What is the origin of reasoning? And is mind just a “Tabula Raza” (Blank Slate)?

What is the origin of reasoning? And is mind just a “Tabula Raza” (Blank Slate)?

Reasoning is the way human mind works. Mind works on experimental data. Mind is not like just a “tebula raza”. Mind is an effective machine that can do very complicated works on the “raw materials” of experimental or “sensory” data.”Knowledge” is the final product. Raw material is the “sensory data”. And this “sensory data” cannot be converted to “knowledge” without the involvement of a proper mechine which is “human mind”!

And how this machine works? In simple form, it works by making analogies and simple generalizations. In complicated form, it becomes deductive, mathematical, grammatical as well as poetically and musically balanced.

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

There is widespread misconception among many supporters of modern established science that scientific facts and theories are all empirical in nature and this so-called “empirical” knowledge is superior to any kind of “rational” knowledge. Sometimes back, I had a little debate with supporters of the idea of so-called “empirical science”. In that debate, I pointed out that modern science’s over-emphasis on “empirical methods” is based on following false and misleading point of view:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In my opinion, the above-quoted point of view is misleading. First of all I do not accept the idea of “pure rational reasoning”. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.

In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.

A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.

Now I try to explain that this “Pure Rationalism” is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:

All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C

Now I try to analyze this “conclusion”. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C

In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.

Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. “Cogito Ergo Sum”. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.

Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.

Pure Rationalism is logically wrong….!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words … which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning … but actually have come from sensory information.

Now I again come to the above-quoted statement, which, in my opinion, is a completely misleading point of view. I reproduce that statement below:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In this connection, my opinion is that sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the “Pure Rationalist Philosophers”. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so this statement is also logically wrong.

Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.

My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical … because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right, in my assessment.

But in my opinion, there is no clash between “empirical knowledge” and the so-called “rational knowledge”. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume.

Here, an objection can be raised that point of view of modern science is not akin to the philosophy of “Pure Rationalism” because modern science doesn’t work on any given “first principle”.

My point of view is that mere fact that science doesn’t work on any given first principle doesn’t make it purely empirical in nature. Modern science is still very much “rational”, in my opinion. But modern science is not “rational” in the sense of “pure rationalism philosophy”. Modern science is “rational” only in the true sense of rationalism. And the true rational sense is that product of reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of sensory data. So in this right sense, we should not find any clash between product of reasoning and any empirical knowledge. If we try to look more closly, we shall find that product of reasoning, being the “re-arrangement” of sensory information, can be considered to be the final product. Mere sensory information can be regarded as just raw material in this right sense. In this way, rational knowledge i.e. the product of reasoning, should be considered to be superior form of knowledge because of being the final product in essence. Mere empirical knowledge is actually inferior because it is just like raw material which still has to go through the process of rational reasoning. The mistake of modern science is that it considers itself only empirical in nature. It is important to highlight that modern science, mistakenly, not only disowns, but also degrades all the forms of rational reasoning. As a collateral mistake, modern science considers only empirical knowledge to be the superior most form of knowledge. And as a result of this kind of mistakes, modern science doesn’t officially recognize any valid role of logical reasoning in it’s research procedures. It’s proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of study of science at any level.

I have mentioned earlier that in the “true rational sense”, product of logical reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of empirical knowledge. I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself to just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification>>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Verifications

I have objections against “established” scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If anyone is a PhD. in Physics, I am hopeful that he/ she migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of his/ her syllabus.

Here I am in need to clearly differentiate between “True Rationalism” and “Pure Rationalism”. Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is “such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information.” This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler and Newton etc. when Old Greek “rational” (i.e. pure rational … as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton’s laws of Motion were declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let’s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the “empirical proof” for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any “force”, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.

So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an “Empirical Law”, and therefore, a part of “Empirical Knowledge”. Any “Rational Knowledge” is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above discussion, I mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification>>> Logical Interpretation of Empirical Verifications

Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.

Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.

Modern science emphasizes on its so-called “empirical methods” so much that it tends to almost completely deny any valid role of logical reasoning or the theory of logic in the process of development of new scientific theories. This position of modern science can be described in the words of a so-called scientist in following way:

“While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory.”

My comments:

It is a super false idea. I already had discussed the complete logical development of first law of motion by Newton in the above discussion.

So previously, I had shown that first law of motion was the product of “LOGIC”. Now I try to show that second law also had come from the door of LOGIC. As first law was stating the logical results of the complete absence of force, second law just stated the logical results of presence of force. In the first law, the logical result of the absence of force was non-acceleration. This non-acceleration had two logical states which were (i) complete rest and; (ii) uniform velocity motion.

Now come to see what was the second law in fact. Second law just had introduced the element of “force” in the same situation of first law. In the first law, the absence of force had given the result of “non-acceleration”. So the LOGICAL result in second law, of the “presence” of “force” was the “acceleration”. Second law of motion was outcome of just mere logic up to this point. The next problem was that ok there had to be “acceleration” in the presence of “force” … but how much acceleration…??? The issue of “how much acceleration” required experimental works as well as application of mathematics. For the development of second law of motion, logic played primary role whereas experimental and mathematical works had secondary function.

Perhaps science is having complete pragmatic self-conception, which may be useful but may not be acceptable to True Rational Philosophy because of being inconsistent with facts. Science only sees if “outcome” is useful or profitable or not. Science focuses only on end results and doesn`t bother to see or evaluate the sources of origin of scientific theories.

Was Mendeleev`s “Periodic Table” not the outcome of logic? He had constructed that table on the basis of “consitent” or “ordered” properties exibited by certain elements. Is logic not the name of consistency and order? He had placed even some unknown elements of his time in their proper order. The act of placing an unknown thing on its right place was a logical act and cannot be regarded as “empirical” act in any way. It is just like as premises come from sense experience whereas right logical conclusion is formed without direct sense perception.

Even the John Dolton`s theory of atom was also logical. Original theory of atom was just the logical answer to such questions as why only specific quantitative combination of different elements result in chemical compounds.

Uptill now I have discussed only the role of deductive logic in the process of development of scientific theories. Actually role of deductive logic is really limited. Most ideas or scientific theories are actually the outcome of ANOLOGY, which is a form of inductive logic. To understand the role of analogy, readers will have to go through my following article in complete:

Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas..

In my opinion, Newton had reached the concept of Gravitational Force of earth through the process of analogy. If anyone asks, I can write about it in details as well. Coulumb`s law is very much similar to Newton`s Law of Gravitation. Role of analogy cannot be overlooked in the process of development of Coulumb`s law because analogy works on the basis of “similarity” between processes or phenomena or things. Many of the theories of Einstien were “analogical” in nature like the idea of “similarity” between field of gravitation and an accelerated system. The idea that if accelerated system could bent ray of light then a gravitational field also could bent ray of light, was also analogical idea. And remember that it was this idea which was experimentally verified to be true in 1919 during the time of a solar eclips.

I am having the opinion that more than 95% new ideas come through the process of analogy, i.e. a form of LOGIC. I have given link to my related article for its details.

