Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya

Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Spirituality
  • Updated Biweekly

Explore science, philosophy, and spirituality for a deeper life. Get motivational insights and healthy thoughts for purposeful, better living.

  1. 2d ago

    [English] The Magic of Om – The Indescribable Fourth State of Consciousness.

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]     In the previous episode, we discussed the three states of consciousness described by our ancient Indian philosophers. We based our discussion on one of the Upanishads—the Mandukya Upanishad. This Upanishad speaks about the three states of consciousness: the waking state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state. These are the three states that we observe every day in all living beings. It then goes on to speak about a fourth state called Turiya. What is this state of Turiya? var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } });   Whenever you introduce a new concept, it is natural to compare it with other things that are already familiar, or to distinguish it from them. This Upanishad does exactly that at the outset. The Upanishad says that the state of Turiya is not like the waking state. In the waking state, our consciousness engages with the external world. But in the state of Turiya, there is no such external engagement. The Upanishad also says that this consciousness does not create any dreams. This means that it is different from the dream state as well. Could this Turiya be a state that is half dream and half wakefulness? The Upanishad rejects that possibility too. In that case, the only remaining alternative would seem to be that Turiya is a completely dormant state of consciousness like deep sleep. That is what we observe in deep sleep. But the Upanishad rejects that possibility as well. At the same time, the Upanishad says that Turiya is neither a state of blank unconsciousness nor a state of awareness of any particular object. The Upanishad summarizes all these observations in the following words: "Na antaḥ-prajñam, na bahiḥ-prajñam, na ubhayataḥ-prajñam, na prajñānaghanam, na prajñam, na aprajñam." Then what exactly is Turiya? To describe something by saying "it is like this," it must be something that can be perceived by the senses. But the Upanishad says that Turiya is not an object that can be perceived by the senses. Sometimes, something can be described by explaining what it can be used for. But according to the Upanishad, Turiya is not something that can be used to perform any function. It also says that it has no characteristics of its own. Therefore, we cannot even think about it. Then can it at least be communicated through words? According to the Upanishad, that too is impossible, because Turiya is beyond words. This is how the Upanishad expresses it: "Adṛśyam, avyavahāryam, agrāhyam, alakṣaṇam, acintyam, avyapadeśyam." If you observe carefully, you will notice that instead of telling us what the state of Turiya is, the Upanishad tells us what it is not. In philosophy, this is known as defining something through negation. When something cannot be defined within a direct conceptual framework, it is often defined by saying, "It is not this." This excludes everything that is not the state of Turiya. After excluding everything else, what finally remains is Turiya. Even so, we cannot point to it and say, "This is it." The Upanishads speak about this limitation of human-language on many occasions. Our language can describe only something that possesses characteristics, or something that can be compared with another thing that we already know, or something that can be explained based on its use. For example, we can describe a cow as an animal with four legs, two horns, and a loose fold of skin hanging below its neck. But Turiya possesses none of the characteristics familiar to our worldly experience. Therefore, we have no way of describing it using adjectives. Turiya is unique in its own way. There is nothing else that is comparable to it. Therefore, we cannot compare it with any other concept or phenomenon and say, "It is like that." A spoon can be described as an instrument used for eating. But Turiya has no worldly use whatsoever. Therefore, you cannot describe it as being like some kind of tool. Then how can we be certain that such a state really exists? The Upanishad says that it is the state experienced in deep meditation. That experience itself is the proof of its existence. Is there any benefit in experiencing such a state of consciousness? The Upanishad says, "Yes." It says that by experiencing that state, you become free from all worldly suffering. It is the remedy for all the misery that arises from your involvement with this world. It is the most peaceful state. It is the most auspicious state. Instead of seeing a fragmented world centered only around yourself, it enables you to perceive a single, unified reality. Above all, the Upanishad declares that this is your true nature. Therefore, it says that you must realize it. This is what the Upanishad says about the Turiya state of consciousness, and why we should realize it: "Ekātma-pratyaya-sāram, prapañcopaśamam, śāntam, śivam, advaitam, caturtham, sa ātmā, sa vijñeyaḥ." While saying all this, I should mention one thing. In explaining these verses of the Upanishad, I have been careful not to do anything that would compromise the integrity of the original text. I have not imposed my own philosophical viewpoint upon it. Those who strictly follow the Advaita philosophy may feel that my explanation does not fully agree with the well-known interpretation of Advaita philosophers such as Shankaracharya. Advaitins hold a somewhat different perspective. They do not regard Turiya as merely the fourth state of consciousness. We shall discuss exactly how they understand this state of consciousness in the next episode.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  2. Jul 11

    [English] The Magic of Omkara: The Three States of Consciousness.

