Skip to main content

4 posts tagged with "brain"

View All Tags

· 2 min read

We seldom get bored in today's world. We have mobile on our tips of finger and in any little time we get, we are used to checking something out in it, however irrelevant it may be.

We are addicted to continuous stimulation. Be it an Instagram post, a funny tweet or a WhatsApp forward. Though this prevents us from getting bored, it also prevents us from coming up with something new. Being immerse always in a continuous stream of social media, we behave more like a hive mind.

Of course we have more information on the tips of our finger now, but we don't have time or the patience to assimilate them, form an independent opinion. We just go with pre-chewed morsels of opinions. Thats why its easier to polarise people today. Cambridge Analytica was just an exploitation of this fundamental change in our lives.

Getting bored is good. It gives your brain time to process data and may be come up with interesting conclusions. Combinations which other may not have thought yet. Elon Musk says, his best time of the day is when he is taking a bath. That is when he is bound to not be doing something explicitly (taking bath is more of a muscle memory), and thats when he comes up with many creative ideas.

Don't feel bad about getting bored. Getting bored is good. Let your mind ponder over things. May be something good will come out of it.

· 11 min read

I first picked up Dostoevsky in summer of 2008. Though I had vaguely read about him somewhere, what really made me purchase the books was the fact that the books were pretty cheap. 120 bucks for a 400-500 pages book. I picked up both Crime and Punishment and The Idiot. Little did I know the masterpieces they were. Crime and Punishment was a book which made me marvel the depth of understanding an author can have about the human psyche. I just didn't think that it was possible to write in such depth about one thinks.

I was aching to read The Brothers Karamazov(TBK) for a long time. Many forums suggested that it is the most evolved work by Dostoevsky. Though it is a 1000 page tome, and committing to it was a big hurdle. Finally, I got around to finishing it this month, and man did it blow my mind! Though I still like Crime and Punishment more, TBK will easily be the in the top 5 books I have ever read.

Here are my notes from the book:

1. The thirst for life

Some driveling consumptive moralists—and poets especially—often call that thirst for life base. It's a feature of the Karamazovs, it's true, that thirst for life regardless of everything; you have it no doubt too, but why is it base? The centripetal force on our planet is still fearfully strong, Alyosha. I have a longing for life, and I go on living in spite of logic. Though I may not believe in the order of the universe, yet I love the sticky little leaves as they open in spring. I love the blue sky, I love some people, whom one loves you know sometimes without knowing why. I love some great deeds done by men, though I've long ceased perhaps to have faith in them, yet from old habit one's heart prizes them.

One of the key questions in the book is - Is life worth living? There are many aspects of life which give you so much pain and one often thinks whats the point of all this. Dostoevsky accepts all the ill wills of life and still finds beauty in this life which makes it worth living. The Karamazov brothers have different views of life, but all of them still have a great thirst for life, the need to live it to the fullest.

2. To love life before logic

“I think every one should love life above everything in the world.”

“Love life more than the meaning of it?”

“Certainly, love it, regardless of logic as you say, it must be regardless of logic, and it's only then one will understand the meaning of it. I have thought so a long time.”

Many of us try to find meaning in Life. Viktor Frankl in his famous book Man's Search for Meaning says that "meaning" is the most important thing in life and empowers one to go through any hardship. Though here Dostoevsky implores that life should be loved without any logic. There is no logic needed to love life. Life should be loved in itself.

  1. Intractability of God

if God exists and if He really did create the world, then, as we all know, He created it according to the geometry of Euclid and the human mind with the conception of only three dimensions in space. Yet there have been and still are geometricians and philosophers, and even some of the most distinguished, who doubt whether the whole universe, or to speak more widely the whole of being, was only created in Euclid's geometry; they even dare to dream that two parallel lines, which according to Euclid can never meet on earth, may meet somewhere in infinity. I have come to the conclusion that, since I can't understand even that, I can't expect to understand about God. I acknowledge humbly that I have no faculty for settling such questions, I have a Euclidian earthly mind, and how could I solve problems that are not of this world?

Dostoevsky questions how is it possible to "understand" good if the sense organs and the mind through which we try to make sense of the world are so limited. We know that there are many things which we can't understand because of the physical design we have. The way human eyes see the world is very different from how a bee with its compound eyes sees the world. Bats perceive the world only through sound waves.

Our brain is also limited and designed to understand and perceive the world in a particular way. With all these limitations, is it fair to ask questions about God? God by definition is something outside the system we exist in and trying to understand Him using tools within the system is definitely questionable.

