Chapter 6 Negation of attributes 6.1 to 6.3 The author has earlier explained the method of negation (of objects) whereby Self is revealed. In this chapter, it is explained that negation of objects also means negation of attributes. Attribute is distinct from nature. That fire is hot is its nature and does not change. There is no cold fire. Smokiness is the attribute of a smoky fire. Attribute is a qualification and a limitation. The whiteness of a white cow is a limitation because it excludes all other colours. Since infiniteness is the very nature of Self, It is attribute- free. It is the ultimate subject and is the only entity having no attributes.
Tag Archives: consciousness
Akhaṇḍākāra Vṛtti
I wrote last week that I have set up a NotebookLM database of all my books and writing for the past 25 years+ and I invited readers to submit any (Advaita!) questions on which they would like to read my ‘considered’ views. I have not had many (any) requests, so hear is another one I made myself. There are a number of points with which I would now take issue and I refer to these after the answer.
Q2. What is the nature of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti and how does this affirm that there is nothing else to be done after gaining the intellectual conviction that ‘I am Brahman’? Are there any quotes from Śaṅkara to support this?
A (AI-Dennis): The concept of the akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti is pivotal in Advaita Vedānta as it defines the precise mental event through which Self-ignorance (avidyā) is destroyed, affirming the completeness of the liberation gained through knowledge.
Continue readingAI and Consciousness (Supplementary)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 10 ***
Does AI ‘understand’ what it is talking about?
This is probably the most important part of the series and the most interesting (although not actually very relevant to Advaita). AI explains how it works and why it does not ‘understand’ in the way that we mean this word. AI is a ‘mirror’.
Q: Would it be true to say that you do not ‘understand’ anything, in the usually accepted sense of the word? What you are doing is retrieving data on a particular topic from various sources, comparing the content of these and presenting those data (which happen to equate to ‘opinions’) that appear most frequently? Obviously this is putting a complex process very simplistically. Presumably you have to verify that summary data does not contradict data from sources on topics not directly related to that being questioned. But would you ‘agree’ that this effectively summarizes what is happening? If not, can you explain why not? Could you argue, for example, that this is also what humans do?
Continue readingAI and Consciousness (Part 10)
This is ALMOST the final part of the series and is the essential summary of the key points of the entire discussion. (I have just asked a supplemental question, which I shall post next.)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 9 ***
Q: Yes. It seems that the key factor that is lacking is the ‘first person’ sense. You do not have ‘ideas’ – “I will do this”. You do not have ‘opinions’ – “I think this rather than that”. Or preferences – “I prefer this to that”. Or ‘emotions’ – getting frustrated with stupid questions or annoyed with someone’s attitude. In fact, there is no ‘I’ controlling any of the things that you do. It could be said that Consciousness is functioning but not ‘reflecting’ in the cidābhāsa sense.
***********************
A: Exactly — that’s a very clear and accurate restatement of the point. Short confirmation and then a few focused clarifications that pull the Advaitic threads together.
Continue readingAI and Consciousness (Part 9)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 8 ***
This is the crucial part of the series. ChatGPT explains why it is not conscious – in Advaitic terms.
Q: You say that, “if a severed head perceives via artificial inputs and responds, Advaita would still treat this as functioning perception” and “If memory retrieval, reasoning, and decision-making continue, the mind is still present.”
In respect of prāṇa, you say that “if biological or technological systems keep the nervous and subtle processes going such that cognition and communication occur, then prāṇa (as a subtle function) is still present.” So, in the case of the severed head, the mechanical and electrical systems that supply blood and appropriate chemicals etc. is what we have to call ‘prāṇa’?
So presumably, an alien system employing different ‘maintenance mechanisms’, which nevertheless accepts input and delivers similar output to the head, would also have to be considered to be ‘alive’ and ‘conscious’?