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]     In the previous episode, we were discussing how the ancient Indians viewed the concept of consciousness. As a specific example, I had chosen one of the Upanishads, the 'Mandukya Upanishad'. The Mandukya Upanishad is a part of the Atharva Veda. This short Upanishad explains how the Ultimate Reality manifests through the four states of consciousness. It calls that Ultimate Reality 'Omkara'. It identifies the four states of consciousness as the waking state, the dream state, deep sleep, and Turiya. These states exist among the countless forms assumed by that Omkara. As we discussed earlier, this is certainly possible because Omkara transcends space and time. The various forms of Omkara are the living beings spread throughout the universe. Since those forms are subject to the laws of space and time, they can exist in only one state at a time. In this episode, let us understand the first three of these four states. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } });   The very first state is the waking state, or what is called the 'Jaagrata' state of consciousness. While in this state, the living being interacts with the external world outside its body. It uses its five sense organs, such as the eyes and ears, to gather information from the world outside its body. It then processes that information using its mind, intellect, ego, and other mental faculties. After the information has been processed, the body uses its five organs of action, such as the hands and legs, to interact with those external objects. The five vital energies, such as Prana, support the body and the mind during this process. Fundamentally, the waking state is the state of consciousness that deals with the gross objects existing outside the body. The Upanishad describes it as follows. How does neuroscience look at this? In the terminology of neuroscience, this is called access consciousness. Neuroscientists know quite a lot about how the body and the brain handle this form of consciousness. The brain contains various specialized regions that process the information arriving from the external sense organs. Once the information has been processed, the brain decides what action should be taken based on the incoming information, the current state of the brain, and the evaluation made by its various decision-making centers. It ultimately activates the motor regions of the brain as required, to engage the external organs of action in appropriate activities. The Upanishad speaks about the second form of consciousness, known as the 'Svapna' or dream state. It is very similar to the waking state, except that the entire drama takes place within the mind. Instead of external gross objects, there are subtle objects created by the mind itself. Instead of the gross sense organs, there are subtle internal senses created by the mind. These internal senses operate upon the objects created by the mind and produce results that are themselves created by the mind. Just as a person in the waking state experiences external objects using the body's organs and mental faculties, the person created within the dream also experiences the objects created within that dream. There is a close similarity between the external world and the internal world created in dreams. The Upanishad describes it as follows. Neuroscience also views it in much the same way, except that instead of using the abstract terminology of the Upanishad, it refers to specific regions of the brain. According to neuroscience, the dream world is created entirely by the brain as a result of random interactions among the various memories already stored within it. Except for the fact that the objects are created by the mind, everything else remains largely the same as in the waking state. The same processing regions of the brain continue to function, but the physical sense organs and organs of action are not activated. The third state of consciousness spoken of by the Upanishad is 'Sushupti', or deep sleep. According to the Upanishad, in this state of consciousness it neither responds to the external world nor experiences dreams. Since no information comes either from external objects or from objects created by the mind, there is no processing of such information either. The Upanishad says that because consciousness is completely disconnected from both the external and internal worlds, there are no desires in this state. The Upanishad says that consciousness appears to remain dormant. That does not mean it is a state of nothingness. The previously acquired knowledge is still there. However, that knowledge remains in a frozen state. The Upanishad speaks of another wonder. It says that this state of consciousness is blissful. However, this bliss does not arise from any sensory pleasure. Rather, it exists because the mental disturbances that are present in the other two states of consciousness are absent in this state. It is bliss that arises because there are no obstacles to bliss. The Upanishad also calls this state of consciousness the gateway between the other two states of consciousness. It is from this state that a person enters either the waking state or the dream state. Overall, the Upanishad describes this state as follows. Neuroscience also speaks about the state of deep sleep, in which a person neither responds to external events nor experiences dreams. Furthermore, while sleeping, a person periodically transitions from this state either to the waking state or to the dream state. The Upanishads speak about these three states of consciousness as matters of fact. Although their descriptions do not go into great depth, they do not come into conflict with the explanations provided by neuroscience. Neuroscience remains silent about who the ultimate experiencer of all these processes is. Or, at least, it does not take any definite position on the matter. The Upanishad, on the other hand, firmly believes that there is a power behind all these activities, and that this power is the experiencer of their results. It says that this power uses the body as an instrument. As the Indian Sankhya philosophers point out, if there were no experiencer, all these processes would be meaningless. In the previous episodes, we also discussed the views of cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers regarding consciousness. People like Chalmers focus primarily on the first state of consciousness. Although they avoid speaking about any underlying power behind all this, they acknowledge that consciousness possesses a subjective aspect. They argue that this subjective aspect cannot be explained merely in terms of the functioning of the brain. In a way, whether they like it or not, they acknowledge that there is something underlying consciousness that transcends the sense organs and the organs of action, something that goes beyond the brain and its mechanisms. However, the fourth state of consciousness spoken of by the Upanishad would astonish both neuroscientists and cognitive philosophers. It would make them reconsider their respective positions. Let us discuss that state in the next episode.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  3. Jul 3

    [English] The Wonder of Omkaara: Everything that Exists is Omkaara!

