A Beautiful Mind

            

Henry David Thoreau said, “Money is not required to buy necessity of soul.” Yes, it is true. Even though I am successful in not having any money to realize the essence of above thought, not a single day passes without my grave disappointment due to the failure of the self in knowing the depth of the mind. Is mind a caricature of human imagination or it is extension of human brain and body connection. Does mind exists beyond brain and body? Is there any place for the concepts like soul, spirit and likewise when we describe the mind? Why I am continuously being driven by the vices and virtues of the ordinary life? Why I am immortal by my grief and mortal by my pleasure? Sometimes I find mind to be very subtle, even hard to catch in the wavelengths of electron microscope and suddenly when I write a poem, it transforms itself in the sky wearing the dress of rainbow. 

What if I could not discover the micro layers of the brain full of billions of neurons, cells which continue to die and born for the destruction and creation of memory, the biochemical reactions and somatic developments going on the tiny brain ? What if I do not know parallel world of consciousness and unconsciousness which simultaneously determines the fate of our actions; many times we do not know the reasons behind those actions. And if we are not aware what we do not know, then it does not matter whether we are acquiring some knowledge out of our perception, observation, continuous thinking, introspection, synthesis of arguments and convergence of theoretical hypothesis and practical verification. So we should ask our mind, what we know and what we do not know. 

We have always loved our mind. We always say, “Follow the mind (heart), not the brain.” If that is so, what is dramatic difference between the brain and the mind? Can it be demonstrated? If we think rationally, mind is a subset of bigger organ of human brain. Or can we say that mind is metaphoric architecture of the aesthetic and subjective frame of reference situated in our brain. Every language has its own grammar. Our mind has also some kind of grammar. This is codified in the way of habits, standards of behavior, degrees of intuition, benchmarks of perception, scopes of worldview, depths of customs, ranges of traditions and vastness of experiences. Have you noticed, we always say, “Mind your language?” Child learns language by its own, being in the realm of the environment. We need not teach it the rules of the grammar. How then that it is possible? Same goes with the mind. As language does the tasks of ‘description’ and ‘explanation’, mind also does the work of ‘expression’ and ‘amplification’ of the senses of the brain.

            
 If the mind is not something having metaphysical existence, then it should be purely of biological, psychological existence. We always do some voluntary actions, many times we are bound by certain rules and numerous times we are compelled to follow actions due to threat and extreme emergency conditions. How our mind reacts in these situations? Does it have separate expression of desire or is it bound by previously and simultaneously happening dynamic events? Does mind have “Free Will”? If it is having a independent free will, then how it is possible that the world in which we live being so much deterministic and interdependent, allows that mind to be having a free will so as to try to fulfill own wishes? Have you not heard the famous ‘White Light’ poem? “Lady called bright-white started her journey tomorrow and reached her destination yesterday.” So, relative and subjective position and momentum of the observer clearly decides and defines the nature of language of description, explanation and further expression and amplification of mental sensory reaction towards that event.

There is not fix and defined way to understand mind. Study about mind teaches us to be tolerant and to respect the diversity of various natural, human and technical disciplines. It is a mammoth task to understand the gravity of mind as we have to dwell with the religion, philosophy, metaphysics, logic, anthropology and linguistics on one hand and cognitive science, neurology, biology, evolution, computational sciences, artificial sciences on the other hand. It is possible that many people are exploring and speculating about the different types of possibilities about the functioning of the mind and the brain. If someone has already excelled and proved his/her credibility in area of research and understanding, then it is justified to have a learned, systematic and mature guess at the things we know less. This gives great opportunities for convergence of different disciplines, culture of thoughts and re conciliatory perspectives; leading towards multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary inquiry.

Following are the philosophical problems to which ongoing developments in cognitive science are highly relevant.

ü  Innateness: To what extent is knowledge innate or acquired by experience? Is human behavior shaped primarily by nature or nurture?

ü   Language of thought: Does the human brain operate with a language-like code or with more general connectionist architecture? What is the relation between   symbolic cognitive models using rules and concepts and sub-symbolic models using neural networks?

ü  Mental imagery: Do human minds think with visual and other kinds of

imagery, or only with language-like representations?

ü  Folk psychology: Does a person's everyday understanding of other people consist of having a theory of mind, or of merely being able to simulate them?

