MIND rationally explained (W.M.M. - 5)

We saw the outline of the rational concept of God in the blogs 'GOD RECONSIDERED", as explained in the book by Swami Vijnananand. For majority of the people who would like to keep faith, belief in something, the God concept serves the purpose aptly. The basic God concepts from all cultures do not change much and on rational ground even agnostics can nurture the God concept in a rational manner.

We may not know 'why' of the universe by using human intelligence. While science research should continue this endeavor, it has so far largely agreed by majority of scientists that the universe will end up in the stage of no motion stage i.e. entropy. While universe can take care of the purpose; we, the common persons may try to understand the purpose of our own life and try to align it with the laws of nature so that we can be happy. The blogs related to 'PURPOSE' discussed these aspects in details with the outline of the views expressed in the book “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE”.

Based on the books written by Swami Vijnananand (namely, GOD RECONSIDERED and PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE), we saw relevance of his findings in the present context by review and cross checking a few available references.

Not bothering about the concepts concerning God and Universe; even if we come to the limited agenda of our prevailing individual life, we reach to the unique aspiration common to all of us. Whatever country, religion, age, sex or social, financial background we may belong; our priority aspiration is to seek happiness. Be and continue to be happy all along. If we carefully consider the aspect of happiness and search for its essential ingredients, we see that to be happy three things are essential.

First is money. You cannot get means of happiness without money. That is well accepted fact. But we experience that money alone can't make you happy. Money can get you comforts but to enjoy those comforts your body must be healthy. You can buy lot of costly sweets if you have money but can't consume it if your digestive system does not permit or if you have diabetes. So the second thing necessary for the happiness is health. But there is one more thing essential for the happiness and that is your behavior, nature as it is called (nature = the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character). If your nature is good you may be happy even with lesser money and some health limitations but if it is bad you can' be happy even with good wealth and health. So while all the three things are necessary, the weightage comes more on our nature.

Now, who decides our nature? Answer in simple language is MIND. Unless you have good mind you can't have good nature. How do you make your mind good? Basically how do you understand your mind whether it is good or bad? Is there any scientific definition or description of mind available? These are the obvious questions arise if one wants to know more about the MIND.

When it comes to the definition of mind, there is no all accepted agreement as the experts in various disciplines have various views. The important link between mind and body is considered to be the BRAIN. Scientists and philosophers have different considerations on the subject of mind, brain and their relationship.

Mind-brain relationship: Mind-brain relationship has always been a point of debate between neuroscientists and eastern philosophers. Neuroscience believe that in the brain-mind interaction, causality flows in one direction: from brain to mind, which means neural activity underlies every thought and sensation. Eastern philosophers have a different view they feel one can transcend mind. There could also be another possibility of downward interaction, from mind to brain. We require a balanced view as purely material or mental aspect cannot objectively throw light on mind-brain communication. Again, there could be something which will be beyond brain and mind, which is the fundamental focus of spiritualism.  Instead of one-way studies, in modern times, there have been a couple of researches and experiments for the comprehensive view of mind-brain relationship, the neuron-anatomy of compassion. Meditation is one such method controlling mind and brain, having a calming effect on both.

What is the relationship between the mind and the brain? Neuroscientists have known since the nineteenth century that brain structures and mental functions are intimately connected, but the exact relationship between mind and brain always remained a mystery. In the Santiago theory, the relationship between mind and brain is simple and clear. Descartes' characterization of mind as the "thinking thing” is finally abandoned. Mind is not a thing but a process - the process of cognition, which is identified with the process of life. The brain is a specific structure through which this process operates. The relationship between mind and brain, therefore, is one between process and structure.

Just to understand the current situation of the science w.r.t. mind views of some experts in diverse fields are discussed.

1         Series entitled 'Science and Spirituality' in Nature India, (Published online 21 May 2012)

Dr. Pawan K. Dhar (Jan 2012), Professor of Biotechnology at Symbiosis International University, Pune and Hon. Director of the Centre of Systems and Synthetic Biology, University of Kerala

Dr. Pawan Dhar says: Life energy is like an operating system that runs the show but remains unknown. The subject of life energy has largely remained unexplored. As of now, the scientific community swims at the cellular and molecular surface, studying waves here and there and calling them path-breaking discoveries. Mind is what we think of as a buffer between subtle life energies and the gross body. It is like a 'metabolic pathway' that stays between the 'genotype of life energy' and the 'phenotype of the gross body'. It would be nice to scientifically document the contents of the mind to see its dimensions. We see the body, imagine the mind and believe in the life giving substance. This needs to change. Could there be more gross layers and more subtle layers than this naive abstraction? People use terms like consciousness, sub-consciousness, super-consciousness, emotions and awareness to describe life. Though one can play with these terms, in reality we only talk about individual perceptions.

To get a clear understanding of life giving elements, their attributes, their interactions, their structural and functional correlates, the subtle-to-gross pathways, we need to generate additional evidence in the space of existence and extend the intellectual front end of science.

People in the spiritual domain use mind as a lab, intent as approach and intensity as the key. People in the scientific world use a reductionist approach to split a system into constituent elements and weave the information into an integrated model.