So science should not be restricted to just “empirical procedures”. There is valid role of rational reasoning in the process of discovery of new scientific facts. So there is need to include theory of rational reasoning in the research procedures of science as well as in the syllabus of science education.

Human Knowledge & its Expression:

In my other articles like “Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind”, “Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times” and “Animism and Mythology”, I have taken “Knowledge” as equivalent to “theoretical awareness”. As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions. Computers etc. display theories, but they are not ‘aware’ of any theory. So “theoretical awareness” can be considered as the unique property of only humans. But the fact that animals are generally aware of their environment, raises the question that if all knowledge theoretical? Following article is basically an attempt to reply this question.

As already has been stated that “theoretical awareness” is the unique property of only humans. My opinion is just that we can consider only this type of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. There can be other modes of ‘awareness’ also. It does not seem wrong to not treat other forms of ‘awareness’ as ‘knowledge’. Awareness can be as remote as like a thermometer being ‘aware’ of body temperature as it can show exact amount of temperature. This type of awareness is neither ‘theoretical’ nor ‘conscious’. Only thing here is that let’s say mercury expansion has direct relationship with temperature. Mercury, in a sense, is ’sensitive’ to heat or temperature. Mercury shall show a specific ‘response’ i.e. of expansion, whenever it shall be exposed to heat. But this type of ’sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’ is totally mechanical. Mechanical actions can be considered to be quite rigid, constant, blind and above all, ‘non-conscious’. We say, just for our own convenience, that thermometer is ‘aware’ of temperature. In fact it is not. Fact is just that the mercury in thermometer has rigidly, blindly and unconsciously been affected on the basis of a constant physical law. It is we humans, who can take conscious notice of how much mercury has been affected through the application of heat. Then we call so measured heat as temperature. In the article on the topic “Some Differences of Human and Animal Mind”, I have defined ‘consciousness’ as the “manifested form of sensitiveness and responsiveness which originates from biological sense perception.” Now question arises is that what are the core elements of biological sensitiveness and responsiveness? In above discussion, we have recognized that mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness has to be in a constant pattern, has to be blind, rigid and non-conscious etc. An animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness will have whole different features. In an ordinary animal, there is presence of famous five senses. In addition, there is ‘memory’. This animal may show many types of responses like fear, belongingness, anger etc. etc. The issue here is that just what are the differences between the sensitiveness and responsiveness of a thermometer and those of an animal like a dog? In a thermometer, mercury will show its response only when it shall be physically exposed to heat. Mercury is ‘blind’ because it cannot show any response without physical contact with heat source, where obviously, heat source may include hot surrounding air as well. A dog, on the other hand, is not blind because it can show some response without having been physically exposed to hot surrounding area of burning fire. A dog can ’see’ burning fire from as much distant place as to just able to ’see’ the burning fire but not able to feel any heat thereof, and then can show its response. At this point, real ‘awareness’ comes to scene. This ‘awareness’ can be thought of as such a ’sensitiveness’ which must have been originated, may be just partially, from “past memorized experiences”. Here it seems pertinent to mention Henri Bergson’s concept of Mind. He has conceived ‘mind’ as a faculty, which can ’store’ past. Although I do not think that the only function of mind is to just store past and then, as Bergson says, to recall the relevant contents of past experiences upon facing the current situation. Mind, in my opinion, can have many other functions than to this one, but this definition of mind, in my assessment, does comprehensively describe an animal’s mind with the exception that still the pure instinctive actions of animals, which are generally independent of any of past experiences, are not covered by this definition. In this way, we can say that those animal actions that originate from the application of ’stored’ past memories (may be like movie clips) upon current situation are the ‘awareness’ based actions. Other actions, that are independent of past experiences, may be considered as just ‘instinctive’ actions.

Now if we try to differentiate mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness from the sensitiveness and responsiveness of an animal, we can do it at two levels; i.e. (i) on the level of just instincts and; (ii) on the level of ‘awareness’. On the level of instincts, such things as pleasure, pain, comfort, discomfort etc. shall characterize an animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness. These things are not to be found in just mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness. Secondly, mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness is just a one-way process. The behavior of non-living entity, which is showing mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness, has to be perfectly ‘passive’. On the other hand, instincts based animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness is a two way process where animals generally show ‘active’ behavior. An animal that feels pleasure would by itself move towards the source of pleasure and similarly shall move away, at its own (i.e. by using its own biological mechanical or locomotion energy), from the sources of pains and discomforts. Now come to see the difference of mechanical sensitiveness and responsiveness with animal’s sensitiveness and responsiveness on the level of ‘awareness’. Animal’s mind possesses the faculty of storage of past experiences and the ability to recall relevant past experiences upon facing the current situation. Actually, it seems that animal mind is able to store the related or “associated” observations in serially connected form. What I mean is that let’s say an animal, which is ‘aware’ of ways of its routine path etc. shall recall the next turn or way-out after having reached that particular place where that next turn is situated. It means that animal’s mind, where past experiences have been stored, shall retrieve the corresponding relevant information i.e. about next turn, only when the animal shall again perceive the place of that turn. It is simply not appropriate to suppose the presence of any such ability in animals that they could have some sort of imaginative mapping of ways of their usual route. In this way, in animals, process of sense perception continuously keeps on drawing next relevant information from the storeroom of past experiences i.e. mind; because sense perception itself is a continuous process. And since past experiences are guiding animal here, so we can consider this type of animal behavior to be based on ‘awareness’. In the same way, animals can memorize (i.e. store) the information regarding what to do upon listening particular commands of their Masters and can retrieve that information from memory whenever they listen those commands. In addition, animals can expect or anticipate the commands by their Masters as well. But it seems that they can have such expectations only in the presence of those Masters.

Now we can try to differentiate between this type of animal awareness and the ‘theoretical awareness’ that can be found in our perceivable world, only in humans. First of all we should accept that basically, or by birth, humans do not possess anything like ‘theoretical awareness’. Innately, humans possess only ‘learning potential’ as well as certain tendencies for it. I shall discuss these tendencies at pertinent stage. Human childs acquire or learn theoretical propositions or other theoretical stuff only and mainly out of their experience of living in human groups or society. Without going into the speculations regarding just how primitive theoretical knowledge could have been evolved in early human societies, we can just assume that it might have been so evolved as a result of very long term processes. I have mentioned earlier that it is not appropriate to suppose that animals can have anything like ‘imaginative mapping’ of their ’stored past’ because it is only the process of sense perception in animals, that can retrieve or draw the relevant past contents out of memory. But for the case of humans, it is pertinent to suppose the presence of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past contents even for the case of such an hypothetical individual human who gets no experience of living in human group or society at all. Due to this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are able to recall those past contents in their fresh memory (or conscious mind) that may not have any linkage with their existing sensory information. Due to this ability, humans, for instance can recall and tell ways of path of some other city while standing on a different location of another city. In this way, actually humans can imaginatively ‘explore’ the storeroom of past experiences. And although humans can imaginatively explore the past experiences of mind but it seems that they cannot reach up to a particular past memory content just arbitrarily. What seems right is that they can reach up to a particular past memory content only through a chain like process. For example, in order that I may recall ways of path of some other city, first of all I need to bring the idea of that other city to my conscious mind. With the idea of that city in my conscious mind, then I shall recall different spots of the path etc. and then, only through this chain like process, I shall be able to tell the complete path to some other person. I shall discuss the structure of this chain like process in some other article. The thing to be emphasized here is that the ability of ‘imaginative mapping’ of past experiences exists only in humans and that although this ability itself is not equivalent to humans’ ‘theoretical knowledge’, but the same ‘imaginative mapping’ is an important source of this ‘theoretical knowledge’. The same ‘imaginative map’ is the source of origin of all human thinking, imaginations and dreams as well. Due to having this ‘imaginative mapping’, humans are in need to ‘express’ this map of stored past experiences. They can do it in the form of let’s say artwork like drawings as well as in theoretical format. Archeological evidences of various cave-artworks reveal that humans used to express their ‘imaginative maps’ in the form of drawings in as early period as about fifty thousand years ago. Evidences of theoretical expressions are relatively quite recent.