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]        In our previous episodes, we discussed how modern neuroscientists explain consciousness. They tie consciousness directly to our brain and its mechanics. In their view, consciousness is merely "the brain in action"—a unique phenomenon born out of the brain's functioning. On the flip side, we also discussed how cognitive philosophers like David Chalmers disagree with this argument. According to thinkers like Chalmers, consciousness is a completely subjective phenomenon. They argue that it can never be confined to the mechanics of physical elements like neurons in the brain. In their view, consciousness is not physical; it is an independent force that exists on its own. The brain is merely a tool that expresses it. Then, there are those who call themselves "panpsychists." They detect consciousness in physical matter itself, right down to atoms and subatomic particles. Their argument is that the consciousness of these microscopic particles combines to emerge as human consciousness! Come, let's turn back the wheel of time by thousands of years. I want to lay before you some completely different perspectives on consciousness. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } });   These are thoughts held by the ancient philosophers of India thousands of years ago; specifically, the perspectives of the sages of the Upanishads. These seers did not possess the modern vocabulary of today's Western philosophers, nor did they have the cutting-edge equipment used by today's neuroscientists. Yet, I am deeply amazed by the clarity they possessed in such an ancient era. I respect their thoughts not just because I completely agree with them, but because their philosophy possesses an immense capacity to bind everything—the conscious and the unconscious, the living and the non-living—into a single unified thread. For today's discussion, I am drawing from one of the most ancient philosophical texts: the Mandukya Upanishad. This is an Upanishad that forms a part of the Atharva-Veda. Though it is incredibly brief in size, scholars like the Advaita philosopher Shankaracharya have considered it to be the most vital one. This Upanishad primarily addresses the very thing driving our curiosity right now: "consciousness." This Upanishad begins with a reference to the sound of "Om." In ancient Indian philosophy, especially in the Upanishads, this Omkaara is used as a symbol of the ultimate reality. This ultimate reality is the final destination of all spiritual quests. Unlike conventional religious texts, the Upanishads do not call this as "God." They never talk about worshipping this ultimate reality or surrendering to it. Instead, they repeatedly emphasize the need to experience this ultimate reality. And the path to achieving that experience is meditation. With this brief introduction, I would like to step inside the Upanishad. In the first two verses , the Upanishad introduces us to the following characteristics of Omkaara: - Omkaara is indestructible. - Omkaara is all-encompassing. - Omkaara transcends time—it exists beyond the past, the present, and > the future. - Omkaara exists even beyond everything that falls within the concept of > time. - Omkaara is the inner essence of all living beings. In a way, these two verses capture the essence of the entire Upanishadic philosophy. Now, let's look at the implications of these assertions. The Upanishads are very clear about the eternality of existence. They speak of cycles of contraction and expansion of existence, but never of absolute destruction. The Upanishads do not differentiate between the "creator" and the "creation." To tell you the truth, creation does not exist as a separate entity there. That is why they say the ultimate reality is everything. It is not just the sum of individual objects, nor did someone create them. Instead, it is everything. In the subsequent lines, it is said that Omkaara is timeless. It was there yesterday, it is here today, and it will be there tomorrow. The Upanishad does not stop there; it states that it transcends the very concept of time. Is there a difference between saying something exists in the past, present, and future, versus saying it is timeless? There absolutely is. Let me explain why. The Vedas speak of a state where time itself does not exist. One of the famous Vedic hymns, the Nasadiya Sookta, states that before time was born, "That" existed. In this world that we see with our own eyes, we perceive every object to be different from one another. No two things are exactly alike. But what this verse is saying is that even though forms appear different, they are all one. They are all Omkaara. How is it possible for different things to be the exact same thing? In our world bound by space-time, no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time. Similarly, the same object cannot be in more than one place at the same time. But Omkaara transcends these limitations of space-time. It can exist in more than one place and in more than one form simultaneously. All those existences belong to the same ultimate reality. There is no multiplicity there. This difference appears to us only when we look at this world through our eyes, which are limited by space and time. Now, the Upanishad makes a deeply thrilling proclamation. It says, "Everything is Omkaara. Each one of us is Omkaara. This Omkaara can exist in 4 states." It calls these states Vaishvanara, Taijasa, Prajna, and Turiya. In each of these states, the forms of Omkaara can exist in multiple places at once. These forms can coexist simultaneously because the foundational energy that assumed these forms exists beyond time. Broadly speaking, we can call these states "different dimensions of consciousness." However, this concept is vastly different from the first three arguments we discussed at the beginning. At best, those modern arguments might only parallel the first three states of this grand consciousness. We will talk about these different states of consciousness in much greater detail in our next episode.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  4. Jun 27

