Consciousness — Who am I?

16 min read3 days ago

What is primary — Matter or Consciousness? Why do we have a distinct sense of identity? Why can’t we perceive or know what others are thinking?

Before we dive into the next topics, let’s briefly recap the first three parts of this series:

We explored how mathematics differentiates us from other species (Nature, Consciousness, and Mathematics). As a species, our ability to comprehend the natural world far surpasses other species, with mathematics playing a significant role in this distinction. How did we develop this capability?
We then delved into the nature of reality (How deep is the rabbit hole?), examining Advaita Vedanta, Dvaita Vedanta, neuroscience, and quantum physics. The Inferior Parietal Lobule underwent a significant enlargement, estimated to have increased by about 6 to 7 times compared to earlier hominids like Australopithecus, which is linked to the evolution of higher-order cognitive functions such as language, mathematics, spatial reasoning, and social cognition. Is reality what we perceive through our eyes, or is it a construct shaped by the brain?
Lastly, we examined the philosophies of Monism, Dualism, Panpsychism, Idealism, and Materialism. We also explored how (Trichromatic) vision works from a neuroscience perspective and analysed the evolution of reasoning. This journey took us through the history of philosophy — from Rationalism and Empiricism to Quantum Physics — and the neuroscience behind our ability to reason (Consciousness, the Origin of Self?).

What is Primary — Matter or Consciousness?

Who am I?

The exploration of the “self” is far from a new endeavour. This inquiry dates back over 2,000 years, from the time of Plato to more recent philosophies by thinkers like Bertrand Russell and Ramana Maharshi. We will delve into their perspectives, beginning with Ramana Maharshi’s profound question, “Who am I?”.

**Bertrand Russell, Plato, Ramana Maharshi**

Ramana Maharshi — Indian Spiritual Leader

Ramana Maharshi, was born in Tiruchuzhi, a small village near Madurai in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, on December 30, 1879. He was an Indian sage and spiritual teacher known for his self-inquiry teachings and emphasis on realizing the true self or Atman. His teachings have a profound influence on modern spiritual thought, particularly in the realm of non-dualism or Advaita Vedanta. Ramana Maharshi’s approach to spirituality is characterized by simplicity, directness, and a focus on self-inquiry as the path to self-realization.

Ramana Maharshi’s teachings are rooted in Advaita Vedanta, the non-dualistic school of Hindu philosophy that asserts the oneness of the individual soul (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). Advaita Vedanta was popularized by Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century.

Key Teachings of Ramana Maharshi

1. Self-Inquiry (Atma Vichara):

Ramana Maharshi’s most important teaching is the method of self-inquiry, encapsulated in the question, “Who am I?” He taught that this question, when pursued earnestly, leads one to the realization of the true self, or Atman, which is beyond the ego or individual identity.
According to Ramana, the “I”-thought or the sense of individual self is the root of all thoughts and illusions. By inquiring into the nature of this “I,” one can trace it back to its source and realize the pure consciousness that underlies all existence.

2. The Nature of the Self (Atman):

Ramana taught that the true self, or Atman, is pure awareness, which is unchanging, eternal, and non-dual. It is not the body, mind, or any other identification. Realization of the self is realizing that one is this pure consciousness, beyond all physical and mental attributes.
He emphasized that the self is always present and self-evident. However, due to ignorance and attachment to the ego, people fail to recognize their true nature. The goal of spiritual practice is to remove these attachments and realize the self directly.

3. Non-Duality (Advaita):

Ramana’s teachings align closely with the principles of Advaita Vedanta, a school of Hindu philosophy that teaches non-dualism. According to Advaita Vedanta, the ultimate reality is Brahman, which is non-dual, indivisible, and beyond all forms of differentiation.
He taught that there is no real distinction between the self (Atman) and the absolute reality (Brahman). The perceived separation between the individual self and the world is an illusion (Maya) created by ignorance.

4. The Illusory Nature of the Ego and World:

Ramana emphasized that the ego and the world are Maya, or illusions. The ego is a false identification with the body and mind, leading to suffering and bondage. The world, as perceived by the senses, is also a projection of the mind and not ultimately real.
Realization involves seeing through these illusions and understanding that only the self is real. This understanding brings liberation (Moksha) from the cycle of birth and death.

5. Living in the Present:

Ramana encouraged his followers to live in the present moment, free from attachments to the past or future. He taught that the self is ever-present and that realization involves abiding in the “here and now,” without the distractions of thoughts and desires.

Source: Ramana Maharshi — Who am I?