Human mind, unlike animal mind, not only stores past experiences, it also alters or modifies those past memory contents. For the case of animals, what can be safely assumed is that they do generalize various past experiences but obviously, to a far lesser extent to what humans can do in this respect. What only humans do and so animals cannot be supposed to be able to do is that humans can draw analogical as well as other inductive and deductive conclusions. And the limitation of human mind is that every kind of conclusion or inference, whether it is simple generalization or analogical or it is any other form of inductive or deductive inference, is not more than just a re-arrangement of already possessed past experiences. Suppose there are two experience based similar entities (Aab) and (Babc) in human mind. Let’s say, A and B are two students. A is experimentally known to have ‘a’ and ‘b’ qualities and similarly B is experimentally known to be the possessor of ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ qualities. On the basis of this information, this human mind can draw an analogical conclusion that probably A possesses ‘c’ quality as well. Here this mind has assigned ‘c’ quality to A at its own i.e. without any prior experimental test. In this way, there has been some addition to mind contents because previously mind had only experimental data whereas now mind is having an analogical inference also, in addition to the old experimental data. It means that mind is having some new information that has not directly come from sense experience. And although this new information has not directly come from sense experience but the fact to be noted is that the same new information has come indirectly from the same sense experience. Mind has come to know something quite independently of sense experience. But in fact mind has not created anything at its own. In more understandable words of our information age, mind just has performed a copy-paste thing. It just has copied quality ‘c’ that belonged to B and then has assigned this copied entity to A. In analogy, mind only performs copy-paste whereas usually doesn’t perform cut-paste.

In the same way, in any other form of conclusion or inference, mind does not create anything at its own. It just re-arranges, or modifies the given information and then presents so modified information in such way that gives some new meanings. For example, consider the following simple example of a deductive conclusion:

All A are B
All B are C
Therefore All A are C

Here we can suppose that premises of this argument had come from sense experience whereas now mind has reached to the deductive conclusion i.e. “All A are C”, at its own. In a general sense, this conclusion is the product of mind. But in a more technical sense, this conclusion is not any creation of mind because not a single word of conclusion “All A are C”, is a whole new thing. In fact all the words of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In this deductive conclusion, mind has just re-arranged the information, which was contained in the premises.

In this way, we can say that unlike animal mind, human mind not only stores past experiences, it re-arranges or alters those past experiences as well. In addition, unlike animals, human mind contains many abstract entities also because due to the process of sense experience and thinking and imaginations, humans can identify many abstract entities like beauty, friendship, mind, knowledge etc. etc. Humans’ ‘imaginative map’ thus not only includes original sensory information, it includes abstract entities and re-arranged, modified or altered information as well. And humans are in need to ‘express’ this type of imaginative map. And again, as already has been described, humans usually do it in theoretical format or in the form of drawings or some other artwork etc.

Now we can discuss the main issue i.e. is all knowledge theoretical? The above discussion actually implies a relatively more technical definition of knowledge, which may be stated like: “Knowledge means those stored past experiences, that may include original sensory data as well as abstract and re-arranged or altered information, which can be expressed with or without having been exposed to the associated or relevant current sense perception. In addition to being able to be ‘expressed’, those stored (original plus altered) experiences must be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions”. We should consider that ‘knowledge’ is far complicated thing than to this definition and that this definition is trying to describe only some particular aspects of ‘knowledge’.

In this way, we can differentiate between ‘knowledge’ and just ‘awareness’. ‘Knowledge’ includes ‘awareness’ whereas just ‘awareness’ may not be accompanied with ‘knowledge’. Awareness is just ’sensitiveness’ that comes, at least partially, from past memorized experiences upon facing current relevant sense perceptions; and it may include corresponding ‘responsiveness’ as well. ‘Knowledge’ on the other hand must be able to be ‘expressed’ as well as it may not have any relation with currently-perceived sensory information. In addition, knowledge should be able to set guidelines for present or even future attitudes, behaviors and/ or actions.

Knowledge therefore may be considered to be the ability to express (original plus altered) past. Secondly, ‘awareness’ is also other main component of knowledge. So in lose sense, only ‘theoretical awareness’ can be considered as ‘knowledge’. In a strict sense, combination of ‘awareness’ with any mode of expression such as theoretical expression or artistic expression or any other form of expression can be regarded as knowledge. The foundation of this knowledge is the ‘imaginative map’ of past experiences. This map is not the true picture of past because it includes such altered contents as well that may range from just vague and meaningless conclusions to marvelous metaphysical theories etc. This imaginative map sometimes reflects itself in disorganized or random styles in the forms of dreams and illusions, and the same imaginative map can reflect itself in very accurately constructed pieces of arts as well as logically/ mathematically and grammatically accurate pieces of philosophies, sciences and literature. It has been mentioned earlier that although theoretical awareness is not innate in humans, but humans do possess some pre-given tendencies that can refine and improve the quality of ‘imaginative map’ and also help in the process of construction of theoretical mind stuff. These pre-given tendencies are that humans, with passage of mind related experiences, tend to become logically, mathematically and grammatically more accurate and consistent and artistically and poetically more precise and balanced. As we live in already civilized age, so we get introduction to theoretical knowledge from the society. I already have stated that discussion in this article shall not go to speculations regarding just how theoretical knowledge first time originated in human societies. But however, it seems right to point out that these pre-given tendencies might be having a great role in the original creation of theoretical mind stuff. Theoretical stuff itself is not knowledge but it makes us ‘able’ to express our ‘imaginative map’. Our tendencies of becoming logically and mathematically more accurate and consistent can work on raw ‘imaginative map’; but it seems that these pre-given tendencies work more efficiently on theoretical mind stuff. When we logically, mathematically and grammatically improve our theoretical mind stuff, then actually we also make corresponding refinements and improvements in our ‘imaginative map’. And every segment of theoretical stuff corresponds to more than one aspect of ‘imaginative map’ and vice versa. By having a particular theoretical proposition in our conscious mind, we are having its related aspects of ‘imaginative map’ also in our conscious mind and vice versa. And just like that we can explore our imaginative map only through a chain like process, each and every bit of theoretical stuff also can be accessed (recalled/ expressed) only through a chain like process. Let’s say I have memorized page No.110 of a particular book. Normally, I shall recall the contents of this memorized theoretical stuff only through such a chain like process that I shall start telling it from first word and shall tell or express the complete page word by word. The chain is like that while uttering second word; I shall get a ’spark’ of what is going to be the third word and by following that ’spark’, I shall utter that third word; then I shall get similar ’spark’ for next word and so on. This chain like process should be compared with photo copying process of photocopy machine that instantly copies all the contents of page. Secondly, it is very difficult to suppose that let’s say a classical singer is fully aware of all the complicated ups and downs of music before starting to perform. The fact, that seems right is that the singer shall start singing; and at stage of every bit of up or down in the music, he shall get similar ’spark’ regarding what to perform in the very next moment. And then he shall give a continuous performance in this way. The wave of ups and downs of music is not “hard-coded” in his mind. Actually each and every bit of those ups and downs is just recalled, through a chain like process, at the right stage. The guiding factor behind this process is not any “hard-coded” material but seems to be consisted of many pre-given tendencies of humans, out of which “sense of musical balance” may be considered to be the main guiding factor behind this particular process.