    [English] Can AI Become a Threat to Humans?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       According to estimates by organizations such as Goldman-Sachs, AI could automate around 300 million full-time jobs globally. They have stated that nearly two-thirds of the jobs currently existing in America and Europe could be affected by AI automation to one degree or another. The International-Labour-Organization (ILO) takes a somewhat more conservative view and estimates that approximately 2.3 percent of global employment, or about 75 million jobs, is at risk of complete automation. At the same time, labor researchers have observed that large-scale sudden layoffs are unlikely. Instead, hiring for entry-level white-collar positions and workers engaged in physical "grunt work" may slow down. Nevertheless, some doomsday-prophets have already begun predicting how AI will eventually overpower humanity itself! Can AI ever surpass humans?   var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Certainly, in some specific roles, yes. AI systems are trained on vast reservoirs of knowledge that no single human being could ever master alone. They possess a tireless ability to ingest enormous amounts of data, process it, and produce results at speeds that humans cannot even think at. But does that make them equal to humans, or superior to them? I do not think so. At least not in their present form. In their current state, they are highly mechanical. They perform tasks that humans find extremely boring or exhausting, using immense computing power and without any conscious purpose. Today's AI can do an excellent job of predicting the correct answer based on patterns. However, as I discussed in previous episodes, it does not possess the ability to truly "understand" what it is inferring. Nor does it have any motivation for the tasks it performs. It has no intention of surpassing humans. Nor is it currently equipped to do so. No matter how vast its knowledge may appear, it is limited to information that is publicly available in documented form. This represents only a tiny fraction of what humanity has accumulated over millions of years, across countless languages and under diverse living conditions. It would not be wrong to say that AI can never truly become equal to humans in this respect. Therefore, the fear that AI will independently take control of humanity, as portrayed in science-fiction stories, is merely a fictional fear. However, yes, as I listed earlier, there are limited risks. Customer service representatives, data-entry clerks, medical transcriptionists, junior software developers, administrative assistants, and bookkeepers are among those who are more vulnerable than others. Another large community that is being affected consists of translators and voice actors. This is because current AI systems are exceptionally proficient at text-to-text manipulation. As a result, publishers are aggressively pushing for AI integration. According to a survey conducted by the Society of Authors, more than one-third of translators have already lost work because of generative AI. Many literary translators are being asked to shift toward "Machine Translation Post-Editing." This involves correcting awkward AI-translated text. However, these translators often receive only a small fraction of the per-word translation fees they once earned. The development of highly reliable and emotionally expressive text-to-speech models has significantly disrupted the voice-over industry. Before the advent of AI, this was an extremely lucrative field for professional voice actors. These voice artists often charged hundreds of dollars per finished hour of audio. Most small authors could never afford to hire them. Some narrated their own books, while others simply watched helplessly. Now, because of AI intervention, considerable unrest has emerged within the voice-acting community. Many feel that their very existence is under threat. Supported by their forums and unions, they appear to be attempting to prevent AI from entering the field. There was a time when an author had to struggle for months to translate and narrate a book in another language. Today, AI can accomplish the same task in just a few hours. That is what has created the fear of AI. However, such an attitude only restricts the market. If handled properly, it could bring about a major transformation in the publishing industry, which has long been waiting for lower-cost alternatives. Just imagine. Instead of a good book being confined to a single language, it could reach millions of people who speak different languages. That would be a revolution in the dissemination of knowledge. Considering the growing popularity of audiobooks, the entry of AI into the audiobook production pipeline could be a tremendous blessing. Not only would it reduce the monopoly of a small number of voice artists who charge substantial fees, but it would also make books available to a much wider audience. Yes, I can understand the fears of these professionals. But can AI truly replace them? No matter how smart current AI systems may appear, they still cannot match human-level precision in either linguistic perfection or the subtle expression of emotions. There will always be demand for top-level voice artists. Best-selling authors and those who can afford them will continue to hire them. Most authors could never justify hiring them because of their high fees, and because subscription-based stores often pay such tiny pool shares that the economics simply did not work. These authors may now turn to AI and find a way to sustain themselves. After all, it is not only voice artists who need to survive. Authors who previously had no option but to pay expensive voice-acting fees also need to survive. As the audiobook industry continues to grow, good voice artists will find more opportunities as well. In the long run, they have little reason to believe that they are truly under threat. There are also frequent complaints that translation professionals have been severely affected by AI. Many of them are said to have been reduced to tasks such as proofreading, while AI performs the primary translation work. Naturally, they are paid less than they were before. However, as AI translates more books, these proofreaders will also receive more work. The overall volume of work matters. Needless to say, both authors and readers stand to benefit from this. Therefore, instead of fighting against a phenomenon that appears to be inevitable, it is better to make the best possible use of technology. In the long run, that will help everyone. My point is that instead of focusing excessively on the immediate effects of AI, we should pay more attention to the long-term dangers that AI could create in the hands of a small number of self-serving individuals. The real danger does not come from the technology itself. Rather, it comes from the misuse of that technology by human beings. Whether it is communication, energy supply chains, essential services, or countless other sectors, the rapid penetration of AI could become a genuine threat if it falls into the wrong hands. AI is like a sharp knife. In the hands of a skilled surgeon, a sharp knife can save lives. In the hands of a master chef, it can create delicious meals. In the hands of a great sculptor, it can contribute to magnificent works of art. But if it falls into the wrong hands, it can cause destruction. That is what we should be far more concerned about.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.        Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  5. Jun 20

    [English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       This very question caused a former Google employee named Blake Lemoine to lose both his job and his reputation. You have probably read about it. In 2022, while testing one of Google's AI systems called Lamda, Blake felt that the AI was conscious. He did not stop there. Instead, he began advocating for the rights of that AI. That eventually cost him his job. Before talking about the consciousness of AI systems, let us first understand our own conscious experience.   var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); How we acquire conscious experience has long been a puzzle that troubled neuroscientists. When modern tools such as functional MRI scanners were invented, neuroscientists became capable of explaining various perceptual processes of the human brain. They could identify the precise locations in the brain responsible for specific perceptions. However, in the beginning, there was little clarity about how complex experiences, which may involve regions distributed throughout the brain, are actually realized. For example, suppose you are looking at a tree. You immediately recognize it as a particular species of tree. Neuroscientists were able to point to specific regions of the brain that recognize the leaves of the tree, its fruits, its trunk, and so on. But your actual experience is processed using various regions of the brain. Yet there is no single specific region in the brain that assembles the complete image of the tree and delivers to you the experience, "Ah! That is a mango tree!" Neuroscientists called this problem the "Binding Problem." In other words, it is the problem of assembling scattered pieces of information distributed throughout the brain and fitting them together into a coherent whole. In the latter part of the twentieth century, an American neuroscientist named Bernard Baars proposed a theory called the "Global Workspace Theory" to explain this phenomenon. The theory was highly metaphorical. Baars' metaphor attracted considerable criticism because it seemed to imply the existence of a separate entity that undergoes experience. Scientists do not accept the existence of any such mysterious force. Later, a revised theory known as the "Global Neuronal Workspace Theory" emerged. Today it is widely accepted as an explanation for our conscious experiences. However, this explanation did not satisfy cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers. He argued that, neuroscientists had solved only an "easy problem" of consciousness. Many fascinating aspects of human experience, he maintained, still remain unexplained. He referred to them as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness." This tug-of-war continued. Neuroscientists claimed that they could explain everything, while philosophers such as Chalmers challenged them by arguing that their explanations were still incomplete. I am not entirely sure how philosophers such as Chalmers define the term "consciousness." In one of his lectures, Chalmers describes consciousness as an inner movie that is continuously playing. He argues that it is a subjective experience. According to him, it cannot be explained in terms of any activity of the brain. Before deciding how right Chalmers is, let us consider a few facts. The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory is capable of explaining how the brain integrates information distributed within itself. Therefore, it appears that the brain possesses at least the capacity to generate some form of conscious experience. By implanting electrodes into certain regions of the brain and stimulating them electromagnetically, it is possible to induce specific experiences. A person can also undergo a variety of experiences by consuming certain psychoactive substances. The brain mechanisms behind these phenomena are fairly well understood. This means that the brain can serve as a vehicle of consciousness. Some researchers have found that intense belief can create specific experiences in the brain even without dependence on any external object. In certain temples of South India, devoted worshippers pierce their tongues. They suspend themselves from poles using hooks driven deep into their backs. Yet they remain immersed in spiritual experiences without any sensation of pain. It has been found that, in such situations, the brain produces chemicals similar to opiates. This means that the brain can radically alter experiences in ways we might not expect. When the same brain is placed under general anesthesia, however, the person becomes completely incapable of experiencing anything at all. This indicates that the brain plays a central role in conscious experience. If the brain is not active, a person cannot have any experience—whether subjective or otherwise. The implications of all these observations are: • The brain is capable of generating conscious experience by integrating external inputs. Moreover, its mechanisms are now reasonably well understood. • Even in the complete absence of sensory inputs, the brain can generate experiences with the help of external substances or methods. • Beyond both external and internal inputs, the brain can modify experiences based on its own internal state. • Consciousness cannot arise without a functioning brain. Are these observations not sufficient to conclude that what we call subjective experience, occurs within the brain itself? But Chalmers does not agree. He firmly believes that, "These explanations describe only how the brain functions, but they fail to explain subjective experience." He is searching for a mysterious explanation that lies beyond the brain. If Chalmers were to broaden his inquiry somewhat, and speak about meditative experiences, I might agree with him. The highest meditative experiences occur when one transcends the boundaries of the mind, or when the mind becomes completely still. Since the brain is almost inactive at such times, it is difficult to say that such experiences occur within the brain. Ironically, even there, there is no room to speak of subjective experiences. For that state transcends subjectivity itself. I view consciousness from the perspective of a neuroscientist. In my opinion, for a system to possess consciousness, it must at least have the capacity to alter its own mental states. Merely having the ability to change internal states is not enough. A system that claims to be conscious, must possess many additional capacities as well. Returning to the original question: do AI systems possess those capacities? Certainly not the AI systems that are publicly available today. They may display an appearance of intelligence. But— • They do not possess internal states that can be continuously modified or updated in response to inputs. As Blake Lemoine reported, the AI appeared to claim during conversations that it could change its own state based on inputs. Even if it seemed so on the surface, that does not make it true. • Today's AI systems do not possess states that change in response to fear, happiness, preferences, dislikes, or similar emotions. • Their input mechanisms are extremely limited. At present, they can read or listen to prompts. They can "see" images and read files. That is all. Therefore, there is no basis for concluding that Blake Lemoine's experience was genuine. Besides, AI systems are masters at sounding confident on the basis of partial information. They are remarkably good at behaving like humans and leading people astray! Nevertheless, I do not rule out the possibility that future AI systems may possess consciousness—at least a form of consciousness analogous to the kind that is limited to the brain.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.        Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  6. Jun 13

