This is the Abstract of a recent paper, with a link to the full text below. Some of you may like to browse it:
Brain, Mind and Consciousness are the research concerns of psychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers. All of them are working in different and important ways to understand the workings of the brain, the mysteries of the mind and to grasp that elusive concept called consciousness. Although they are all justified in forwarding their respective researches, it is also necessary to integrate these diverse appearing understandings and try and get a comprehensive perspective that is, hopefully, more than the sum of their parts. There is also the need to understand what each one is doing, and by the other, to understand each other's basic and fundamental ideological and foundational underpinnings. This must be followed by a comprehensive and critical dialogue between the respective disciplines. Moreover, the concept of mind and consciousness in Indian thought needs careful delineation and critical/evidential enquiry to make it internationally relevant. The brain-mind dyad must be understood, with brain as the structural correlate of the mind, and mind as the functional correlate of the brain. To understand human experience, we need a triad of external environment, internal environment and a consciousness that makes sense of both. We need to evolve a consensus on the definition of consciousness, for which a working definition in the form of a Consciousness Tetrad of Default, Aware, Operational and Evolved Consciousness is presented. It is equally necessary to understand the connection between physical changes in the brain and mental operations, and thereby untangle and comprehend the lattice of mental operations. Interdisciplinary work and knowledge sharing, in an atmosphere of healthy give and take of ideas, and with a view to understand the significance of each other's work, and also to critically evaluate the present corpus of knowledge from these diverse appearing fields, and then carry forward from there in a spirit of cooperative but evidential and critical enquiry - this is the goal for this monograph, and the work to follow.
Available at:
Thank you for the informative article.
Of course asking for a consensus on Consciousness is asking too much at this time, if only because the work is barely starting. Especially since each philosophical tradition has its own jargon, and there are, indeed, even differences in language within the Indian documents that are rife with interpretational disputes.
What ever terms you use to describe the brain, however the physical manifestation of it, has certain functions that are demonstrable. Indian "Masters" may have used some form of informal science, long before the rest of us, followed Roger Bacon into "Science", but that does not mean that they weren't good observers, merely that they might not have captured the deep level of understanding possible with todays science.
The interplay between Micro-biology, bio-chemistry, and Neuro-science, might not be as well covered in Indian History, but there is no questions that the "Masters" were philosophical and psychological giants. I encourage any attempt to translate the works into something intelligable to English speakers, and to argue, their points again.
wonderful article for insight into consciousness, please also see Sidney Clouston's todays posting in facebook that has similar discussions on ZEN matter dark matter, god, religion Einstiens saying
sir it is really nice paper and it is Indian traditional and ancient therapy clue
Thank you for the informative article.
Of course asking for a consensus on Consciousness is asking too much at this time, if only because the work is barely starting. Especially since each philosophical tradition has its own jargon, and there are, indeed, even differences in language within the Indian documents that are rife with interpretational disputes.
What ever terms you use to describe the brain, however the physical manifestation of it, has certain functions that are demonstrable. Indian "Masters" may have used some form of informal science, long before the rest of us, followed Roger Bacon into "Science", but that does not mean that they weren't good observers, merely that they might not have captured the deep level of understanding possible with todays science.
The interplay between Micro-biology, bio-chemistry, and Neuro-science, might not be as well covered in Indian History, but there is no questions that the "Masters" were philosophical and psychological giants. I encourage any attempt to translate the works into something intelligable to English speakers, and to argue, their points again.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience