thoughts, nor our emotions, and not even our "nature", who are we then?  What is this "self" that is us? If we de-identify from everything-- from our bodies, our thoughts, our families, our countries, our genders, our communities-- what remains? Who are we? 

Indian thought has long since asked this question-- who or what is this "self" that is attaching itself to objects and driving our lives? The Upanishads in particular have long debates and discussions about the nature of our selves. 

Indian thought has long since maintained that the core essence of the universe is an all pervasive "consciousness" or "awareness" and our "self" is very much this indivisible, core, awareness that pervades-- or "is"-- the universe. 

The hermeneutics of machines that drives the study of modern physics, has no place for "consciousness"-- a term that is relegated to "mysticism" or "pseudo science" primarily because we cannot "see" or characterise it. However, science does work with several elements that we cannot "see" or "perceive"-- like radio waves, magnetism etc, and infer their existence and properties from how they affect the world outside.

The term "Yoga" means "to unite" or "to synchronise" or "to harmonise" our existential elements like our body, mind and emotions with the all-pervasive consciousness. The major impediment to bring about this unity is actually our sense of agency or "free will".  A deluded free-will or a will that is trapped in its thoughts and emotions, and strongly identifies with something or the other, is as much of an impediment to bringing about this unity, as an "enlightened" free-will is a catalyst to bring about this unity.