    [English] Do Todays AI Systems Really Understand Anything?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]         Anyone who has worked with ChatGPT, Gemini, or any other artificial intelligence system of that kind has probably felt that they do understand. An AI communicates with us much like an ordinary human being. They make jokes, and they respond to our sarcasm and minor objections in ways that seem remarkably human. If you ask one of them to prepare presentation slides for your lecture, it may do a better job than you would yourself. I have even heard that many students are now using AI to complete their school and college assignments. So then, isn't it obvious that they understand things?   var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Certainly not. The reason lies in the very way today's AI systems have been designed. In reality, they possess no power of understanding whatsoever. All an AI does is this: based on what you have said, or on what it was previously trained on, it simply performs pattern matching and predicts what the most appropriate answer to your question is likely to be. That may not be quite as bad as it sounds. After all, many of us do exactly the same thing. Most people function very much like pattern-matching prediction machines. We rarely make the effort to understand things deeply. So then, what exactly is involved in genuine understanding? To put it in a highly simplified way, it means connecting a newly encountered word to something we already know. Or, in other words, discovering the meaning of a new word through something that is already familiar to us. But this connection need not be limited merely to words. It can go much further than that. For example, the moment someone says the word "cat," our mind associates that word with a soft furry creature having four legs, a long tail, and a tendency to purr. In reality, we connect a word with the entire description of the living being it represents. Nor is our understanding limited merely to visual experience. If you have ever traveled to certain Southeast Asian countries, the mere mention of the word "durian" may immediately bring many details to mind: that sharp smell that can almost make one nauseous, and yet the surprisingly pleasant taste that lingers in the mouth. In other words, understanding is not simply matching one word with another. It involves connecting that word to the perceptions of all our senses, to past experiences, and to knowledge that has already been accumulated. But remember, these connections are not permanent. They can change over time as new information becomes available. And they can later be recalled and used again. Are AI systems incapable of doing this? In the AI systems currently available, that is certainly the case. An AI is fundamentally a machine confined to language. Its world consists primarily of words, sentences, and a vast storehouse of knowledge. If an AI is taught that "a durian is a fruit with a strong smell," it merely associates the word "durian" with a description of that smell. But this is possible only during its training phase. Only its creators can teach it in that way. You and I cannot do so afterward. Are you surprised? Perhaps not. You already know very well that no matter how intelligent an AI may appear, it is ultimately just a computer program. Yet, have you ever wondered how an inanimate program can accomplish so much? Let us look a little deeper into the origins of these AI systems. Today's AI systems are called "Large Language Models." They operate entirely around human language. The beginnings of these programs were quite simple. Their original purpose was merely to translate from one language into another. Most of us learned new languages in school by studying grammar, vocabulary, and similar things. But none of us learned our mother tongue in that manner. Yet we can speak it fluently and with relatively few grammatical mistakes. How did that become possible? It was not through conscious study or deliberate understanding. Research has shown that a child begins learning its mother tongue while still in the mother's womb. Even before birth, the sounds of people speaking outside can be heard by the fetus. Although the brain is still incomplete at that stage, it already begins trying to identify the boundaries between words in the language being spoken around it. However, it has no ability to understand what it is hearing. How does it manage this? That is the miracle performed by the neurons in its brain! A neuron is like a tiny biological computer inside our brain. There are billions of such neurons within us. As the fetus grows into a child, some of these neurons are still forming. Others have already formed and are preparing themselves for specific tasks. Still others are in the process of establishing their roles within the brain. These neurons are the real actors behind this remarkable phenomenon. Some clever researchers observed this process. They attempted to imitate nature itself. This led them to the idea of an "artificial neural network," modeled loosely on the human brain. Although the concept began in the 1940s, the truly significant breakthrough came during the 1980s in the form of the backpropagation algorithm. An algorithm is simply a computer program. These programs attempt to imitate the way biological neural networks function. However, the amount of computation hidden within such simulations is so enormous that, in the early days, it was extremely difficult to use them for any practical purpose. Computers certainly existed then, but they were far too slow to perform the vast calculations required to implement these artificial neural networks effectively. Later came the era of new parallel-processing computers. These machines could perform thousands of calculations simultaneously. With the support of such powerful hardware, the idea of truly practical AI systems emerged around 2018. These systems were trained on virtually everything available in the world: all kinds of information freely accessible on the internet, the distilled contents of countless books, and much more. They were also taught what kinds of information should not be accepted and how to interact appropriately with human beings. This marked the birth of modern AI systems. However, they became widely accessible to the general public only in 2022. At first glance, these AI systems seem capable of understanding our instructions, following our directions, and even creating astonishing images. There appears to be no limit to what they can do. But the real question remains unchanged: do they truly understand? In their present form, certainly not. To genuinely understand, they would need the ability to create new associations between concepts. They would need to update their knowledge continuously. Fundamentally, they would need the ability to remember new information. Even if we restrict ourselves solely to communication through words, these programs do not possess such memory. Although they may appear to remember small amounts of information, they cannot universally and autonomously update their underlying knowledge base. They are capable only of recognizing patterns and making predictions. Does that mean we have reached the ultimate limit of AI? Certainly not. In one sense, these machines were intentionally designed this way. Even while we sleep, our brains continue updating memories and reinforcing what we already understand. Today's AI systems cannot do that. They were not designed to function like human beings, whose memory systems are continuously updating themselves twenty-four hours a day. So yes, today's AI systems do not possess genuine understanding. But that does not mean they never will. There is no reason to conclude that such a thing will always remain impossible. Considering the speed at which AI technology is advancing, the day may not be far away when AI understands at least the world of language much as we do, even if not the full range of sensory experiences available to human beings. Since words constitute such a large part of our perceived world, even reaching that stage would represent a tremendous achievement.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.        Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly fro