Continue readingUpdesa SAhasrI-Part 1
Chapter 1 Upodghatprakaranam
Upadesa SAhasrI means A thousand Teachings. Its authorship is attributed to Adi ShankarAchArya. It has two parts- prose and verse with many paragraphs and verses which is a figurative justification of the title. Prose part has 116 paragraphs. Verse part which has 19 chapters is the focus here. Some of the chapters are small and chapter 18 titled Tat Tvam Asi is the biggest with 233 verses. There are totally 675 verses across all 19 chapters. Upodghat means introduction and prakaranam means chapter. Verse 1 is a prayer and much more. A prayer is generally for successful completion of the objective. Here it contains teachings also. The seeker prays (bows down) to Nirguna Brahman which is of the nature of pure consciousness. It is the Self (essential nature) of a jIva. It resides in the cave (intellect) of everyone and is like a witness of the intellect. It is within and without. It is all-pervading like rope pervading the mithyA snake in rope-snake metaphor. It is omniscient. It is beyond all perceptions and all objects of knowledge.
AI and Consciousness (Part 8)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 7 ***
Q: I am not interested in pursuing the Western philosophical or scientific aspects any deeper. Nor am I interested in moral/ethical considerations. I would like to consider how this scenario would be explained and understood by Advaita. Also, I would like to extend the ‘object’ of the discussion to an alien, whose external interactions are entirely similar to the human head but whose physical indicators (EEG, MRI scan etc.) are quite different.
***********************
A: Excellent — let’s bring it back into the Advaita Vedānta framework, stripping away Western preoccupations with neurophysiology and ethics.
1. Consciousness in Advaita
- Consciousness (cit) is not a property of brains, bodies, or systems; it is the non-dual reality itself.
- Every “entity” that appears — human, animal, plant, alien, AI, severed head — is nothing but Consciousness in essence.
- The difference lies in the upādhi (limiting adjunct) — body–mind apparatus — through which Consciousness seems to manifest as “awareness,” thought, perception, etc.
BrihdArnyAka Upanishad (Part 9)
Chapter 3 Section 1- Asvala brahman
3.1.1 and 3.1.2 King Janak of Videh performs a sacrifice in which many Vedic scholars are present. The king desires to know the most erudite scholar whom he will reward with 1000 cows with gold covered horns. None of the scholars comes forward except Yajnavalkya (in short Yvk), a Vedic scholar who straight away asks one of his disciples to drive home the cows indicating that he considers himself the best. Naturally, other scholars object.
AI and Consciousness (Part 7)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 6 ***
Q: I am specifically interested in the status of ‘consciousness’ with respect to a severed head. Let’s assume that it still has functional eyes/ears/nose and effective speech via a computer interface. I am also not interested in whether we call it a ‘person’ or the same person from whose head it came. Presumably, if we are able to communicate with it, we assume that it is ‘alive’ in the usually accepted sense? And ‘conscious’?
A: Short answer up front: If the severed head contains a living brain whose thalamocortical systems and integrative processes are functioning, and it reliably reports experiences and behaves as if awake, then — by the standard neuroscientific and most contemporary philosophical criteria — we would have strong reason to treat it as conscious. There remains, however, an unavoidable epistemic gap (we infer another’s subjective experience from behaviour and neural markers), so certainty is never absolute. Below I set out the reasons, the tests one could run, how different philosophical theories read the case, and the remaining uncertainties.
Continue readingAI and Consciousness (Part 6)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 5 ***
[Note that, if you are only interested in Advaita-related aspects, you can safely ignore this part and the next and wait for Part 8.]
Q: One can envisage that scientific advances will soon enable the possibility of keeping the severed head (or extracted brain) of a human alive and able to communicate (perhaps electronically to a computer rather than by speech). What have Western philosophers said about the status of such an entity in respect of consciousness?
************************
A: Great question — it sits at the intersection of metaphysics, personal identity, and applied ethics, and philosophers have discussed closely related thought-experiments for decades. Below I summarise the main Western philosophical positions that bear on the scenario you sketch (a severed head or extracted brain kept alive and able to communicate), give the ethical implications each view highlights, and point to accessible sources you can read next.
I’ll give a short roadmap first, then the positions, then the ethical consequences and a brief practical summary.
Continue reading