Ramana Maharshi’s teachings are firmly rooted in Advaita Vedanta, focusing on self-inquiry, the non-dual nature of reality, and the realization of the self as the ultimate truth. His teachings emphasize direct experience and self-realization over intellectual understanding or religious rituals. Unlike Dvaita Vedanta or Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity, & Islam), which posits a fundamental distinction between the self and God.

Ramana Maharshi’s approach is rooted in non-dualism, emphasizing that all perceived distinctions are mere illusions, and true enlightenment comes from realizing the oneness of all existence. Now, let’s explore Plato’s philosophy to determine whether it aligns with Monism, Dualism, or another philosophical school of thought.

Plato — Greek Philosopher

Plato (427–348 BCE) was one of the most influential philosophers of the ancient world. Born into an aristocratic family in Athens, Greece, Plato was deeply involved in the political, social, and intellectual life of his city. He founded the Academy, one of the earliest institutions of higher learning in Western history, where he taught philosophy, mathematics, and other disciplines.

Plato’s philosophy spans a wide range of topics, including ethics, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology. His famous works, often written in the form of dialogues, include the “Republic,” “Phaedo,” “Symposium,” and “Timaeus”. One of his central contributions is his Theory of Forms, which suggests that the physical world is only a shadow of a higher, perfect reality of eternal Forms or Ideas.

Plato’s Mentor: Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE)

Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher considered the father of Western philosophy. He is most famous for his Socratic method, a form of dialogue aimed at stimulating critical thinking and illuminating ideas. Socrates did not leave any written works, and much of what we know about him comes from his students, particularly Plato.
Socrates spent his life questioning the moral and ethical foundations of Athenian society, often challenging people’s assumptions and pushing them toward deeper self-examination. His dedication to truth and justice led him to be sentenced to death by Hemlock for allegedly corrupting the youth of Athens and disrespecting the gods.

Plato’s Students:

1. Aristotle (384–322 BCE):

Aristotle was one of Plato’s most famous students and went on to become a towering figure in philosophy and science. Though he studied at Plato’s Academy, he later developed his own philosophical system, which was more empirical and focused on the natural world. Aristotle’s works cover a broad range of subjects, including logic, biology, ethics, politics, and metaphysics.
One key difference between Plato and Aristotle is their view on Forms. While Plato emphasized the existence of abstract Forms or Ideas, Aristotle believed that forms exist within the objects themselves and that reality is understood through experience and observation.

2. Xenocrates (396–314 BCE):

Xenocrates was another prominent student of Plato and served as the third head of the Academy. He is known for his work on ethics and psychology, including ideas about the nature of the soul and virtue. Like Plato, Xenocrates saw a dualism between the material and immaterial worlds, aligning with Plato’s metaphysical views.

Bertrand Russell — The British Philosopher, Mathematician

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and social critic, known for his significant contributions to philosophy, especially in the areas of logic, analytic philosophy, and epistemology. He was a major advocate of empiricism, scepticism towards metaphysical claims, and the use of logic to clarify philosophical problems. Russell also engaged with political and social issues, earning a reputation as a public intellectual.

Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, John Locke, and David Hume are regarded as classical empiricists, emphasizing experiments and observations to gather data and comprehend the natural world. While Russell prioritized observation and data, he also highlighted the crucial role of logic in making that data more meaningful and reliable.

Let’s now examine key concepts through the perspectives of Plato, Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, and Ramana Maharshi. We will focus on the following themes:

Reality and Perception
The Nature of the Self
Metaphysics
Epistemology — The Theory of Knowledge
The Concept of Illusion

1. Reality and Perception

Plato believed in the existence of two realms: the world of forms (or ideas) and the world of appearances. According to Plato, the world we perceive with our senses is an imperfect reflection of the true, eternal, and unchanging world of forms. Perception through the senses is unreliable, and only through philosophical reasoning can we access the truth of reality.
Aristotle rejected Plato’s dualism and instead argued that reality is composed of individual substances, which are a combination of form and matter. He believed that perception is the first step in acquiring knowledge, but it must be refined through logic and reasoning to truly understand reality.
Bertrand Russell was an empiricist and believed that reality is something that can be perceived and understood through scientific inquiry and logical analysis. For him, perception provides raw data about the world, but it can be misleading, so rigorous methods like logic and mathematics are required to interpret reality.
Ramana Maharshi taught that reality is the Self (Atman), and the world we perceive through the senses is illusory. According to him, perception is shaped by ignorance and the ego, and true reality is beyond sense perception, accessible only through self-inquiry and realization of the non-dual Self.