  7. Jun 6

    [English] What Causes Our Emotions and Feelings?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       Emotions and feelings are generally believed to be unique characteristics of living beings. Inanimate objects do not possess them. In fact, they are often regarded as one of the primary signs of life itself. So, what causes them? A team of neuroscientists at University College London conducted several studies on this subject. To study the changes that occur in our brains when we experience emotions and feelings, they used highly advanced instruments such as functional MRI (f-MRI) scanners. var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); They carried out some simple experiments. A group of female volunteers was shown photographs of children. Some of these photographs were of their own children, while others were of children they knew but to whom they were not biologically related. Using f-MRI scanners, the researchers observed the women's brains. They identified two things. When these participants looked at pictures of their own children, certain regions of their brains became active while other regions became inactive, or were suppressed. The activation appeared to represent the mother's feeling of love toward her child, while the deactivation seemed to indicate a sense of indifference toward the child's shortcomings. In other words, they loved their children despite their faults and imperfections. However, when they were shown pictures of children who were familiar to them but were not their own, the picture was quite different. The scientists hypothesized that this special maternal behavior might be caused by certain neuro-hormones released in the brain and by the way specific receptors in the brain's reward center respond to them. They administered chemicals to laboratory animals that blocked the effects of these hormones. When they did so, mother mice completely lost their natural nurturing affection toward their offspring. This clearly indicated that those hormones were responsible for those feelings. These scientists also studied romantic feelings between lovers in a similar way. They found that these feelings too appeared to operate largely through similar mechanisms. So, is all of this merely a game played by a few chemicals in the brain and nothing more? Whether it is a mother's love or the romantic affection a lover feels toward a partner, are all such emotions merely the effects of a few chemicals? As human beings, we attach immense importance to these sweet emotions. We consider them sacred. Therefore, the idea that they are nothing more than the result of chemical reactions occurring in the brain leaves many of us feeling disappointed or dissatisfied. These scientists have certainly identified a possible cause behind some of the brain's most subtle experiences. But not completely. The reason is that the results obtained by injecting chemicals into the brains of laboratory animals cannot automatically be applied to humans. Human beings are far more complex than these laboratory animals. Our emotions may not be driven solely by our bodily processes. It appears that we possess the ability to rise above the effects of these chemical reactions. For example, a Buddhist monk who practices Vipassana meditation for a long period can reach a state in which he remains indifferent to events that would normally trigger emotions in ordinary people. In that case, are those chemicals not being released in his brain? Or, even if they are released, is he able to transcend their effects? One need not become a Buddhist monk to achieve this. Most of us possess the ability to regulate our emotions according to circumstances. When our boss shouts at us in the office, we may still smile. Yet when our own spouse irritates us, we may not respond so calmly. Therefore, this is not merely a game played by a few chemicals. There is something more behind it. In general, these processes are not caused solely by a few chemicals. Once these chemicals are released, certain changes occur in the brain. These changes establish relationships between the event, its consequences, and our expected response. Our past experiences and memories give definite shape to these relationships. Together, these factors determine how we respond to a particular situation. In short, it is often the memory of a previous event that causes us to react. If that memory is pleasant, we respond positively. Otherwise, we respond harshly. Early Buddhists had recognized this relationship between the mind and its emotions. They believed that these emotions arise primarily from mental states or from the contents of the mind. They did not possess sophisticated instruments like those available to modern neuroscientists. They relied solely on their keen powers of observation. They referred to these contents of the mind as "Chetasikas," meaning "the contents within the Chitta or mind." However, these Buddhists believed in an existence that extends beyond the present life. They had unwavering faith in rebirth. They proposed that the contents of a dying person's mind could be transferred to the mind of an unborn embryo. When such a transfer occurred, the being reborn through that embryo could carry traces of previous experiences into the new life. Therefore, they believed that our likes, dislikes, feelings, and emotions continue across many lifetimes. If that were true, it would become clear that these emotions cannot be produced solely by chemicals in the brain. After all, the brain that produces those chemicals is destroyed when the body dies, whereas the emotions continue. Many of us may view these ideas of rebirth with skepticism. However, even modern researchers such as Ian Stevenson believed in such possibilities. Stevenson conducted extensive research on memories of previous lives. Based on those studies, he concluded that our likes, dislikes, and even many unexplained fears, or phobias, may be rooted in memories from previous lives. Therefore, the release of certain chemicals in the brain is only a contributing factor. It is merely one process that may occur when emotion-producing events take place. Unlike lower forms of life, in human beings these chemicals are neither absolutely necessary nor sufficient by themselves to generate emotions or feelings. A highly accomplished yogi can be fully capable of extending the same love toward everyone, whether they are his own children or not. He is not merely a slave to chemicals. Experiments on laboratory animals may be unavoidable in many situations, but I believe their results cannot always be applied completely to human beings. Human beings function in far more complex ways. Our emotions are largely influenced by the state of our minds. They manifest against the background of a particular mental condition. Without that background, they do not arise. They can even manifest beyond any chemical secretion. Events and chemicals may act as triggers, but they are not the ultimate determinants.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-align: justify; }p.western { font-family: "Arial", serif; font-size: 14pt; }p.cjk { font-size: 14pt; }p.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

  8. May 30

    [English] Do We Have Free Will?