In the first approach, the technology exists within the body. In the second, technology exists outside the body.

To find a meeting point of science and spirituality, it would be prudent to find commonalities between both and propose a logical and evidence-based approach that probe deeper into the spiritual space.

2 WHAT IS THE MIND? 

 An article published in the International Journal on World Peace, winter 2007 (http://www.tomkando.com/pdf/WhatIsTheMind.pdf)

Author: Tom Kando is Professor of Sociology at California State University, Sacramento.

The modern world has come to a near- unanimous conception of the human mind as basically the same thing as the brain. This is a monumental and stupid mistake.

The guilt for this error belongs largely to the so-called social sciences, especially to Psychology. These folks have managed to convince the modern world of their stupid belief. As a result, by now, the popular culture, the media and the public all subscribe to this modern-day mythology.

The error made by most psychologists is called reification (from the Latin word rei = “thing”):  This is when you make a thing out of a concept. In other words; when someone makes something real and tangible out of something; which is not so. For example, take the idea of “evil.” When we personify this idea into, say, the “devil,” we reify it. Or take the concept of “society.” When we say that “society is racist,” we reify it, because in reality only people can be racist. There is no such thing as “society,” over and beyond a large collection of individuals.

Psychologists also commit the error of reification when they equate the mind with the brain. They give the mind a substantive material existence. They describe it as “a hunk of meat that…contains about 30 billion cells, called neurons.” But of course that is not at all what the mind is.

 

3 DANA Foundation shares the articles giving information on brain. Excerpts from the following article (issue October 2010)

The Unhealthy Ego: What Can Neuroscience Tell Us About Our ‘Self’?  By Brenda Patoine

Where’s the Ego in Neuroscience?

If ego is loosely defined in psychiatric circles, a neural definition is virtually nonexistent. “Ego doesn’t exist in the brain,” says Kagan. What does exist, he explains, is a brain circuit that controls the intrusiveness of feelings of self-doubt and anxiety, which can modulate self-confidence. But, Kagan says, “We are nowhere near naming the brain circuit that might mediate the feeling of ‘God, I feel great; I can conquer the world.’  I believe it’s possible to do, but no one knows that chemistry or that anatomy.”

Dana Alliance member Joseph LeDoux, Ph.D., a neurobiologist at New York University, has argued that psychological constructs such as ego are not incompatible with modern neuroscience; scientists just need to come up with better ways of thinking about the self and its relation to the brain. “For many people, the brain and the self are quite different,” he writes in The Synaptic Self, where he made the opposite case. For LeDoux it’s a truism that our personality—who we are in totality—is represented in the brain as a complex pattern of synaptic connectivity, because synapses underlie everything the brain does. "We are our synapses," he says.

4 John Templeton Foundation Darwin 200: Evolution and the Ethical Brain (excerpts)

Michael Gazzaniga - Professor of Psychology and Director of the Sage Center of the Study of the Mind at the University of California at Santa Barbara;

Steven Quartz Associate Professor of Philosophy, at Cal Tech University.  He is also the Director of the Brain Mind and Science PhD program

Michael Gazzaniga: Understanding the moment of personal conscious experience, we do not have a clue as to what that is. Everybody in this room by virtue of the fact you are here and experiencing what we are experiencing is in some sense a dualist.  You are looking at all the sub-elements here and you are throwing it into a conscious experience and flipping immediately into that conscious state, what is that?  What is that process?  What is that?  We are so far from understanding something like that and we are not a lot closer to understanding how you see a triangle either by the way. These things are so complex that when you hear the successes in brain science, we are all excited about what we can bring in. Five years ago, I do not think there were more than five experiments on the social processes of the human. Now, through brain imaging techniques, you cannot keep up with it, almost. It is so fast and so wonderful. Having said that though you do not want to oversell it. We are just getting our hands on the ladder here and it is exciting, but, I think, still limited.

 

Steven Quartz:  Yes, to speak to that, we still do not know how a neuron works.  Sometimes we say a neuron is simple or whatever, but, in fact, a neuron is an extraordinary complicated cell.  We do not understand how it integrates information.  We do not understand really how it represents information or what kind of code it utilizes and we certainly do not understand how you put a billion together to generate complex behavior and thought.  So, one of the real challenges is the gap between imaging provides an opportunity to look non-invasively on the human brain and it provides sort of an insight, but we still, the gap between understanding brain activation at the level of imaging and how individual neurons in unison give rise to that, what are the computations involved in that, what are the ways in which information is represented, how does it compute that information, what are the algorithms, what are the processes that give rise to that? It is still completely unknown.

 5.  Ref. Manashakti publication “ Super Procreation”, author – G.S.Kelkar. Page 57,

Conception and Mind: ‘What exactly happens at the moment of conception?’ To find out the answer to this question is rather difficult. However with certain assumptions and logic, science and mathematics we can answer the question. Granted that the moment of conception may not be known; but at least the moment of death is easy to see. Death is the polar opposite of birth, so if we get to know what happens at the time of death; it can be logically deducted that exactly opposite must be happening at the time of conception.