ü  Meaning: How do mental representations acquire meaning or mental content? What is the relationship between representation to the world, and a community of thinkers?

ü  Mind-brain identity: Are mental states brain states? What is the relation between psychology and neuroscience? Is materialism true?

ü  Free will: Is human action free or merely caused by brain events?

ü  Moral psychology: How do minds/brains make ethical judgments?

ü  The meaning of life: How can minds construed naturalistically as brains find

value and meaning?

ü  Emotions: What are emotions, and what role do they play in thinking?

ü  Mental illness: What are mental illnesses, and how are psychological and neural processes relevant to their explanation and treatment?

ü  Appearance and reality: How do minds/brains form and evaluate representations of the external world?

ü  Social science: How do explanations of the operations of minds interact with explanations of the operations of groups and societies? [1]

The self is indeed something that arises from brain activity of a certain kind and in certain brain areas, and that this activity is also closely tied to functions related to “qualia”. In contrast to the idea that qualia are private, subjective, and unsharable properties belonging exclusively to a private self Qualia are the ‘raw feels’ of conscious experience: the painfulness of pain, the redness of red. Beliefs are also associated with ‘partial qualia’ and conscious awareness, once they are made explicit in ‘working memory’. The distinction between qualia associated with percepts and those associated with explicit (or occurrent) beliefs may be quantitative rather than qualitative. Tacit beliefs, on the other hand, are completely qualia-free. [2]

V.S. Ramchandran further elaborates about eight distinctive characteristics due to which a special type of qualia is able to generate the mind of artist, novelist, poet, painter or anyone who is distinct.  Example: A piece of modern contemporary art, a painting!

a)      One, the peak shift principle; not only along the form dimension, but also along more abstract dimensions, such as feminine/masculine posture, color (e.g. skin tones) etc. There may be classes of stimuli that optimally excite neurons that encode form primitives in the brain, even though it may not be immediately obvious to us what these primitives are.

b)      Two, isolating a single cue helps the organism allocate attention to the output of a single module thereby allowing it to more effectively ‘enjoy’ the peak shift along the dimensions represented in that module.

c)      Three, perceptual grouping to delineate figure and ground may be enjoyable in its own right, since it allows the organism to discover objects in noisy environments. Principles such as figure–ground delineation, closure and grouping by similarity may lead to a direct aesthetic response because the modules may send their output to the limbic system even before the relevant objects has been completely identified.

d)     Four, just as grouping or binding is directly reinforcing (even before the complete object is recognized), the extraction of contrast is also reinforcing, since regions of contrast are usually information-rich regions that deserve allocation of attention. Camouflage, in nature, relies partly on this principle.

e)      Five, perceptual ‘problem solving’ is also reinforcing. Hence a puzzle picture (or one in which meaning is implied rather than explicit) may paradoxically be more alluring than one in which the message is obvious. There appears to be an element of ‘peekaboo’ in some types of art — thereby ensuring that the visual system ‘struggles’ for a solution and does not give up too easily. For the same reason, a model whose hips and breasts are about to be revealed is more provocative than one who is completely naked.

f)       Six, an abhorrence of unique vantage points.

g)      Seven, perhaps most enigmatic is the use of visual ‘puns’ or metaphors in art. Such visual metaphors are probably effective because discovering hidden similarities between superficially dissimilar entities is an essential part of all visual pattern recognition and it would thus make sense that each time such a link is made, a signal is sent to the limbic system.

h)      Eight, symmetry — whose relevance to detecting prey, predator or healthy mates is obvious. (Indeed, evolutionary biologists have recently argued that detecting violations of symmetry may help animals detect unhealthy animals that have parasites. [3]

Neurons

So, eventually I am scripting a semi colon in long quest of the Mind by highlighting the ‘processes’ of the qualia. This poem is written (23^rd April 2010) well before I saw today “Agony and Ecstasy” a biographical film on Michael Angelo. In many scenes, when Angelo is painting day and night the ceilings of Sistine Chapel, Pope asks him when his work of painting will end. To that, Angelo replies, “When I am finished, your holiness.” In this spirit, please take a glance at following.

Craziest Moment

Imagine, I discovered unique element

Or invented novel chemical;

What makes me crazy is process and

Not the end which ends my craziness!

Imagine, I loved someone

Or someone loved me;

What makes me crazy is process and

Not the end which ends my craziness!