Similarly, knowledge does not reside in mind like any “hard-coded” theoretical propositions. Whenever we are required to ‘express’ knowledge, we start exploring our ‘imaginative map’, obviously in a chain like way; then some of corresponding theoretical stuff also comes to conscious mind. Our innate tendencies of keeping ourselves logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate also come to action. These tendencies, instantly, help in translating the exploration of ‘imaginative map’ into the logically connected and interrelated theoretical propositions. In this way, we theoretically describe our ‘imaginative map’. In the same way, we can instantly interpret the currently observed any new phenomenon and can describe it theoretically.

Thus existence of imaginative map is a great advancement in humans. It cannot be said with surety that other animals do not possess this kind of imaginative map at all. What can be said safely is that the most advanced imaginative map of any animal would still be inferior to very rough and less developed imaginative map of any primitive human. And as we live in already civilized societies, so the imaginative maps of our past experiences include various kinds of theoretical stuff as well. It means that here, theoretical stuff being a part of imaginative map, may not have its existence apart from, or distinguished from the imaginative map. The systematic structure of theoretical propositions and language helps us in refining and improving our over-all imaginative maps. We tend to keep our imaginative map and our expressions logically, mathematically and grammatically accurate. Theories of logic, mathematics and grammar etc. in this way, have been discovered out of our own general tendencies. Humans are much more than animals and it is not right to think that human knowledge is just some quantitative advancement in animal intelligence.

What is Idea? And can Animals have any Idea?

Idea is our anticipation that something can be done or can be better done in this or that way. Usually before having an idea, we are having a problem. Initially, the solution to that problem is unknown. Then it happens that at once some pertinent way-out is realized. The so realized way-out may or may not be the accurate solution to the original problem. But in any case, the same realized way-out is the “idea”. So wrong ideas are also included in this definition of “idea”. The problem can be a practical matter or can be some theoretical issue. Most ideas are basically analogical conclusions. I have explained this point in my article on the topic: “Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas”. More generally, the term “idea” or “ideas” is used to denote contents of any thought.

Can animals have any idea?

Animals can be trapped into certain problems. Thorondike’s experiment on a cat is one such example where cat was trapped into a problem that it had to find the way-out to escape itself from cage. In fact that cat really managed to find out the right way-out. But still I do not consider finding out of this right way-out as any idea. Cat, here, had not got any idea at all. It was due to just trial and error process. Even those wrong efforts that were performed by cat before finding the right way-out were not the result of any idea. Those efforts were just disorganized, random and haphazard in nature. In this way, I think it wrong to assume that ordinary animals can have any idea. But for the case of certain monkeys and apes, I can accept the existence of some basic forms of “ideas” in them as along with some other abilities (which I am not going to mention here because I do not possess any experimental proof), they can get the idea of making simple tools etc.

Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind:

There is fundamental difference between human and animal mind, due to which humans possess ‘knowledge’ whereas animals do not. Actually ‘knowledge’ is the ‘theoretical awareness’ of any thing or phenomenon. Only humans are theoretically aware about their surrounding environment as well as about their ownselves, so only humans possess ‘knowledge’. I have discussed this issue in brief, and in quite general way, in my essay on topic: The Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times.

Instead of considering ‘human knowledge’ just as some kind of advancement in so called ‘animal intelligence’, which some modern philosophers do, if knowledge were defined as “theoretical awareness of any thing or phenomenon” then other animals, at once, would be ousted from the domain of knowledge. And if only humans possess knowledge and animals possess no knowledge at all, then surely there must be a fundamental difference between human and animal mind, which is responsible for the fact that only humans possess knowledge whereas other animals do not.

The above referred modern school of thought actually believes in some difference in the degree of intelligence, of humans and animals. According to this school of thought, only such a difference in the degree of level of intelligence could account for the difference in human and animal knowledge. Again, according to this school of thought, knowledge is just some advanced form of same animal intelligence. But I believe in the fundamental difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘knowledge’ too. Other animals can be intelligent for they are able to learn what they have been taught, or they are able to associate related events or things etc. But animals possess no knowledge at all because they know nothing in the theoretical format. In other words, they possess no theoretical stuff at all. So ‘knowledge’ and ‘intelligence’ are two separate and distinguished entities, in my opinion. Generally animal childs are more intelligent than human childs. Actually ‘intelligence’ is just the ability of organism to take actions as per the demands of environmental situations. Obviously different animals respond to environmental situations within the framework of their maximum abilities. We consider an animal ‘intelligent’ when it can display or show its optimum or best possible response to the environmental situations quickly, or in timely manner. An animal would be considered to be ‘intelligent’ when it shows the ability of taking right actions in its struggle for addressing to its bodily needs. When it becomes able to independently search its food sources etc. When it becomes able to be given ‘training’ for such tasks which are possible to be undertaken by its species. In this context, many animal childs can acquire all their possible abilities of taking actions as per the demands of situations in their much early life as compared to any human child. A normal human child, on the other hand, remains unable to even sit at his/ her own for as long period of his/ her early life as five or six months. Animal childs become ‘independent’ and so ‘intelligent’ in their very early life as compared to any human child. In this way, we can say that generally animal childs are more intelligent than human childs. But despite the fact of being ‘less intelligent’, it is only human child who possesses the potential of acquiring ‘knowledge’. It is due to the fact that there is fundamental difference between human and animal mind. And this fundamental difference has nothing to do with the degree or level of intelligence, which humans and animals possess. The most intelligent animal would be having no knowledge at all whereas the duffer most (grown up) human would still be theoretically aware, may be even in incorrect or wrong way, of at least some aspects of his environment.