We describe death as follows: “The soul left the body”, “The flame of life was extinguished”, “The body lost the vital force", etc. etc. Briefly, soul, flame, vital force etc. is separated from the body. In scientific terms we can call soul, flame etc. as “energy”, while the body is “matter”.

At the time of death, energy and matter in the human being is separated from each other. Therefore it can be said that at the moment of conception, which is exact opposite of the moment of death, energy and matter must be uniting with each other. So whose energy is this? The answer is: it is that of the entity which wishes to take birth. This energy has been termed as the “organizing mind” (by S. V.) This concept is as follows:

Matter in this case consists of ovum of the male and sperm of the male. The sperm introduces to the ovum, the energy of the one who wishes to take birth. Hence in mathematical terms,

Death = separation of matter (body) and energy (vital force).

And

Birth = union of matter (body) and energy (vital force).

The book further explains the scientific proof of this logical argument.

My comments

While the materialists agree that they yet do not know completely the work of the brain, even the working of neuron, they still insist that mind is nothing but the expression of the brain. Is this stand logical, rational or scientific? ‘You should accept what I say even on the basis unknown to me!’ Any argument of such a nature tends more towards dogmatism than science.

A child has different ‘mind’ other than his father and mother. The conception, i.e. the first existence of the child is union of one cell each from the father and mother. When these two cells unite and the child is conceived it must be the ‘mind’ of the child which must be entering the conceived cell.  So the conceived cell becomes the cell with the mind of a child. When this happens then only the birth process makes progress. (Each intercourse does not yield conception). Obviously it must be the mind’s desire which helps conception and enter the world as new person through the process of birth. This proves that it is the mind that enters the body. And in the later process the brain gets developed. So logically mind precedes body and brain from the initial moment in human life.

Mind rationally explained by Swami Vijnananand

The simple subject ‘mind’ has been messed up by dogmatic views from all kinds of experts.  There is no clear and all agreed definition of mind so far. This is the status after the 1st decade of the 21st century is over,

Foreseeing this problem, way back in 1961, swami Vijnananand (S. V.) studied the mind very rationally. He has provided information regarding the definition, properties, and laws of mind which can conform on the tenets of science and philosophy. We shall see these in a few blogs to follow.

Vijay R. Joshi.

A CLUE TO THE PURPOSE

_{ENTROPY the state of EQUANIMITY. (purpose – 5)}

_{This blog concludes the discussion on the “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE”. This book was authored by Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) and published in December 1961. We shall see the brief excerpts from this book and try to summarize the conclusions}

_{REVIEW OF EARLIER BLOGS on ‘PURPOSE’:}

_{In the first blog titled} “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE Why and how of the universe” October 10’ 2013, _{we saw that while there are some theories on HOW of the Universe, WHY of the universe is not explained by science or any other discipline of knowledge. The conversation on the subject published by The Templeton foundation gives views of the experts, which we have reviewed it in details. The conclusion in brief is: “While the purpose of the universe may or may not be spelt out, every prudent individual should identify / know and live his life with meaningful purpose.}

_{The second blog “}CAUSALITY OF ACCIDENTS (PURPOSE - 2) Nature of 'Accidents'” of October 17’ 2013 _{is based on one chapter from the book under reference. Dealing in details with the so-called accidents, S. V rationally concludes – Every accident is related to deserving cause though beyond cognition at an individual plane. There are no accidents in nature. We may not know the purpose (i.e. intent or cause), but the being of the Universe cannot be considered as an accident.}

_{Blog 3 titled FREE WILL RESEARCH dated 22nd October’ 2013: This deals with the controversies and opposing views held by different camps of scientists, philosophers regarding the existence / non-existence off Free will. A project sponsored by Templeton Foundation is dealing with advance comprehensive research on the subject. Dr. Prof. Alfred Mele and some other experts in the field express a view that before any meaningful conclusions bridging the gaps can be drawn the acceptability of the ‘free will’ concept by all concerned based on the proper ‘definition’ is necessary.}

_{Blog 4} CAUSALITY, FREE WILL CONVERSATION dated 24th October’2013: Here _{we find S.V. explaining in simple terms the concepts of FREE WILL and CAUSALITY. The discussion appropriately bridges the relationship between the concepts with rational arguments.}

_{Chapter wise excerpts followed by summary:}

_{Chapter 1, "WHY" OF THE UNIVERSE}

_{Let it be straightway conceded that science scarcely aims at offering an absolutely trust worthy interpretation of the purpose of the universe. And at the same time, let it be added that not only science, but no branch of knowledge can legitimately enter in such vaunting (boastful) ambition. If all the thinkers sail in same boat, there is nothing wrong in remaining in the scientists’ camp, without having any inferiority complex. After all, science surpasses any other mode of investigation and it is unwise to argue that because science does not offer an all-embracing solution, a murky black-out is worth our vote. Science is no monopoly of a chosen few; its inferences and its laboratory are open to anyone, truly inspired. Einstein says, "I can think nothing, more objectionable than the idea of science for the scientists" Failures of science offer something which is always better than nothing. Science may not give us all the keys to the code of the universe, but there is no harm in accepting a clue to a part of it that is revealed to us, however microscopic it may be.}