Imagine, I am writing a fiction,

Or I am reading a beautiful face;

What makes me crazy is process and

Not the end which ends my craziness!

Imagine, I am starved to death

Or I am recalled even after last breath;

What makes me crazy is process and

Not the end which ends my craziness!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

[1] Thagard, Paul, "Cognitive Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/cognitive-science/>.

[2] V. S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein, Three Laws of Qualia What Neurology Tells Us about the Biological Functions of Consciousness, Qualia and the Self, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, No. 5-6, 1997, pp. 429–58

[3]  V.S. Ramchandran, BBC Reith Lecture Series 2003

-------------------------------------------------

Intelligence and Dissent : Made for Each Other !!!

What is the difference between honeybee and worst architect? The difference is honeybee works intuitively while the architect envisages a plan first in mind and then it is transferred to the paper and further to the worksite. Likewise our mind where the conflict of ideas takes place going beyond the necessary consensus is necessary for learning new knowledge bypassing dogmatic prejudices. The playground of mind is truly the citadel of creative and confident scholar. It is rare experience that the ideological assertiveness and commitment towards science behind academic position can coexist together. Prof. Utsa and Prof. Prabhat have given that rare experience to Indian scholarly community and largely to Indian society.

The intellectual rigor and argumentative character of a person helps to theorize particular developing problem or situation and thus emerges great mind which comments, discusses and guides a particular discourse for construction of great scholarship, institutions and movements in their lifetime. This is the unique achievement and gift of both of them to the social sciences in India. This is particularly significant when both of them are just stepping down from the formal chair of Professorship after 40 years of mentoring to the generations of students of economics in JNU.

Two such striving forces behind such great, monumental passion of “Living Commitment” completed their formal engagements in the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Truly “Made For Each Other”, Prof. Utsa and Prabhat Patnaik were epitomizing force behind agrarian and anti-imperialist issues in post-modern India, though there are lot of issues about modernity yet to be addressed in a serious way.

The galaxy of Professors, friends and students were assembled at Godavari Dhaba in JNU to celebrate the ethos represented by an energetic and synergetic couple of extraordinary commitment towards the issues of common man, the love for them which is impossible to flow without the essential warmth of a good human nature they possess. All of the senior Professors and students lauded, appreciated, revered, praised, laid tribute, and saluted the astounding degree of achievements these two Professors have accomplished in their life. With both returning from Oxford and Cambridge in 1973 in the heyday of the founding times of JNU, they remained the torchbearers of academic dissent and symbol of intellectual integrity beyond the issues of Economics to cut across the social, international and political developments in last quarter of century.

Prabhat and Utsa shaped many generations of legendary Economists, many of them are still serving JNU, in many policy making and in policy shaping institutions across the world and off course the people forming intelligentsia in political and social organizations who are greatly influenced by thinking of Prabhat and Utsa in realizing the massive disparity between “Shining and Suffering India”. To witness the formal transition phase called ‘retirement’ of these renowned public intellectuals was a definitive moment to reflect towards the fact that how a person singlehandedly with his/her deep confidence about their knowledge can fight carrying a sense of great optimism and uncompromising attitude against the ignorant yet powerful brains in the policy and political domain.

Three hour long ceremony was dominated by round of unending applauses, mention of various anecdotes and instances enticing waterfall of laughter and expression of location of the time-scapes in the memory when both helped, supported and inspired student community in JNU and at large. This ceremony was in a way, was a testimony for a greater introspective process towards the challenge emerged in the recent times in the form of increasing intolerant attitude towards the independent character of the minds, scholarship and institutions who are trained, groomed and cultivated in a culture which learns, masters and innovates an art to question.

In one paper Utsa says: “The correct theorizing of the questions of food security and poverty has become particularly important at the present time, which is one of rapid changes in the economic environment in which small producers including farmers and workers are living.” (Theorizing Poverty and Food Security in the Era of Economic Reforms, En publication: Globalization and the Washington Consensus: its influence on democracy and development in the south. Gladys Lechini (editor). Buenos Aires : CLACSO, 2008)  Exactly on the same lines, today Prof. Utsa appealed to the students to learn the “Language of the Discourse.” She insisted upon the need to engage our minds to argue and fight about how the issues are framed, defined and debated. So, that context of ‘a rigorous engagement in rational arguments’ is of paramount importance. She linked this ‘power of discourse to influence definition of issues’ to the larger question of higher education and quality of research in India with the reference to the upcoming initiative of Govt. of India to establish world class universities in India with the help of foreign institutions, universities claiming world class status and excellence in their achievements.