Here, some people can agrue that animals are conscious, and thus self-conscious, and thus aware of their environments and themselves. In response to this, I would accept that animals are ‘conscious’. But I shall not accept the derivation of this conclusion that animals are self-conscious too, just because they are conscious.

Actually animals are ‘conscious’ only in this sense that their instinctive faculties can interact with the environment via sense perception. And in my opinion, there is also a basic difference between animal perception and human perception. In animal perception, sensory data interacts only with the instinctive faculties of animals such as hunger, thirst, fear, pleasure, comfort/ discomfort etc. and animal actions are thus guided in this way. Human perception, on the other hand, happens to have additional features also. In human perception, sensory data would interact not only with instinctive faculties, but also would interact with some additional features which are (i) psychological feelings and; (ii) theoretical propositions. At the most which I can reasonably accept is that for determining the differences between animals and humans, any hard boundary line cannot be established between the instinctive faculties and these two additional features because practically this boundary would penetrate, up to some extent, to the area defined as ‘psychological feelings’ also. This boundary line however, in no way, reaches to the area of ‘theoretical propositions’. Animal perception therefore, may have just something to do with ‘psychological feelings’ but can have nothing to do with ‘theoretical propositions’.

‘Consciousness’ basically is a manifested form of ’sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’. Only instinctive faculties, and in some cases, instinctive faculties plus fractional part of psychological feelings can generate these forms of ’sensitiveness’ and ‘responsiveness’.

‘Self-Consciousness’, on the other hand is much-advanced feature. It is a ‘concept’ basically. This type of concept has to do only with the theoretical type knowledge. So ’self-consciousness’ is the property of only humans.

I firmly believe that ‘theoretical awareness’ is the unique property of humans. Secondly the school of thought which takes human knowledge as just some advancement in ordinary animal intelligence, also considers ‘concepts’ as product of intelligence. I consider it the generosity of that school of thought that they give as much honor to ‘intelligence’. As I believe that some animals can be more ‘intelligent’ than some humans and in any case whatsoever, I would like to pay more respect to humans, so I do not consider ‘concepts’ as product of ‘intelligence’. Instead, I believe concepts as the product of human ‘rationality and wisdom’. This ‘rationality and wisdom’ is comprised of only those aspects of intelligence that can interact with theoretical propositions. So these aspects of intelligence have to be the part of only human intelligence and cannot be the part of animal intelligence.

I also have discussed some other aspects of differences of human and animal mind in my artical on “Desires - As one of Most Basic Differences of Human and Animal Mind”.

For further detailed analysis of the differences of human and animal mind, please check my article titled “Human Knowledge and its Expression”.

Mind - a Phenomenon or Concept…???

Mind - a Phenomenon or Concept…???

Humans are ‘rational’ in their character and essence in the sense that they always tend to get somewhat ‘theoretical explanations’ of whatever ‘phenomenon’ they observe in their environment. Let us take, for instance, the ‘phenomenon’ of falling objects on ground. Here, in my assessment, the ‘falling of an object on ground’ would be an ‘observed phenomenon’, whereas the idea or notion of ‘gravitation’ will be the ‘explanation’ of the above said phenomenon.

Secondly, the types of knowledge can be classified in two main categories i.e. (i) Perceptional Knowledge and; (ii) Reason Based Knowledge.

In the above-referred example, the observable phenomenon of a falling object is ‘perceptional knowledge’. The ‘Reason Based’ knowledge, in this example, would be of further two sub-types i.e. (i) If we generalize our observation and say: “Objects fall on ground” … This ‘generalized’ knowledge would be the first type of ‘reason based knowledge’ and; (ii) The idea or notion of ‘gravitation’ is also a form of ‘reason based knowledge’, in this case. The idea of ‘gravitation’, basically is a form of ‘analogical conclusion’ which might be the result of comparison of the above referred first type of ‘reason based knowledge’ with other similar entities where other objects also exert some type of attraction on other objects. In this way, what I want to say is that every type of ‘conclusion’, whether it is just ‘generalization’ or ‘deductive’ or even ‘analogical’, can be regarded as ‘reason based knowledge’.

Now come to the issue of ‘mind’. In my opinion, idea of ‘mind’ is also a form of ‘reason based knowledge’. In order that there be any ‘reason based knowledge’ whatsoever, there has to be some clue in the ‘perceptional’ knowledge for it. It means that we can move towards any ‘reason based knowledge’ only in such way that the ‘reason based knowledge’ has to be completely traced back in our ‘perceptional knowledge’. See details here.

In this way, knowledge of mind i.e. a ‘reason based knowledge’ is also completely traceable to our perceptional knowledge. We can take notice of many observable and apparent differences between humans and other animals. We can talk in terms of many theoretical concepts. We can produce literature, poetry, philosophy etc. The ability to talk and the physical existence of such things as literature, poetry, science and philosophies etc. ultimately lead us to the conclusion of the presence of ‘mind’ in humans. The concept of ‘mind’ helps us in accounting for the presence of literature, poetry etc. in the way that now we would consider these things as ‘products’ of mind. It is just like that the idea of ‘gravitation’ helps us in accounting for why objects fall on ground. And again, just like it, the idea of ‘photon’ also helps us in accounting for various types of laboratory experimentation readings.

And so in my opinion, for the cases of both ‘falling objects’ and ‘mind’, first entity has to be ‘perceptional knowledge’. In the case of ‘falling objects’, the first entity is the observation of individual falling objects. And in the case of ‘mind’, the first entity is the physical existence of such things as literature, science, poetry, philosophy etc. For the case of ‘falling objects’, the second entity i.e. the ‘reason based knowledge’ would be the idea of ‘gravitation’ and in the same way; the second entity for the case of existence of literature, poetry, and science etc. would be the idea or notion or CONCEPT of ‘mind’.

And the existence of such things as literature, poetry, philosophy etc. is the proof of existence of ‘mind’. On the other hand, the complete absence of these things would be the proof of non-existence of ‘mind’.

Here I have considered observation of individual falling object as ‘perceptional knowledge’ whereas the generalized observation i.e. “objects fall on ground”, as ‘reason based knowledge’. Actually I am ready to call both of above entities i.e. (i) individual observation and; (ii) generalized observation as PHENOMENON.

Just ‘generalization’ cannot be regarded as ‘explanation’. Generalization is actually the first step towards the way of getting the ‘explanation’. And ‘generalization’ is not the ‘analogical’ process. The process of ‘analogy’ would come at the ‘explanation’ stage in this case, through which we shall reach at the concept of ‘gravitation’. In this ‘analogical’ process, in that stage, we would compare our generalized knowledge of “objects fall towards ground” with some other similar ‘phenomenon’ where some other objects also exert some kind of attraction upon other objects. In this way, finally we shall arrive at the concept of ‘gravitation’. Process of analogy has been explained in above referred link.

To summerize the above, first we ‘perceive’. In this way we take notice of a ‘phenomenon’. Then we strive for getting some proper theoretical explanation of so noticed phenomenon. I have briefly described the process of taking notice of any new information regarding any phenomenon and then of finding the necessary explanation etc. in my essay on The Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times. I have discussed similar topic in my article on “Animism and Mythology” as well.

Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:

Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:

Humans face many questions and Science and Philosophy are considered to be important sources for finding the answers to those questions. Problems or questions etc. are basically of two types i.e. objective and subjective. Science has found solutions to only a few of objective type problems. Rest of objective type questions as well as the whole sphere of subjective type issues still fall under the purview of Philosophy.

As far as ‘objective’ issues are concerned, their progress is visible to even uneducated or less educated people. Progress in subjectivity however is concerned with the intellectual insights of some individuals - I mean Philosophers or other Spiritualists. Subjectivity is not concerned with finding the definite answers to the issues/ problems but it is concerned with determining the nature, extent and types of those problems. So progress can exist, in subjective issues also. But this type of progress has to be invisible to Non-Philosophical/ Non-Spiritual type people.

And a very important function of Philosophy is to elaborate, explain and account for the general but vogue feelings of a common person. The common persons may not be conscious of those feelings before having read the Philosophy. But while reading the Philosophy, the reader must feel as if it were the same things that already should have been known to him.

Function of Philosophy is to draw theoretical pictures of whatever we observe or feel. Philosophy should be concerned as much with generating questions as to the finding of answers. As a matter of fact, Philosophical assertions cannot be regarded as objective truths. Philosophy is subjective by nature. To be subjective does not mean to be inferior. Fact is that to be ’subjective’ means to be ’superior’ … because only humans are subjective whereas computer can be regarded even as an objective thinker.

‘Science’ is basically whatever can be proved objectively. And whatever can be proved objectively, initially it was already known to humans in subjective style. General theory of Relativity is Science because it can be supported by objective evidence. But point is that Einstien had conceived this theory perheps in 1916 whereas its experimental proof was found in 1919. It means that before when this theory bacame ’science’ or that before when it could be proved objectively, it was already in the notice of humanity in subjective style.

In this way, science is only that portion of humanity’s subjective knowledge that could be proved objectively. And objectivity and truth are not Synonymous at all. Subjective ideas can be true whether or not they are supported by the objective evidence. During the period 1916-19, General Theory of Relativity had been remained such a subjective theory which was true in fact, despite the fact that no experimental proof had been found in that period.

Philosophy is much broader than science. Science is what questions have been objectively answered. Philosophy is what could be the more and more questions and what could be all the possible answers to those more and more questions. Philosophy takes precedence over science because it is Philosophy which has to raise questions and then to propose answers. Science takes only those answers, out of all the ‘proposed answers’, which can be experimentally proved by using the available experimental techniques.

Still another important difference between Science and Philosophy is the determination of quantitative relationships beween variables. Philosophy is NOT concerned with this activity whereas, in my assessment, Science overemphasizes the role and importance of this activity. In this way, Philosophy has to find the possible variables and to propose any possible relationships between those variables. Science then has to work out the exact quantitative relationship between those variables. Thus, in my assessment, the part of Newton’s second law which asserts the existence of positive relationship between force and acceleration, is Philosophical in nature. On the other hand, the formulation of exact quantitative relationship in the form of formula i.e. “F = ma”, is Scientific in nature.

And it is often said that Philosopher creates knowledge by mere ‘thinking’ whereas Scientist creates knowledge by ‘observing’. My point of view is that ultimate input for any kind of ‘thinking’ has to be found in ‘observations’. The role of philosopher is to systemetically shape the already existing observations into the form of Philosophical assertions regarding the existence of various inter-related variables. Scientist actually would purposefully ‘observe’ those already identified variables with the view to just test the already proposed kind of relationships between them. Galileo’s experiments about speed of falling objects having different weights as well as about the projectile motion were actually his purposeful attempts to just check the validities of the already established Greek Philosophical views regarding these matters.

Similarly, Michealsons & Morley’s experiment which led them to find the notion of ‘relative constancy of the speed of light’, was also basically their purposeful attempt to just check the validity of already existing philosophical type idea about the existence of ‘eather’. I am having the opinion that creation of Knowledge is not the role of Scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of Philosopher. The role of Scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas. Through experimentation (i.e. through purposeful observations), the scientist would bring refinements in many already existing vouge philosophical ideas by establishing the exact quantitative relationships between already existing variables.

There is another positive role of Scientist. He has to practically implement his so refined theories by inventing and applying new technologies also.

“Desires” - As one of Most Basic Differences of Human and Animal Mind:

“Desires” - As one of Most Basic Differences of Human and Animal Mind:

Generally we consider animistic, or magical or other superstitious ideologies as baseless or irrational, but these are after all an important source of understanding the functionality and capabilities of human mind. Even these ‘irrational’ ideologies are the unique characteristics of human beings. Any other known life form doesn’t possess any form of superstition. Study of superstitions can give wonderful insight into our true nature or essence. Humans want to control the external world events but at the same time long for that they may not have to do any effort for the purpose. They tend to find easy solutions for every task. Mostly they perform those tasks in just daydreams. More ‘practical’ people take help of a magician. Wise people ask help from supernatural beings. Scientists insist that only materialistic causation principle is the solution for performing any task. But tasks before humans may not always be accomplished by the material causation principle. Humans want to defeat death, which causation principle may not allow. But religion offers its solution in the form of belief in after-life.

But all this apparent and observable human behavior is actually a clue, which can lead us towards finding the true human nature or essence. Some times we consider human desires as something negative. But this “desire” is one of the most basic differences between humans and other animals. Here term ‘desire’ doesn’t include instinct based bodily needs. Term ‘desire’ here stands for those ‘mental’ wishes of humans whereby they purposefully want to acquire those material or non-material things (such as skills, abilities, grace, beauty etc.), which they ‘observe’ in their environment and take notice that they themselves still do not possess those material/ non-material things. ‘Desires’ are therefore different from other instinctive bodily needs in that other body needs are independent of any kind of ‘observation’ and thus arise automatically because of natural instincts. We can feel hunger without having seen the food but we cannot get the ‘desire’ of acquiring latest fashion dresses until and unless we ‘observe’ or take notice of emergence of that new fashion. So ‘desires’ are actually those wants and wishes that cannot originate in complete absence of ‘observance’. This differentiation between desires and other body needs is important because those wants and wishes that originate only from observance, are found only in humans; though to relatively far less extent, can be found in certain monkeys and apes as well. In the article on “Animism and Mythology”, I have mentioned that humans possess two types of life. First one is their ‘physical’ life and the other one is their ‘mental’ life. ‘Desires’ are basically one of the most basic manifestations of human ‘mental’ life. Consider a child who does not own a bicycle. He ‘observes’ his friends or other age fellows who come and go, here and there on their own bicycles. In this way that child boy would develop a desire of having his own bicycle. Now consider a dog. It may ‘observe’ many people who travel on their own bicycles, bikes, cars and so on. But even after observing so many such things, a dog cannot be desirous of riding on car or bike etc. A dog can just be ‘trained’ to ride on bike or any other thing. By nature, a dog would be completely indifferent towards any such thing, which has nothing to do with its bodily instincts. It would become active, let’s say, only if it gets any odor coming from some food source etc. But it would never show any desire to ride on bike even if it happens to observe so many people riding on bikes. ‘Desires’ relate to ‘mental’ life of humans. Presence of ‘desires’ is a positive advancement in humans, which is missing in other animals. ‘Desire’ is not any bodily need but it is a ‘mental’ need. And every desire is an “ANALOGICAL INFERENCE” basically. Simple meaning of analogy is our tendency to think that two or more things, which are known to be ’similar’ in some aspects, can be similar in some other aspects as well. Now I try to explain how a small boy’s desire of having a bicycle was an analogical inference. As the boy could see that he and his friends were ’similar’ entities in many respects. But an aspect i.e. of having a bicycle was missing in him. This would be the simplest form of analogical inference whereby that boy would imagine himself of being ’similar’ to his friends in the respect of having a bicycle also.