_{Let every man know his own Purpose, purpose of the universe will take care of itself. A scientist observes, "There is more obscurity (uncertainty, vagueness) in people who propound that there is no purpose in the universe, and 'purposefully' fight throughout their life to expound this thesis. Sure enough, it is an abuse of human sagacity to turn a deaf ear to tickling hints of Nature, suggesting her definite purpose. For being enlightened about this purpose, scientific rationale is worth implementing. And if science declares its incapacity at a given moment; taken in right spirit; should assure us of its 'bona fide character' and unshaken courage.}

_{CHAPTER 2: FIRST CLUE OF SCIENCE AND CHAPTER 3: FALL OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS.}

_{It is false to suppose that science takes the root from Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo or Bacon and Newton. Science is not an invention by itself. It is rather a tool employed by any motivated animal. From time memorable, men too have been observing, memorizing the observation, synthesizing its results, on repeated experiments finding out common features in Nature's phenomenon and have been turning such Nature's manifestations as the model code of conduct. The primitive who first put the softly bright flame into service was no other than a scientist, and his bubbling, lively extreme joy after his first successful attempt could not be anyway less than that of Watt, the Wright Brothers and Max Planck when miraculous' success crowned them. Not until the seventeenth century, however, scientific fact-finding could make headway of a sizable proportion, to displace the mystifying dogmas of the awe-adoring masses in general. Geniuses like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo labored throughout their lives under the shadow of fate that pounced upon Socrates, for sticking up to his own matured convictions.}

_{Since Maxwell's time itself, Newtonian mechanics was confronted with the initial challenges. Yet, concluding evidence was lacking in greater details, till the onset of the twentieth century. Max Planck first conceived and nursed new physics that leads to the great achievements by Einstein, Bohr and a number of others amongst whom Heisenberg takes away the laurels. Most certainly Heisenberg took new physics to new heights. He, in late thirties, ascertained the principle of uncertainty and as a consequence the deterministic attitude was obliged to give way. The new principle cautioned against the unwarranted optimism anent ability of a scientist to predict in the orthodox way. And yet more, in an attempt to fix up the position of a particle itself,} control over knowledge of its velocity is lost and hence the researcher is left in a curious quandary. It was first discovered by Planck that the matter _{travels 'discontinuously'.}

_{CHAPTER FOUR -- Limitations of Quantum}

Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory starts with a paradox. It starts from the fact that we describe our experiments in the terms of classical physics and at the same time from the knowledge that these concepts do not fit nature accurately. The tension between these two starting, points is the root of the statistical character of quantum theory. Therefore, it has sometimes been suggested that one should depart from the classical concepts altogether and that a radical change in the concepts used for describing the experiments might possibly lead back to a non-statistical, completely objective description of nature.

This suggestion, however, rests upon a misunderstanding. The concepts of classical physics are just a refinement of the concepts of daily life and are an essential part of the language which forms the basis of all natural science. Our actual situation in science is such that we do use the classical concepts for the description of the experiments, and it was the problem of quantum theory to find theoretical interpretation of the experiments on this basis. There is no use in discussing what could be done if we were other beings than we are. At this point we have to realize, as von Weizsacker has put it, that 'Nature is earlier than man, but man is earlier than natural science'. The first part of the sentence justifies classical physics, with its ideal of complete objectivity. The second part tells us why we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using the classical concepts.

CHATTER FIVE - Copenhagen Mishandles Mind

Heisenberg favors the wave picture in the most un-equivocal terms, being more convenient. He says, “By means of its frequencies and intensities the radiation gives information about the oscillating charge distribution in the atom, and there the wave picture comes much nearer to the truth than the particle picture". Clearly then, to Heisenberg, non-matter presents a dominating, convenient and basic structure of the universe.

On this ground Marxist (materialists) scientists bitterly assail Copenhagen interpretation. Blochinzev slashes out, "Among the different idealists' trends in contemporary physics, the so-called Copenhagen School is the most reactionary".

One must be bold enough. I have neither to take sides nor any offence is meant to idealists or Heisenberg, for whom I have profound respect. Nevertheless the Copenhagen School invites a diatribe (bitter attack, violent criticism) for their attitude of sitting on the fence.

Various authors in their own words are thus far exhaustively reproduced so that there should be no accusation they are misrepresenting. But, after all, an open minded scientist has to make up his own mind about his own declaration of faith. For instance, if physics deals with matter which itself leaves no track and chooses to substitute a different basic structure, one does not know what remains of physics. And if nothing remains of it, one must be bold enough to acknowledge such a predicament perplexity, not tacitly (silently, with unspoken words) but expressed.

Scientists subscribe to mind as non-material entity. To begin with Heisenberg himself yields accord to psyche, being independent of matter. On page 28 of Heisenberg's 'Physics and Philosophy', in the introduction by Prof. Northrop he says, "In any event, two things seem clear and make what Heisenberg says on these matters exceedingly important. First, the principle of complementarity and the present validity of the Cartesian and common-sense concepts of body and mind stand and fall together. Second, it may be that both these notions are merely convenient stepladders which should now be, or must eventually be, thrown away. Even so, in the case of the theory of mind at least, the stepladder will have to remain until by its use we find the more linguistically exact and empirically satisfactory theory that will permit us to throw the Cartesian language away". Prof. Northrop in the next sentence itself says that “the only difficulty which disturbs Heisenberg is diverse notions on mind and lack of scientific language that can describe it”.