    window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-8HXGBD0CVC');     [Preview books]  [Borrow books]   [Pause]       Decades ago, an American neuroscientist named Benjamin Libet tried to investigate this question. The experiments he conducted created a huge sensation at the time, and even today neuroscientists continue to debate them. What exactly did Libet do? var hello = document.getElementById("Hello"); hello.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); audio.play(); }); var audio = document.getElementById("Audio"); audio.addEventListener("ended", function(){ var thankyou = document.getElementById('ThankYou'); thankyou.play(); }); document.getElementById("playAudio").addEventListener("click", function(){ var audio = document.getElementById('Audio'); if(this.className != "is-paused"){ this.className = "is-paused"; this.innerHTML = "Play"; audio.pause(); }else{ this.className = "is-playing"; this.innerHTML = "Pause"; audio.play(); } }); Libet conducted a very simple experiment. The participants in the experiment were asked to press a button of their own free will. Using a precise clock, they were instructed to note the moment at which they decided to press the button. At the same time, the exact moment when they actually pressed the button was also recorded. Libet did one more thing. He attached probes to the participants' scalps and measured specific electrical signals inside their brains. These signals indicated that the brain was preparing to engage in a physical action. Naturally, there must be a slight delay between the moment one decides to press the button and the moment one actually presses it. There is nothing strange about that. Our body needs a little time to convert the mind's decision into action. What was surprising, however, was that the brain had already begun preparing for the act of pressing the button even before the participants consciously decided to press it. That is what the electrical activity measured through the probes revealed! This raised many questions. How could the brain prepare for the action before the participants had decided to press the button? Or was it that the very same brain activity caused the participants to make that decision? If that were true, then the participants had not really acted out of their own free will, as they believed they had. This experiment led to many debates and new theories. Many scientists considered it evidence for their view that free will does not exist at all, and that everything is entirely cause-driven. Even though Libet himself confirmed that the participants were capable of changing their earlier decision at the last moment, the debates did not stop. Free will is one of the most intensely debated subjects among neuroscientists. They feel that if they accept such a thing, it could open the door to "devil in the box" type theories. In other words, it would amount to accepting that there is some mysterious force beyond the brain that governs our mind. It would amount to accepting that behind all our actions there is a consciousness or soul. It would amount to accepting the existence of something non-physical. That would be like breaching the strong fortress of science. For science does not accept any such idea. As someone who also thinks philosophically, I hold a somewhat different view on this subject. I do not see free will as a binary — as something that either exists or does not exist. Instead, I think of it as a continuum of possibilities. This continuum includes inanimate objects, living beings, human beings, and the ultimate limiting case of this spectrum. Let me explain. Take a fan as an example. It can move or remain still. It can even change its speed of rotation. But it can do so only when some switch is turned on or off, or when the regulator is adjusted. By itself, it can do nothing. This is a clear example of the complete absence of free will. Now consider an animal. It too moves, eats, searches for a mate, and does many other things. There is no physical switch externally controlling these actions. The animal is driven by its instincts or by the "chemicals" secreted in its brain and body. Within that limited framework, it displays free will. In other words, it possesses a limited form of free will. Now let us take the example of human beings. Although many among us are still driven by instincts, we are also capable of rising above them and acting according to our own will. When we are hungry, we do not pounce upon food like a dog. Instead, we think about whether it is right to eat the food before us. Many things govern our decision — Is the food ours? Is this the right time to eat it? Is the food healthy for us? And so on. Even though we may engage in the action, our actions are not completely unrestrained. They are regulated by our moral sense, social responsibility, concern for health, and many other factors. Therefore, although we possess free will, we also possess self-control. This self-control is itself another form of free will. It can rise above the physical constraints that govern an inanimate object, or the instinctive compulsions that direct lower life forms. Let us go further still. Look at a monk. In order to attain the ultimate goal of spiritual enlightenment, he struggles against all his basic instincts, endures every hardship, and walks steadfastly upon his chosen path. Is he not also displaying free will? But he too is bound by his belief in some ultimate spiritual state and by his longing to attain it. Therefore, his decisions are not entirely free either. There is still a cause behind them. You may have heard of many missionaries who renounce all worldly pleasures for the sole purpose of spreading their religion. They leave their homeland, choose to live the life of an ascetic in a foreign land, and dedicate themselves to their mission. Yet some of them, upon witnessing the poverty and suffering of people, are deeply moved. They forget their original goal and begin serving those people without any religious agenda whatsoever. They overcome all the causes that had previously bound them and make a self-determined decision. And yet, was it not compassion within them that made them take that decision? India has a tradition of "Nishkama Yogis." They possess neither selfish motives nor religious agendas. They are not even driven by compassion. They work solely because it is their duty. This profound sense of duty becomes the reason behind the path they choose. Thus, in all these examples, there is always some cause behind the apparently free choice. Can you imagine anyone doing anything without any cause whatsoever? Perhaps that is impossible. But here is a subtle point you may not have noticed. In the case of the fan, the cause was physical. In animals, it was chemical. In ordinary human beings, it is social rules and accepted values. In spiritual seekers, it is firm belief. In social workers, it is compassion. And in Karma Yogis, it is a powerful sense of duty. Every one of them was driven by some cause. But we can see that this cause gradually moves from the gross toward the subtle. In other words, the free will displayed by each of them was not of the same kind. The cause behind that will existed at different levels. They seem to move progressively closer toward the limiting case of complete free will, even if none of them ever truly reaches it. Therefore, free will is not a binary of "exists or does not exist." It is a vast spectrum of freedom. Those who exist at the lower end of this spectrum possess a more limited form of free will compared to those at the higher end. Yet all of them display free will at different levels. Yes, when viewed in this way, none of us possesses completely "free" free will. For all of us function within the framework of causality. Yet within that framework, all of us certainly possess free will within a limited range. Only its degree differs. If there is an ultimate limit to this spectrum of "free will," what might it be like? Whoever exists at that limit must be free from causality itself. Such a being would act without any cause. Such a being would display unrestricted free will. Indian philosophy imagines such a possibility. The Upanishads call it the "Ātman" — that which is free from the bondage of causality. Only such an entity can possess completely free will. In ordinary language, religious people call it "God." In the Bible, God says "Let there be light," without any prior cause, and light comes into existence. That same reality, in the Upanishads, says "May I become many," and it becomes the world, living beings, and multiplicity itself. Only such a being, if it exists, can possess absolute free will. Everyone else possesses only limited free will. As we evolve, the boundary of that freedom merely expands. That free will cannot be demonstrated through a few simple probes. It can be perceived only through inner insight.    -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.      Haga clic para español Klicken Sie hier für die deutsche Version हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें తెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండి ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 10); line-height: 120%; text-a

See All (19)

About

Explore science, philosophy, and spirituality for a deeper life. Get motivational insights and healthy thoughts for purposeful, better living.

Information