Most basic difference of human and animal mind is the ability of human mind of drawing analogical conclusions. All the animism and all types of magic are also one or the other “analogical inferences”, which an uneducated human mind like a small child or a primitive human can draw. When a magician digs in many needles in the statue of enemy, with the purpose to kill the enemy, he actually acts on an “analogical inference”. He thinks that real enemy and the statue of enemy are ’similar’. So if the statue of enemy could be tortured by digging in needles etc., the real enemy, being a ’similar’ entity, also would be tortured as a result. In my childhood, we had a Philips remote control television. My elders always hold that remote control and used to switch channels against my wish. My calculator was very ’similar’ to that remote control. So I very sincerely and confidently used to press the buttons of calculator with the hope that I also could switch channels in that way. It never happened however. Similarly again in my early childhood, I happened to listen somewhere that there was a student in USA who while sleeping, used to keep his open book underneath his cushion. Next morning, as a result, he would automatically learn all the lessons. I also very sincerely did the same but … I could not learn the lesson in this way.

Anyways, I was discussing the most basic difference in human and animal mind. Human mind can draw analogical conclusions whereas animal mind cannot do it. Above given examples of magic and my own examples are stating somewhat complex form of analogical inferences. Animal mind, in no way, can reach to this much complexity. But in certain cases, animal mind does reach to the simplest form of analogical inferences. The simplest form of analogical inference is to just ‘copy’ or ‘imitate’ others. This ability exists in certain monkeys and apes.

Humanity’s views on ‘desires’ have interesting history. Some Indian schools of thought particularly consider ‘desires’ as the source of all the human misery and unhappiness. Underlying idea is something like that humans are caught by miseries and unhappiness when they fail to fulfill their desires. So if they stop desiring anything then any question of failure in fulfilling the desires shall not arise and therefore humanity will be free of any misery or unhappiness.

As I stated previously that only humans can be desirous of anything. Those early Indian thinkers might have noticed this fact. In addition, they also might have noticed that many forms of miseries and unhappiness catch up only humans. They might have then rationalized the phenomenon of human misery by putting all the blame on human desires. They however included many forms of body needs also in the list of so-called ‘desires’. Jainism and Buddhism were the main representatives of this school of thought and both these religions originated in around 6th century B.C. By that time, Greek intellectuals still had not tried to determine the purpose of humans in Universe. Some traces are found in 5th century B.C however when some Greeks thought that ‘matter’ was the prison of ’soul’ and the objective before humans was to get their soul freed of imprisonment of matter. So in this respect, Indian thought has important place in the history of humanity’s struggle for finding their objective in this world as they happened to be among the first people who tried to determine the objective before humans, which, according to them, was getting freedom from miseries which could be achieved through the control on desires.

But in the same period, Confucius, in China was telling his students that their objective was to become able to think over various practical matters of life RATIONALLY and should become able to express their opinions clearly and transparently.

Anyhow, ‘desire’ itself was not the source of human misery because the real source of human misery, under this line of thought, was the ‘failure’ of humans to fulfill their desires. Right strategy should have been to try to ‘control’ the rate of failure rather than to forbid the desires altogether.

What I think is that ‘desires’ are positive things. These are ‘desires’ which give us our most of the long-term objectives. ‘Desires’ make it possible that we try to improve our knowledge, abilities or skills over such long periods that may extend to decades. If we were limited to just bodily needs, then we would not be in need to make any ‘improvement’ in ourselves. Desires tell us two things. On the negative side, they tell us that we are lacking some important thing. On the positive side, they give us hope that we can remove that shortcoming in ourselves. Thus a movement towards better and higher levels becomes possible through the application of desires. I have described previously that all desires are basically ‘analogical inferences’ in nature. Analogical Inference works in a way that lets say I observe some entity, which is similar to me in some aspects. But I find that I am lacking some important characteristics, which exist in that other entity. If I imagine myself of possessing the same or similar characteristics, which I have observed in that other entity, it means that now I am ‘desirous’ of possessing those important characteristics. Its meaning is that if I do not observe any entity which is similar to me in any respect and possesses some important characteristics that I do not possess, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FORM ANY DESIRE in this case. If humans would never had seen flying birds, if they never had realized that they themselves were lacking in an important characteristic of ‘flying’, which a similar entity to them i.e. birds did possess, THEN HUMANS COULD NOT BE DESIROUS of flying like birds.

If human mind works by making analogies, it means that mind does not work at its own. It cannot get the desire of flying like birds without having observed that birds can fly and realizing that humans cannot fly. But if humans can observe many different things in the environment, then they would definitely tend to form one or the other desires.

And I also think that to be desirous of something would be better than having fulfilled all the desires. Fulfillment of all the desires would eliminate all the charms of life. Secondly it is also not possible to acquire the state of complete ‘control’ on desires. Any attempt to ‘control’ desires would actually ‘magnify’ the desires. One important component of ‘desire’ is the feeling of ‘lacking’ something. Any attempt to control ‘desire’ will actually strengthen those feelings of ‘lacking’ something and desires shall be magnified in this way. Buddhists tried to ‘control’ their desires related to sex … that desire ultimately magnified and then manifested in the form of amazing art work of Agentta caves. Technically ’sex’ was a bodily need instead of a ‘desire’. But since art work relates to ‘mental performance’, so here I have considered it as a form of ‘desire’.

Issue of ‘desires’ is related to the issue of ethics as well. The question can be if desires are good or bad? In case we find that we are lacking some better or superior characteristic, which other people do possess; and we get a desire of acquiring that superior or better quality - this type of desire would be ‘good’. But if we find that we are lacking in some inferior quality, which some other people do possess, and in this way we become desirous of acquiring that inferior quality - this type of desire would be ‘bad’. Better and superior qualities are those, which are beyond the scope of our presently held skills or abilities. Inferior qualities are those, which could be acquired just if we do not employ our presently held skills and abilities in the best possible way. Furthermore better qualities are those, which suits to the personality of person who is desirous of those qualities. Some qualities may be superior in fact but may not be ’suitable’ to the personality of person. To wear a princess like dress would be a ’suitable’ desire for a girl but not for a boy etc.

Issue of ethics also has relationship with just how we try to fulfill our desires. If we employ unethical or illegal means, we would be ethically bad in this case. We are ethically good if we fulfill all our body and mental needs under the supervisory control of our rationality and wisdom.