'What Mind Means' which is another treatise in this series (New Way series), aims at such synthesis. What really remains to be proved should be the responsibility of Heisenberg himself. It is his quest (investigation) that has led humanity to the new height of knowledge and its consequent corollaries (obvious deductions) can hardly be evaded.

Heisenberg says that the laws of physics do not hold good in a living man (the only difference being existence of mind in this case) and he holds it more true in psychology, "If we go beyond biology and include psychology in the discussion, then there can scarcely be any doubt but that the concepts of physics, chemistry, and evolution together will not be sufficient to describe the facts. On this point the existence of quantum theory has changed our attitude from what was believed in the nineteenth century. During that period some scientists were inclined to think that the psychological phenomena could ultimately be explained on the basis of physics and chemistry of the brain. From the quantum-theoretical point of view there is no reason for such an assumption. We would, in spite of the fact that the physical events in the brain belong to the psychic phenomena, not expect that these could be sufficient to explain them."

Physics deals with the matter and if the laws of matter do not apply to an entity, it hardly remains material, at the given moment. Heisenberg is a rational scientist and he had to come to the conclusion that the concept of non-material covers a very wide range. He himself admits concept of God, Soul, and Mind etc. in science, on page 172 of his treatise; yet, in the next paragraph itself, he adheres to scientific method howsoever limited utility it offers.

This apparent contradiction disappears if mind is taken to be identical with non- matter, whether in wave or in other manifestations. It is worth reiteration that I am not dogmatic in these assertions; but unless science throws further light on this problem, there is no other way but to accept that the mind is itself identical with any “motion”, or any "cause" as such, if the word identical is not pressed too far and kept open for further classification, in view of present state of knowledge.

CHAPTER SIX Causation and Mind

Cause and effect relationship subsists throughout Nature, howsoever conceptually.

Newtonian causality has never gained ground, unimpeachably; while quantum has never denied true essence of causal code. Causality, though scientists are not fully aware of its details in all its perspective, remains a valid law. In fact, quantum renders due respect to causality.

Measurability is put off the scent (gives wrong or confusing information), in the new situation. The limitation reflects on our own to trace back 'mind' behind the matter. Normally, an ideal measurability in minutest details sounds superfluous. Effect being a measure of its effective cause is utterly undeniable, howsoever perplexing a picture the whole process presents to the imperfect analyzer, examiner.

CHAPTER SEVEN Causation and Disease

Should the medical authority be inclined to calculate upon unalterable authenticity of cause and effect relationship, he cannot cavil (find fault unnecessarily) at 'effect' exclusively having an internal origin. The man himself is the cause of disease, whatever its nature and in spite of unknowability (ignorance) of its immediate discernible (distinguishable) cause. The premise has been discussed in four volumes of this (new way) series and particularly in 'Cure without Medicine' and 'The Rich, Ambitious and Healthy'; though it calls for further elucidation, in as much as the problem touches causation in human stride. It is true that to prove disease in each case having a within-bound root amounts to a formidable task save (except, but) for theory of causation. On endorsing the theory, unchallengeable on the level of gross matter, in any event, no extra evidence is needed.

CHAPTER 8: Nature of 'Accidents'

Are there accidents in Nature? If not then the ‘causality’ prevails. We may not know the cause at each occasion, for every effect. If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it, this is a logical conclusion. Science or any other discipline of knowledge is not being able to detect it would not rule out its existence. This chapter discusses the nature of so-called accidents.

Necessarily then, every effect-disease, accident, dis- pleasure is related to a deserving cause, though beyond cognition, at an individual Plane. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature.

Chapter 9: Clue to Purpose

If I leave the ambitious project of penetrating through the purpose of universe, and instead explore the unknown regions of myself and elevate the inner core, indiscerptible universe also to that extent stands elevated, enlightened. Such an ultra-stoical (extra calm) philosophy may be faithfully followed by a few, conveniently ignored by some and indignantly criticized by many, who would be directly hit by its tenets. But, convinced of my opinions, beliefs, there remains no real adversary from my point of view and as for my reprove, he too learns in the process of launching on me a carping but one-sided attack.

Threshold of Heisenberg era has opened new vista in the world of knowledge. The principle of indeterminacy has helped us diligently discover the source of living animal in non-material form and it has assisted us to recognize that the "living" is not any quality or development of matter.

If a dead body is kicked with dishonor; the effects will follow merely the laws of matter. The rate at which the skeleton is displaced can be determined. Before the body breathes its last, even the gesture of a kick reacts swiftly and stubbornly. Well, if the offended is a coward he may make a swift move and honorable retreat. In any event the reaction eludes predictability when something more than mere matter is under consideration. This element of indeterminacy is revealed by new quantum mechanics. It has helped us to cogitate beyond the notion of matter and give due respect, both to mind and matter.