Prabhat, one of the DOYENs of critic of neoliberal economic policies world over; in his small speech praised the ability of the vibrant student community to inform, educate and guide the momentum in the scholarly interaction, particular movement and issues of institutional development. Eventually he appealed to the students to maintain that character of intellectual rigor, independence and hard work to arrive at the competence of the person who can really steer the wheel of the movements necessary to raise many new emerging questions which need to be studied and debated; in the Dhabas of JNU and in the core domain of our democracy i.e. politics and policy making. 

 The dignitaries who extensively shared their experiences, memories about PRABHAT and UTSA were SITARAM YECHURY, PROF G K CHADDHA, Former VC JNU, PROF. JAYATI GHOSH (CESP), PROF. C.P. CHANDRASHEKHAR (CESP), PROF. ZOYA HASAN (CPS), PROF ANURADHA CHENOY (SIS), PROF ANWAR PASHA (SL), PROF. S S JODHKA(SSS), PROF. KAMAL MITRA CHENOY(SIS) and others. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Towards a history of India's international relations: Notes from the field’ ...

 

What were the reasons due to which Nehru decided to call ceasefire in J&K and take the question of it to the United Nations, what were the reasons behind Nehru`s decision not to sign an boundary settlement agreement in 1954, what were the reasons behind formulation of USA`s response to the Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbour in 1941, what were the reasons behind every strategic-military decision taken subsequently during every historic moment which decided the course of larger flow of developments to take shape? What tools does an historian have to unpack those events? Records are one of the most trusted ones. Personal memories are also very strong instruments to analyse these events so as to arrive at the causations of those events. I can finger to one such very interesting column being written in The Indian Express since many months by senior journalist Inder Malhotra, column name being The Rear Angle.

History is all about right and left. If you do not take positions you are bound to ruin your argument. Telling a story in a narrative way is most profound form of rudimentary style History uses when it discusses events, although there may be many debates about what an historical event accounts for. And also as Bertand Russel says, “Most plausible argument about historical event can be most easily refutable.”So, it is all about how we perceive it.

International relations is all about documenting the patterns of changes happening around us deducing those to least possible models, frameworks and perspectives compared to detailed, voluminous and in depth referencing in the History. Social sciences are not that efficient to analyze, explain and communicate the "Change" in terms of what international relations expert might want to see in geopolitical perspectives. But history gives a certain framework of historical materialism and Marxist approach to do that, a distinct privilege amongst the social sciences. 

 As Armitage puts in one of the papers “The Fifty Years` Rift: Intellectual History and International Relations in Modern Intellectual History  (Vol.1, Issue 1, 2004 pp. 97–109):

“For much of the past half-century, history and International Relations have been two fields divided by a common language. As diplomatic history—in the strict sense of history written from diplomatic archives—gradually moved from the centre to the margins of historical concerns, so International Relations became both more theoretical (in its elaboration of ideal-typical models of state behaviour) and more positivistic (in its ambition to stand alongside the other social sciences). The methods and aspirations of the two disciplines grew ever further apart, with seemingly more damaging results for International Relations than for history. International Relations scholars remained consumers of history even when they did not follow contemporary trends in historiography. However, the number of historians who engaged with International Relations became vanishingly small."

Largely history of the nineteenth century was moreover history of international politics. Colonialism, imperialism, world wars, industrial revolution, trade tensions, military modernisation and many other events to flag. So, where does the history of international relations starts, what significance it has in our contemporary polity and what public role thus the international relations scholar has when it comes to arguing the diverse facets of the historicity of the politico military alliance in every part of the last two centuries.

Dr Srinath Raghavan who is faculty member in Defence Studies Department, King’s College London and Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, was in JNU today to discuss all these issues in detail. He was visualising the different possibilities through which one can start writing about history of international relations in India; in the terms of purely military aspects. According to him, history of international relations was largely written in the framework of social and economic terms. Economic aspects dominated due to implications of the industrial revolution and that of the great depression. Social analysis dominated because if you are not working on any subaltern aspects of history you are not considered as a serious historian. So, largely this neglected part of political history of international relations has to be focussed in the studies in case of India and subcontinent.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------