I have discussed some other aspects of differences of human and animal mind in my post on the topic of “Some Differences of Human & Animal Mind” as well.

Knowledge of Objects and Properties:

It seems that all our knowledge is confined to the knowledge of ‘objects’ and the ‘properties’ of those objects.

‘Objects’ are of two types i.e. (i) Material Objects and; (ii) Abstract Objects.

We get the knowledge of ‘Material Objects’ via our faculties of sense perception. Knowledge of ‘Abstract Objects’ mainly comes from ‘thinking and imagination’ activities. I also believe that we cannot ‘think’ or ‘imagine’ anything until and unless all the components or objects of our ‘thinking’ or ‘imagination’ are completely traceable to our ‘perceptional’ or ‘sense-experience’ based knowledge. What we do while ‘thinking’ or ‘imagining’ is just to manipulate, reshape, or re-organize our existing ‘knowledge’ or ‘information’. As our ‘existing knowledge’ contains knowledge of both ‘objects’ and ‘properties’ (or characteristics) of objects, so while reshaping this ‘existing knowledge’, we may assign the already known properties to any un-known or anonymous ‘object’ with the view to explain or account for any complicated or complex observable phenomenon. This is in my opinion, the way in which we get knowledge of ‘abstract objects’ using our faculties of ‘thinking and imagination’.

And the knowledge of ‘properties’ or ‘characteristics’ comes from two sources, which are (i) Sense Experience and; (ii) Thinking and Imagination.

Here I also differentiate between ‘sense perception’ and ‘sense experience’. We can think of ‘sense perception’ as ‘direct awareness’ of ‘material objects’ using our senses. This ‘direct awareness’ has to be restricted to only the present moment. For example as in the present moment, I am watching monitor screen, so this direct awareness of monitor screen is ‘sense perception’ in this case. ‘Sense Experience’ would have slightly different meanings in this context. ‘Sense Experience’ is not just ‘direct awareness’ of any object via senses. It is actually our knowledge of the ‘observed’ outcome of the ‘observed’ event. The observed event and its corresponding outcome may not relate to exact present moment. So basically ‘sense experience’ is the knowledge of a ‘causal connection’ between some event and its corresponding outcome.

The purpose of explaining the difference between ‘sense perception’ and ‘sense experience’ is to mention that we do not get knowledge of ‘properties’ or ‘characteristics’ of ‘objects’ via ‘sense perception’. We get knowledge of ‘properties’ or ‘characteristics’ either through ‘sense experience’ or ‘thinking and imagination’. Let, for example, I see two similar bags. The direct awareness via senses, of the presence of those bags is the ‘sense perception’. Now I do an experiment. I lift one of the bags and come to know that it is quite heavy. The knowledge of ‘heaviness’ i.e. a ‘property’ has come from an experiment, which is ‘sense experience’.

As I stated that in addition to ‘sense experience’, the other source of getting knowledge of ‘properties’ is ‘thinking and imagination’. It is important to remember that through the experiment of lifting one of the bags, I had got knowledge of the ‘heaviness property’ of only one of the bags. But since I possess the faculty of ‘thinking and imagination’ also, so I can make assessment about the corresponding ‘property’ of other bag without repeating the same experiment. Since both the bags are apparently similar, so I can derive an analogical conclusion about the corresponding ‘property’ of other bag in a way that I just ‘assign’ the already known ‘heaviness property’ of a similar bag to the other bag whose ‘heaviness property’ is experimentally unknown. In this way I have got ‘knowledge’ of ‘property’ of an object through the process of ‘thinking and imagination’.

How to eradicate Poverty from our Country? And can our Education sector make any Progress if we just Increase Education Budget?

Mahatir Muhammad’s “Case of Asia” is a good book to understand how practically poverty can be eradicated within few decades from a poor country. Although he expressed his concerns about the setbacks to the Economies of East Asian Countries in late 1990s, but on the whole, he showed his satisfaction over the achievements of his government. Malaysia was a poor country in early 1960’s when Mahatir assumed power. He has discussed his long term planning aimed at how to eradicate poverty from the country. His people were mostly uneducated and did not know even how to do small businesses. His government first tried to understand the composition of country’s society with respect to their economic activities and level of incomes. They found that there was vast disparity in the type of Economic activities and distribution of Income. A sizable population of Malaysia consisted of alien people. Indigenous Malaysian people were in majority however but most Economic resources were in the hands of alien people. Mahatir discusses that his government could adopt such policies as to just re-distribute the economic resources among population through various indirect means such as through progressive taxation etc. But they thought it was wrong to deprive wealthy people off their hard earned resources. They realized that actual problem was not to just redistribute the resources. The issue was to generate new resources. The majority poor population was so ignorant and didn’t even know how to start a small business. Then Mahatir discusses how his government endeavored to introduce business culture in the society. In fact, his strategy was to introduce entrepreneurial culture in the society. His government first encouraged small enterprises through small loan schemes. His government launched a campaign to promote awareness among small business owners about the adoptation and utilization of modern techniques of Accounting and Finance. In this way, at first his government successfully made a sizable number of people the owner of their own businesses. All the economic activities boosted with increased business activities. Secondly his government did concrete efforts for the promotion of Foreign Investment in his country.

The difference between such a strategy and our policy is something like that we also study Accounting and Finance. But in our country, these subject are taught with the view to enable the students to find some clerical or so called Managerial job. Whereas Mahatir’s government launched campaign to make these modern techniques of doing business as part of business culture of country.

And I do not think that education sector can make progress only with the help of additional finance. We are having far more Economic resources than our own ancient ancestors. If they could make many achievements in educational, intellectual and scientific fields, then why we have been unable to do the same things while having far more Economic resources than our those ancestors could have? Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy considers it just a baseless excuse that we are backward in education sector just because of lack of some Economic resources. The question is, after all what we shall do of additional money if we double or triple our Education budget? Obviously we shall open some new substandard schools and universities. As a result, there shall be some more addition of half educated unemployed or under-employed degree-holder youth. There is actually need of many qualitative type reforms in our education system. Dr. Hoodhbhoy says ok that many types of Scientific research studies do require expensive laboratory equipment, but he says that laboratory equipment is not the necessary condition for all types of scientific research. For example, he has classified science into (i) Practical Sciences and; (ii) Theoretical Sciences. He tells us that research work in theoretical sciences do not require the usage of any expensive laboratory equipment. So we would rightfully blame our so called poverty only if we have shown any positive achievement in the area of at least theoretical sciences.

Furthermore, neither our education system is aware of any utility of theoretical sciences, nor our university syllabi include any theoretical science at all. Only emphasis is on just a minor aspect of practical sciences. My friend who did Masters in Botany told me that once university imported some expensive lab equipment from Japan. But that equipment was never used because if during its application some fault comes, it could only be removed by Japanese. So University management thought it better to not use that equipment at all…!!!

So how our education sector can make any progress if we successfully find many oil wells in our country but pay no attention to the qualitative aspects of education system?