Our talk of supremacy of mind is a mere balderdash to say the least. The capricious mind entertains ego, greed, affection, anger and these waves are cited as proofs to establish mind's superiority over matter. Thinkers of all faiths lay stress on evil attributes of such exciting palpitations and recommend voluntarily accepted quiescence (quietness, in-activity). Indeed, matter is an exemplary model for such an object, since matter has no passionate fidgets (uneasiness, impatience), which the languid (slack, slow) mind proudly claims. Matter is not attached to mind it is the other way round. The law of indeterminacy, therefore, has not only helped to lay the distinction between mind and matter, but also to focus our attention on the cause of indeterminacy, which takes its root from extra- mundane entity, mind.

This state of affairs, everyone slavishly dancing at the beck and call of mind, does not seem to be covetable. If each owner of personality defers his oscillations and dispassionately broods over for a moment, 'New Way philosophy' seeks to place before the layman, the great importance of both indeterminacy and causality and tersely indicates how these laws should be understood by the elated (very happy or joyful) individual. The might of neutrality and silence properly perceived this synthesis brought about should be conductive.

The principle of entropy, Barnet calls it the only principle of old physics, yet unchallenged, asserts that in time to come, there will be no energy-transformation and consequently living as seen presently, will draw to a close. Not waiting for the imposed extinction, and instead of continuing to suffer under the false label of pleasure, is it not worth-while aiming at a 'personal entropy’ and reach the state where no energy-transformations are motivated, at least in the internal realm? Pragmatic philosophers idealize detachment as a principle, par excellence, so echoes Einstein and so trust the celebrated scientists.

  

Lecomte du Nouy, in his work, 'Human Destiny' (Nobel Prize Winner Millikan puts it in the first three of the century), categorically affirms, "The source of all evil is in the very substance of man. To extirpate (remove totally) this evil we must neutralize not only the instincts inherited from our animal ancestors, but the superstitions transmitted by our human ancestors, the excrescences of an uncontrolled mental activity, of misguided ambitions, and replace them with the sense of human dignity".

My comments … 

It would be a worth proposition for inquisitive readers to refer to the original book. My perception based on the study reveals the summary as follows:

Chapter 1 tells about the impossibility on the part of Science or any other branch of knowledge to answer WHY of the universe. Without bothering for the purpose of the Universe it may be better idea to find own purpose. Nature signals some hints to indicate its purpose.

Chapter 2 to 5 take a brief historical review of science up to the stage of the ‘principle of uncertainty’ and draw a conclusion that the theoretical existence of non- material form of the reality has to be accepted by science which is normally called as ‘mind’.

Chapter 6 and 7 give detail analysis and deductions supporting the concept of CAUSALITY prevailing in nature. We may not know the purpose (i.e. cause), but the being of the Universe cannot be ruled as an accident. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature; concludes chapter 8.

Chapter 9 points toward ENTROPY as the clue of Purpose. As per the present knowledge the universe is destined to reach the stage of entropy as it will end its journey. Entropy is to be considered as stage of equanimity instead of ‘highest disorder’. A human being; also a part of the universe can endeavor to reach a stage of entropy within by trying to achieve a steady, balanced state of mind. All great thinkers of humanity recommend such an action.

The purpose of the existence of the universe is not known to the science but the end is known as a stage of no motion i.e. entropy. That is a stage of equality as elaborately explained by S.V. on rational concepts. If a human being tries to develop the attitude of equality within his mind then his efforts will be in alignment with the journey of universe. Possibly at such a stage of mind he may be able to know the real purpose of the universe.

Vijay R. Joshi.

CAUSALITY OF ACCIDENTS (PURPOSE - 2)

Nature of 'Accidents' 

If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it.

Are there accidents in Nature? If not then the ‘causality’ prevails. We may not know the cause at each occasion, for every effect. If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it, this is a logical conclusion. Science or any other discipline of knowledge is not being able to detect it would not rule out its existence. Book “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE” written by Swami Vijnananand (s. v.), published in December 1961 discusses the nature of so-called accidents. Here are some excerpts:

'Accidents'

Suddenly, a railway engine is derailed and it costs a passenger his precious left eye. An automobile runs across a pavement (side walk), running over a happy-go-lucky stretching himself on the seashore. An innocent infant is torn to pieces in a house-collapse. Such flabbergasting (mystifying, confusing) stupid occurrences certainly call for further analysis, before being accepted as purely having an internal origin.

(l) Institute the inquiry from the other side.

How would the skeptic explain narrow escape of a blessedly lucky who was scheduled to travel by the train derailed later and who was saved by his last-minute cancellation? A close friend of the happy-go-lucky, prey to the accident on the shore had refused to accompany him; since 'accidentally' he had injured his left thigh, while walking the stairs. In the dwindling tenement (rental house / room) that collapsed, another family drove out of its cell its naughty child, a few seconds before the melodramatic disaster, resulting in hair-breadth escape of the child.

I A) What prohibits the conclusion then that the fortunate falling in second category evaded their doomsday accidentally which virtually makes no advance than substituting the word 'accident' for the notion: 'innate (natural, born in mind) cause?