2. Nature of Self

Plato viewed the self (soul) as an immortal entity that exists before birth and after death. The true self is identified with the rational part of the soul, which seeks knowledge of the eternal forms.
Aristotle believed that the self is the form of the body, meaning that the soul and body are intimately connected. He rejected Plato’s idea of the self as an independent, immortal soul. For Aristotle, the self is the activity of a living being.
Bertrand Russell was sceptical of metaphysical ideas about the self. He rejected the idea of an eternal self or soul and believed that the self is nothing more than a collection of experiences and mental states. He had a more psychological understanding of the self.
Ramana Maharshi taught that the true nature of the self is pure consciousness or the Atman. The ego, or individual self, is an illusion, and the ultimate realization is the non-duality of the Self and Brahman (the ultimate reality).

3. Metaphysics

Plato’s metaphysics is rooted in the theory of Forms. He believed in a transcendent reality, where eternal, perfect forms (like justice, beauty, and goodness) exist independently of the material world. The physical world is merely a shadow or reflection of this higher reality.
Aristotle’s metaphysics is more grounded in the natural world. He rejected the idea of separate forms and argued that substances are combinations of matter and form. His metaphysics is about understanding the nature of being and the causes of change.
Bertrand Russell’s metaphysical views are analytic. He believed that metaphysical problems should be addressed through logical analysis rather than speculation about transcendent realities. For him, metaphysics is about understanding the structure of reality as it appears to us through scientific inquiry.
Ramana Maharshi’s metaphysics is based on Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism). He taught that the only reality is the Self (pure consciousness), and that everything else, including the world and individual identity, is an illusion (Maya).

4. Epistemology (The Theory of Knowledge)

Plato believed in innate knowledge — the idea that knowledge is a recollection of the eternal forms. He argued that true knowledge comes from reason and philosophical thought, rather than sensory experience, which can be deceptive.
Aristotle took a more empirical approach to knowledge. He believed that knowledge comes from experience and observation of the natural world, but it must be organized and understood through reason.
Bertrand Russell was a strong advocate of empiricism and believed that knowledge comes from sensory experience, but he also emphasized the importance of logical analysis. He argued that mathematics and logic are key tools for understanding the structure of knowledge.
Ramana Maharshi emphasized the knowledge of the Self. He taught that the highest form of knowledge is self-realization — a direct, intuitive understanding of one’s true nature, which transcends intellectual or sensory-based knowledge.

5. Concept of Illusion

Plato believed that the physical world is an illusion compared to the eternal reality of the forms. The world of appearances is like shadows on the wall of a cave, and only through philosophical reasoning can we escape this illusion and perceive the true reality of the forms.
Aristotle did not believe the material world was an illusion. He believed that the physical world is real, and our senses, though imperfect, can give us knowledge of it. The key is to use reason to understand the essence of things.
Bertrand Russell rejected the notion of metaphysical illusion. He believed that the world we perceive is real, but our perceptions and interpretations of it can be mistaken. His focus was on how language and logic can clarify our understanding of reality.
Ramana Maharshi believed that the world and the ego are illusory (Maya). The only reality is the Self, and everything else is a projection of ignorance. Realizing this through self-inquiry leads to liberation from the illusion.

Let’s quickly summarize and compare the insights we’ve gathered from Plato, Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, and Ramana Maharshi. Following that, we will revisit Part 3 — Consciousness and the Origin of the Self — where we discussed René Descartes and his renowned declaration, Cogito Ergo Sum — “I think, therefore I am.”

**Plato, Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, Ramana Maharshi**

**Immanuel Kant, George Berkeley, Advaita Vedanta**

According to Plato, the Self is immortal and independent, with the “True Self” being the rational part of the soul that seeks knowledge. Aristotle views the Self as the essence of a living being’s activity. From Bertrand Russell’s perspective, he rejects the concept of an eternal soul, asserting that the Self is merely a collection of experiences and mental states. In contrast, Ramana Maharshi sees the Self as pure consciousness, considering ego and identity as mere illusions.

Being connected to something vast and infinite — something that is paradoxically both a part of you and beyond you — cultivates a deep sense of unity. The inability to experience this connection gives rise to the illusion of separation from yourself and the world around you. Now, let’s turn our attention to René Descartes’ famous quote, Cogito Ergo Sum — “I think, therefore I am” — and explore its meaning and implications.

Rene Descartes: Cogito Ergo Sum

Cogito Ergo Sum — “I think, therefore I am.” This is René Descartes’ famous formulation from his work Meditations on First Philosophy. It asserts that the very act of thinking proves the existence of the thinker. Even if all other knowledge is doubted, the fact that one is thinking cannot be doubted, thus proving that the self or “I” exists.

