Reality+

The “hard problem of consciousness” as put by David Chalmers is concerned with understanding why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences, also known as qualia. Chalmers argues that even if we were to fully understand the neural mechanisms and physical processes associated with consciousness, there would still be an “explanatory gap” in our understanding of why these processes give rise to subjective, conscious experiences. He started citing to Upanishads in many areas to explain this concept. Unless a person has gone through the teachings of Vedanta this phenomenological quest will sound mundane.

In the context of Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta, especially the concept of Sakuna Brahman, we can draw some parallels. Non-dual Vedanta posits the existence of Brahman, an ultimate, formless reality that transcends distinctions and is beyond conceptualization. Sakuna Brahman refers to Brahman with attributes or qualities, as opposed to Nirguna Brahman, which is Brahman without attributes. Religious practices strongly emphasize devotion to the personal aspect of the divine (bhakti) and, in doing so, establish a separation between the individual (jiva) and the Supreme Being (Ishwara) in most religions but only in Hindu philosophy it goes beyond this through the path of knowledge to explain that there are no distinctions.

In the exploration of consciousness, one could draw an analogy between the “hard problem” and the challenge of understanding how Sakuna Brahman (with attributes) is related to or gives rise to the multifaceted, varied experiences within the phenomenal world. Just as Chalmers highlights the gap in understanding the transition from physical processes to conscious experience, in a Vedantic context, there is an inquiry into the relationship between the attributed Sakuna Brahman and the diverse, manifested reality.
Chalmer attacks Cartesian dualism in its classical form, where mind and body are distinct substances. However, his emphasis on the subjective nature of consciousness and the difficulty in explaining it purely in terms of physical processes echoes some of the themes in the dualistic tradition. He introduces the concept of “property dualism,” suggesting that consciousness has irreducible properties that cannot be fully explained by physical properties alone, we can see these observations were lucidly explained in the yogin and advaitin in standard vedantic texts several thousand years back.

As we engage with the world and we perceive it to be true, which is the fundamental question of all the Upanishads. From a logical standpoint, the inquiry into why our individual experiences should constitute the consciousness of the ultimate consciousness where the hiranyagrabha plays the role of explaining these concepts. This perpetual seeking is crucial for self-realization, leading to the understanding that there is no duality—there is only the non-dual essence that is the ultimate reality, referred to as “ekam.”

Lots of fascinating ideas. Pretty unsatisfying exposition of those ideas - many ideas were too simplified or dumbed down to actually be able to follow the relevant arguments or find them remotely plausible.

This is an interesting but frustrating book. The style is informal and takes too many diversions. More quasi-formal logical arguments are scattered through the text but are not always watertight. I think the case is made that a perfectly implemented simulated creats a reality but not for imperfect simulation. This would required a more developed pluralist ontology such as the “Fields of Sense” (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ywjdCQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false) of Marcus Gabriel.