4. Loving others

“I could never understand how one can love one's neighbors. It's just one's neighbors, to my mind, that one can't love, though one might love those at a distance.

For any one to love a man, he must be hidden, for as soon as he shows his face, love is gone.”

This is an idea which Dostoevsky also talks about in his book The Idiot. Loving the idea of humanity and human beings in their totality is easy, but when it comes to loving a particular person its lot harder. You see the faults in them. The physical imperfections. The faults in their character. Its no longer an idea, but a concrete reality and what you have in reality may be very different than the idea of a person you have in mind.

the face of a man often hinders many people not practiced in love, from loving him. But yet there's a great deal of love in mankind, and almost Christ-like love.

Though a Christ-like love is still possible, and that is what we should try to strive for. This is advocated by his character Alyosha, who is his mouthpiece for his idea of benevolent love, which Dostoevsky belives is possible.

5. Solitariness and the importance of others

For every one strives to keep his individuality as apart as possible, wishes to secure the greatest possible fullness of life for himself; but meantime all his efforts result not in attaining fullness of life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realization he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our age have split up into units, they all keep apart, each in his own groove; each one holds aloof, hides himself and hides what he has, from the rest, and he ends by being repelled by others and repelling them.

For he is accustomed to rely upon himself alone and to cut himself off from the whole; he has trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in humanity, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in these days men have, in their mockery, ceased to understand that the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated individual effort

Though the novel is written in the 1800s, it's interesting to see that individualism was still on the rise then as it is now. People are getting more and more self-centered. Though this gives them a new freedom in terms of what they can do as an individual, they lose the feeling of belonging to a society and the solidarity that comes along with it.

Aristotle has written in Politics,

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”

Human beings reinvigorate in the company of others. The phenomena of Individualism is getting more and more pronounced as people get increasingly reliant on social media for interacting with each other rather than personal connections. This creates a hole in the individual as he constantly searches for something he belongs to. Our social relationships give us a sense of who we are and add meaning to our life. The rise in individualism is taking that away from us.

6. One can't judge one's fellow men

Remember particularly that you cannot be a judge of any one. For no one can judge a criminal, until he recognizes that he is just such a criminal as the man standing before him, and that he perhaps is more than all men to blame for that crime.

If I had been righteous myself, perhaps there would have been no criminal standing before me. If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him yourself, and let him go without reproach

The crime committed by others is also because of the way he was treated by the society or the environment in which he grew up. Thus, the society in general and we as being part of it are also responsible for his crime.

Why was the society not able to give him such an environment which enabled him to grow into a loving person? So before judging others, we must also understand that we are also part of the reason why they are so.

7. Habit

It's because people are not used to it. Everything is habit with men, everything, even in matters of nationhood and politics. Habit is the principal driving force.

Man is a creature of habit. Even in politics and nationhood, we are driven by habit. That is why different nations have different political discourses and people are OK with it, though it would seem ridiculous for people of other nations.

For example, China since becoming the People's Republic of China is dominated by a single party rule and people respect the party members there. Indian people, on the other hand, detest too much power in one political party and we see different parties forming the government in consecutive elections, partly driven by the anti-incumbency factor.

8. God and Ethics

‘But what will become of men then?’ I asked him, ‘without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?’ ‘Didn't you know?’ he said laughing, ‘a clever man can do what he likes,’ he said.

This is one of the key ideas in Crime and Punishment also. If there is really no God, then all things are lawful. The protagonist in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov uses this line of thought to justify the murder of an old lady for money and it seems perfectly fine.

Is God invented to enforce morality? If there is no God, then will human beings kill each other and end the human race. Is God necessary for the preservation of the species?

9. God as Hope

What should I be underground there without God? Rakitin's laughing! If they drive God from the earth, we shall shelter Him underground. One cannot exist in prison without God; it's even more impossible than out of prison.

When Mitya, one of the three Karamazov Brothers, thinks about the idea of there being no God, he just revolts at it. How can a man spend time in prison without God? And even outside of the prison, it is not possible to live without God. God is the ultimate source of hope. A hope that even though this world is cruel, the all-merciful God is watching him and all of this will be compensated for in "the next world".

10. Does God or Satan exist?

Je pense, donc je suis, I know that for a fact; all the rest, all these worlds, God and even Satan—all that is not proved, to my mind. Does all that exist of itself, or is it only an emanation of myself, a logical development of my ego which alone has existed for ever

In this conversation with Devil, Devil says that he is not sure if God or Satan exists. Maybe it is just a development of his ego, something which the brain has created for its own need.