1 B) How can capricious (erratic, fanciful) 'accident' favoring the concerned be construed? For example, does the injury of thigh that prevented the fortunate from visiting the sea-beach by accident 'accidentally' save him?

1 C) Reuter News Agency released news in Express dated 5-3-60, concerning Agadir, a Moroccan city which suffered an earthquake. It reads, "A woman giving birth to a baby was uncovered last night by rescue workers from under the debris of her home in Agadir, which was turned into a heap of rubble by Monday's earthquake. The woman had been trapped under the ruins of her home three days ago. The mother and child were both saved"-

1 D) Implied import (meaning, sense, significance) of accident conveys hypothetically unwelcome situation, which indeed is invalidated in cases mentioned in the foregoing. A small 'accident' eschews (avoids) more monstrous mishaps can hardly be a prudent reasoning. It is confounding (confusing) to draw a moral that naughty children help themselves to escape the house wreckage. No amount of sophistry (apparently plausible but false, misleading argument) lends hand in absolving (exempting, relieving) internal 'cause' of a victim in any predicament (dangerous situation).

(2) Again, in an all devouring earthquake a new built mansion may collapse and who knows, an old hut stands chances to survive. If the former is an accident, the latter also is one. Eventually, the achievement seldom goes beyond rechristening (giving another name to) the word 'causality'. Once the law is established, it is undesirable to change the connotation (implication, intention) as it is suitable to momentary subjective requirements.

(3) Continuing with the uncontrolled truck that smashed our friend, resting on the shore, in the neoteric (new, recent) perspective.

3 A) On the road, coming to a dead stop suddenly, if the engine totally fails to move an inch, the car gets no opportunity to touch any object and no 'accident' takes place.

3 B) But imagine the car is out of control without coming to a dead stop and directs itself to the pavement, fabricated of cement slabs, say of 150 pounds approximately equal to a well-built adult. Over-running the slab, if the automobile checks itself, there is no damage and no accident as such.

3 C) if the car proceeds and slightly damages a lamp-post without being noticed, the motor owner has another opportunity to avert accusations and abuses.

3 D) In the event of the uncontrollable vehicle continuing its march; things shape differently. Our Hedonist friend literally basking in the sunshine, on the pleasing seashore, is given a death-blow. Curiously the cement slab and the happy-go-lucky both weigh 150 pounds; in case of the latter collision, the incident is branded as accident. The obvious reason for man to give way is his own frail texture (weak body frame). Again, in the last analysis, the subject comes in the picture.

(4) Innumerable instances substantiate erroneous implication of our notion about accident.

Two representative fatal cases should give us authentic clue. Re-examine accidental death of our friend on the sea-beach where 'causal agent’ is taken to be an unchecked automobile and compare it with another casualty to typhoid where the causal agent is typhus bacterium.

Four features distinguish the accidental occurrence.

 Unwantedness

 Unexpectedness

 Unconsciousness

 Internal weakness of the subject

Properly analyzed in bacterial invasion the same features come into play.

Firstly, none wants bacterium to switch on an attack.

Secondly, nobody ever expects it. (The first differs from second, where the latter lays stress on unpredictability).

Thirdly, the would-be sufferer never consciously (in its usual sense) allows intake of typhoid germs in the liquid.

Lastly, it is the internal weakness of the victim that brings about the general breaking up.

Medical authorities and bacteriologists substantiate the habitual belief that the bacterium often peacefully lives in the metabolism and it is branded hostile only when the constitution itself undergoes deterioration. It is pertinent to note that the metabolism in relation to microbe is designated as 'host' in technical phraseology (verbal expression).

The mute guest embarks in for a warm shelter. The bewildered host himself unfortunately turns hostile and employing scorched earth policy (strategy which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area), the scared coward commits suicide in the name of (a poor) bacterium, the entity that lacked means for subsistence.

Accident looks to be measure of human ignorance or ego since in the name of accident, humanity struggles hard to keep back inherent shifts and shames.

(5) Thinkers certainly withhold support to misnomers like chance, accident, mishap, and so on. Darwin accepts CAUSALITY.

Science had yet to un-riddle (understand) some of the primary mysteries in the days of Darwin, which often over powered him. Nevertheless, he invariably depreciated 'chance' in its orthodox sense.

To put it in his words' "In the case of every species, many different checks, acting at different periods of life, and during different seasons or years, probably come into play; some check or some few being generally the most potent; but all will concur in determining the average number or even the existence of the species. In some cases it can be shown that widely different checks act on the same species in different districts. When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank, we are tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call chance".

About external conditions affecting internal he says, "It is very difficult to decide how far changed conditions, such as of climate, food etc., have acted in a definite manner. There is reason to believe that in the course of time the effects have been greater than can be proved by clear evidence. But we may safely conclude that the innumerable complex co-adaptations of structure, which we see throughout nature between various organic beings, cannot be attributed simply to such action. In the following cases, the conditions seem to have produced some slight definite effect: E. Forbes asserts that shells at their southern limit, and when living in shallow water, are more brightly colored than those of the same species from further north or from a greater depth; but this certainly does not always hold good. Mr. Gould believes that birds of the same species are more brightly colored under a clear atmosphere than when living near the coast or on islands, and Wollaston is convinced that residence near the sea affects the colors of insects. Moquin-Tandon gives a list of plants which, when growing at the sea-shore, have their leaves in some degree fleshy, though not elsewhere fleshy. These slightly varying organisms are interesting in as far as they present characters analogous to those possessed by the species which are confined to similar conditions. When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of life.