Meaning and Implications:

Existence through Thought: Descartes argues that the act of thinking guarantees the existence of a thinking subject. The statement does not imply that the thinker creates their own existence, but rather, that the act of thinking reveals or proves their existence.
Self as Pre-Existing: The self in this formulation is already existent. The statement emphasizes the self’s awareness of its own existence. Descartes does not suggest that the self is created through thought; instead, thinking is merely evidence of the self’s pre-existing nature.
Metaphysical Focus: This is a metaphysical claim. Descartes is searching for a foundation of knowledge that is beyond all doubt, and he finds that foundation in the indubitable reality of the self as a thinking being. The act of thinking is evidence that the self exists, regardless of any external conditions.

Key Implications:

Existence is intrinsic to the thinking subject.
The self is not a construct but a given reality revealed through the act of thought.
Certainty of one’s own existence is based on self-awareness through thought.

Redefining the Self

However, the flaw in Rene Descartes’ philosophy lies in equating thinking with being. I believe Descartes’ statement needs to be redefined as follows:

I think, therefore, I created my “Self.”

“I” refers to the entity capable of thought. This entity thinks, and through thinking, it creates its own “self.” Thinking constructs the Self, which traps us within the confines of our own mind. This illusion leads us to believe that we are nothing more than the ‘Self’ our mind has created.

This statement introduces a different perspective. It implies that thinking not only proves existence but also creates the self. This formulation is more aligned with constructivist, existential, or postmodern views, suggesting that the self is not an inherent, pre-existing entity but something that is formed or constructed through thought or consciousness.

Meaning and Implications:

Self as a Construct: This statement suggests that the self is not merely discovered through thinking (as in Descartes), but is actively constructed or created by the thinking process. Here, the identity or sense of “self” is not something innate or given, but something that arises out of self-reflection, thought processes, or conscious awareness.
Role of Thought in Creating Identity: This could align with certain existentialist or constructivist ideas, such as those of Jean-Paul Sartre. In existentialism, the self is not predetermined but is continuously created through choices, actions, and self-definition. Similarly, in postmodern or psychological interpretations, thought and social interaction might play a role in constructing the self.
Self as Fluid or Dynamic: In this view, the self is seen as malleable or dynamic, constantly being formed and re-formed through reflection and interaction. Rather than being a static entity, the self emerges through engagement with the world, thoughts, and others.

Key Implications:

Self as a Construct: The self is created through the act of thinking, suggesting a dynamic process of self-formation.
The self is not inherently pre-existing but is brought into existence or formed through the conscious act of thinking or self-awareness.
This suggests that identity or the self is more fluid and potentially subject to change through new thoughts, reflections, or experiences.

Summary of Differences

**Comparison between Rene Descartes and Karsh**

Philosophical Implications

1. Descartes’ View (“I think, therefore I am”)

Rationalist and Foundational: Descartes’ version is rationalist in nature, seeking an undeniable foundation for knowledge. By starting with the self as the foundation (because the act of thinking is undeniable), he constructs a rational system of philosophy.
The Self is Fixed: For Descartes, the self is stable — it is a thinking substance whose existence is not questioned, and it is discovered through the very act of thinking.

2. Existential or Constructivist View (“I think, therefore I created my ‘Self’”)

Existentialism and Constructivism: In this alternative view, heavily influenced by existentialist and constructivist philosophies, the self is not a pre-given entity but something that is created or formed through one’s thoughts, actions, and experiences. This aligns with the existentialist belief in freedom and responsibility to create one’s own essence through life choices.
The Self is Dynamic: The self is not a fixed entity but an ongoing process. One’s identity is continuously constructed and reconstructed through self-reflection, choices, and the influence of external factors.

Conclusion

“I think, therefore I am” (Descartes) posits that the self’s existence is revealed through the act of thinking. Thinking proves that an individual exists, and the self is a pre-existing, stable entity.
“I think, therefore I created my ‘Self’” suggests a more dynamic view of the self, where the act of thinking is not just a revelation of existence but an active creation of identity. In this view, the self is constructed through reflection, choices, and mental processes.

Both statements address the relationship between thought and self, but while Descartes seeks certainty about existence, the second statement implies a creative process in shaping or defining the self through thought.

In the next section, we will explore the neuroscience behind the formation of the Self, examining the philosophies of Jean-Paul Sartre (Existentialism), Michel Foucault (Constructivism), and Friedrich Nietzsche. The Self is considered an emergent property of the brain’s ability to think and reason. We will also tackle the fundamental question: Which is primary — matter or consciousness?

Here’s an intriguing example of emergent properties: in the image below, the movement of the shark is perceived as an emergent property resulting from a sequence of still images played at a constant frame rate.