Its a book with many gems. The way the characters are developed and the philosophical quandaries they go through will break you apart before tying up again.

If you are planning to give this book a try, go for the translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky. I hear it is the best.

· 3 min read

A few key questions which I came across while reading the book and my thoughts on it.

  1. Who are we? As a lot dependent on how our neurons are trained? The state of all our neurons and their collective parameters. So the entity which we refer to as "me" is nothing but a particular stage in the training of neural network. It is constantly changing. The decision which you take now in a given condition, may be very different from say 10 yrs ago - as your neural net has changed.

  2. Our past is not a faithful reconstruction. The way we remember the past can be very different from how it actually happened? So, who we are, which is dependent a lot on our memories - is not a reflection of reality but what we chose to remember from our past.

  3. Consciousness as an emergent property - Just an emergent property from the activity of millions of neurons. Like traffic is an emergent property from the movement of all the cars. When the cars move, there is nothing called "traffic", traffic emerges out of interaction of multitudes of vehicle. But why does this emergent property appear so real?

  4. If there is no memory, there is no sense of time - There has not been any independent verification of time!

  5. Decision making and free will - Apparently our lower brain makes decision even before we are consciously aware of it. So do we really decide or it is just a story which our neocortex tells us?

  6. Are we living in a simulation? An interesting argument by Nick Bostrom

  7. Our internal model is low resolution but up-gradable - similar to what John Deane of Google Brain project suggests in this lecture. The best approach is to build a huge model which can give results for thousands of problems rather than individual models trained for specific. Is this the reason why we are a general purpose machine, rather than very good at specific tasks. As Henlein used to say -

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

· 4 min read

Cover Image

Have been reading a bit about consciousness and it seems that the following topics are closely related:

  1. Consciousness
  2. Brain
  3. Meditation/Yoga
  4. Quantum Mechanics

One of the big question which prompted this line of enquiry was the discussion which I read in the book “Homo Deus” -

How does a network of billions of neurons lead to a consciousness? How does the “I” originate?

The question is more complex than it looks like and surprisingly, from what I have learned till now, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the answer.

Different disciplines try to approach this in different ways. The growing feeling which I get from following the different lines of thought is that the current “real world” which we perceive is a very small microcosm of the complete set of “realities” which can be there. As we relax the small set of conditions in which we spend most of our lives, the perceived reality changes dramatically.

For example, the concept of Time which we take for granted in everyday lives is not so simple. Einsteinian physics demonstrates how the concept of time changes dramatically as objects start traveling close to the speed of light. Time can dilate or run fast.

The states of awareness which we perceive when awake is just one of the many states of awareness. According to Mandukya Upanishad, there are 4 states of awareness:

1.Wakefulness

2.Dream

3.Sleep

4.Turiya - Pure Consciousness

While the first 3 are states which most of us are aware of, the 4th state is a state of complete awareness () achieved by people doing meditations. These different states are confirmed by different EEG signatures, as confirmed by many researchers on meditation. So, there is a biological correlation with different states of consciousness. But the causality is more difficult to establish.

Does the mind lead to different EEG signals, or does the different firings of neurons lead to a different level of awareness?

According to one hypothesis, the consciousness is a by-product of the humming of different neurons. It is not the intended effect but a side product which emerges in the process.

This is also the classical mind-body debate. There can be 2 solutions:

  1. Monism - Only one of Mind or Body is real and the second is the manifestation of the first or vice versa
  2. Dualism - Mind and Body are two different entities

Does the brain(body) give rise to mind? In that case is mind a different entity than brain?

A closely related topic, which is starkly showcased in one of the stories() in The Complete Robot by Isaac Asimov is the emergence of consciousness at advanced level of intelligence. Basically, once computers get sufficiently advanced - they develop a “consciousness” which has similar electromagnetic signatures to what we currently refer to as “consciousness”

If “consciousness” is an emergent property of a high level of intelligence, then it could be just as well possible that human beings are just highly intelligent organic computers created by some more intelligent species. Similar to how we have created computers. That lends credence to the SIM theory which even Elon Musk supports, that our current world is just a simulation.

An enquiry into these issues, makes me feel that the real world which we perceive is just so much a function of how we think about it, rather than what it actually is. The writings of Upanishads which seemed a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me some years back seems so much more insightful now - as at least their language points to ideas which I have laid out above.

As Mark Twain said -

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

The same seems true for Upanishads/Ancient philosophers to me.