Thus, it is well known to furriers (persons dealing with furs) that animals of the same species have thicker and better fur the further north they live; but .who can tell how much of this difference may be due to the warmest-clad individuals having been favored and preserved during many generations, and how much to the action of the severe climate? For it would appear that climate has some direct action on the hair of our domestic quadrupeds (four footed). Instances could be given of similar varieties being produced from the same species under external conditions of life as different as can well be conceived; and on the other hand, of dissimilar varieties being produced under apparently the same external conditions”.

On the face of it, the diverse results in each current of events manifest subjective dominance. Finally denouncing chance in outright ridicule, Darwin opines “I have hitherto some times, spoken as if the variations so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication (taming) and in a lesser degree with those under nature-were due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation".

(6) Accidents no doubt present to us a considerably perplexing picture. Japan lives under the shadow of potent danger of earthquakes. Millions have been overturned and ruthlessly annihilated in the Nature's fiery "freaks'. Hiroshima, the city that suffered atom bomb disasters in the Second World War took a heavy toll of Japan's man power, for which Americans are cursed by the aggrieved.

But whom can we blame where there is a bolt from the blue? On 14-1-51, Reuter released a news item from Waco (Texas, U.S.A.) that the pilot who led A-bomb on Hiroshima, Claude Eatherly has been declared insane. The report reads, "The former United States Air Force Major who led the Atom Bomb missions against Japan in the Second World War, Claude Eatherly, has been declared insane by a country jury here. The jury yesterday committed the Texas war hero to an ex-servicemen's hospital here for treatment of schizophrenic reaction. Since 1950 he has been admitted to the hospital nine times. The tall ex-pilot flew reconnaissance (survey for military) missions over both Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately ahead of the planes carrying the Atom Bombs. He once told a psychiatrist he felt responsible for killing 100,000 people at Hiroshima. His brother, Mr. James Eatherly, applied to a County Court last September for his brother to be committed to a mental institution for the protection of himself as well as others. Among the decorations Eatherly won was the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was discharged from the Air Force in 1947 and since then has been in trouble with the law on several occasions. He served a nine month sentence for forging a check in New Orleans in 1953. He also robbed a grocery store in Dallas, and broke into Post offices in Texas".  As a spontaneous reaction, a considerable population belonging to Hiroshima is likely to gloat over the news.

No doubt the Japanese have suffered an enormous damage. But, if, the logic of Nature's penal code is once unreservedly glorified, it bursts forth a barrage of pointed, embarrassing questions.

6 A) Have all the pilots turned lunatics?

6 B) by the same logic, does not A-bomb on Hiroshima reveals unconsciously / displays expression of a punishment in accordance with Nature's rule? (And incidentally, were all the residents of Hiroshima blown up to be launched into eternity?)

6 C) on endorsement of Nature's rational equity, what difference does it make if Nature administers correction by means of insanity, so-called accident or T.B.?

6 D) this recalls my aphoristic (crisp) conversation with one of the convicts convicted to death during one of my visits to jail for research.

Without my touching the point the condemned on his own flared up, “I am not guilty of murder. Those who have really committed the offence will meet the due penalty one day or the other. I am unnecessarily and accidentally caught instead of them".

I paused a little and said, 'If you believe that the real culprits are incapable of evading equitable impalement (punishment) in future, when they would be actually dealt with retributive (penalizing) justice, they shall be as blank as you are about immediate cause of their catastrophe. Then, they would curse some escaped offender, following in your footsteps. While going to gallows, they will plead ignorant of their guilt as you do today. But, dear friend, you have rightly penetrated through Nature's fundamental creed. For some of your bygone (past) blunder, passed out of cognition, you are meeting your present lot. I do not want to offend you, but to confirm your own pious belief”.

The convict shook his head after a while and conceded, "So it is. Now I will die quietly and convinced".

7) Accidents are traced to the man’s internal situation time and again.

Doctor Dunbar records “A German named Marbe was first to note publicly the existence of the accident habit. In 1926 he proved statistically that the person who has had one accident is more likely to have another than the individual who never had any. In 1934 a Viennese, Alexandra Adler suggested that an unknown factor in human personality was responsible for curious repetition of injuries to those who are prone to accident.

Giving many more illustrations and research findings on “Accidents”, S. V. concludes with a quote from 'Fundamentals of Marx- ism, Leninism’.

"It follows from this connection of accident and necessity that accidental phenomena are also governed by certain laws, which may be studied and become known".

Conclusion:

Necessarily then, every effect-disease, accident, dis- pleasure is related to a deserving cause, though beyond cognition, at an individual Plane. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature.

We may not know the purpose (i.e. cause , intent), but the being of the Universe cannot be considered as an accident.

Vijay R. Joshi