Contemporary Issues in Philosophy of Mind and Cognition

Prof. Ranjan K. Panda

Prof. Rajakishore Nath

Department of Humanities and Social Science

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

Lecture No. # 02

The Transcendental Consciousness

Let us begin with the notion of consciousness and how it has been discussed in the history.
Consciousness is considered as a transcendental reality. So, today’s lecture will be about
the transcendental notion of consciousness. The transcendental notion of consciousness is
discussed from both western, as well as from the eastern perspective; the eastern, I mean,
the Indian perspective, that consciousness is a transcendental reality and it has a special
ontological status.

(Refer Slide Time: 01:20)

It is ontologically independent of the matter. So, today we will discuss, what is the
transcendental notion of consciousness? And how it has been viewed from both Indian, as
well as from the western perspective?
The transcendental notion of consciousness suggests that no mind, no matter; if there is no
mind, then there is no matter. Now, this first statement is about the existence of
consciousness that consciousness is epistemologically and ontologically prior to the
existence of the matter. So, if you negate, if you nullify the existence of consciousness or
mind, then we will not have any discourse about the world. So, the, the existence of the
world depends on the existence of the mind, but how does this thesis work?

If we look at the second statement, that is, no matter, never mind, is entirely opposing the
1st statement; no mind, therefore no matter. Now, this typical statement I have been
quoting from Daniel Robinson, spoke the mind, published in 1998 by Oxford University
Press. Robinson suggests that these two statements summarize the entire history of
consciousness studies, that consciousness is viewed from a spiritualistic perspective,
where we accept the primacy of the mental, the primacy of the mind from both ontological,
as well as from the epistemological point of view.

Precisely, this is an epistemological discourse because the knowledge about the external
world, knowledge about the material bodies are possible, if and only if, we logically
presuppose the existence of the mind. The mind is a knower, is the knowing subject, which
knows the matter. So, therefore, if there is an absence of a knowing subject, then the
presence of the object or the known or the matter is insignificant. So, the existence of
matter is ontologically meaningful and epistemologically meaningful, if and only if there
is a mind, there is a conscious mind. A conscious mind is a mind, which knows the reality
knowing the world, observing the world and talking about it. So, the whole discourse of
knowledge and the knowledge of reality presupposes that there exists a mind. So, this
presupposition is strongly accepted by the transcendental theory of mind.

The transcendental theory of mind talks about its ontological primacy because for them
mind is independent of the material body. The existence of mind does not depend on the
existence of the material bodies as the function of the material bodies can be explained by
certain natural laws. The existence of consciousness is not explainable with the help of the
same natural laws, which are applicable for the explanation of the worldly bodies. Hence,
we need to talk about the ontology of mind with the help of its own features.
(Refer Slide Time: 06:07)

Now, what is that feature? As Robert Solomon points out once in his book, the little book
of philosophy, Solomon writes about consciousness saying, that look at this French
expression, voila. The voila means, here it is; that means, I know, that I am conscious, I
am aware of this fact, that I am conscious.

The very fact, that I know, that I am conscious is precisely a kind of an epistemological
activity. It is an epistemological activity and it is as an epistemological engagement with
consciousness, that is, we need to see how the transcendental hypothesis tries to theorize
consciousness and what are its justifications to suggest, that yes, this theory is kind of a
valid theory. If consciousness has to be logically presupposed, then we need to look at,
whether the descriptions given for this hypothesis is real description, is logically viable
description; if they are not logically viable, then probably, we have to reject the
transcendental hypothesis.

But then, we need to look at where this debate is origining from. The debate is origining
from the discourse, an early Greek philosophy, if we try to look it from a western
philosophical perspective. The debate is also there in Upanishads when you look at it from
an Indian perspective. So, the transcendental hypothesis, that consciousness is real
phenomenon, this reality is conceived from epistemological as well as from the ontological
point of views.

We need to look at this how, you know, Upanishadic perspective gives an interpretation
of the hypothesis and how the pre- Greek philosophers, even including the Plato and
Aristotelian notion of mind, gives an interpretation to the transcendental thesis. So, the
very idea, that mind is a transcendental reality tells us, that mind transcends the realm of
the physical. So, this, the notion of transcendence is something which is beyond, which is
over and above something. So, the transcendental mind or transcendental consciousness
will talk about the notion of consciousness, which is over and above an ordinary notion of
consciousness.

The very fact, that I encounter my consciousness in my day-to-day experiences, so for

example, I am seeing all of you, I am experiencing your presence, is could be a kind of an
ordinary sense experience I have. I say it is “ordinary” because it is so simple because
consciousness is, is viewed from finite modalities, I mean, the expression of the sense
experiential consciousness exhibits finite modalities in which consciousness is present.

So, the transcendental consciousness, on the other hand, would talk about some kind of
infinity, some kind of the presence of universal consciousness, which is beyond or over
and above the everyday notion of consciousness. So, that is how, I would put a kind of a
transcendental consciousness.

The other way of looking at transcendental consciousness is to talk about self awareness,
that how does the knower know his consciousness. So, this self awareness is something
significant because it gives us a clue to prove, that yes, there is something called an I or
the self, which is a pure consciousness and that is beyond this expression of the ordinary
sense experiential knowledge. So, that is what we would try to look at.

So, this idea of a transcendental theory of consciousness would somehow go against the
hypothesis, that no matter, never mind. It does not give primacy to the matter; it does not
give primacy to the matter because the materialistic perspective, that studies mind and
explains its various features, complex features look at the notion of consciousness from
evolutionary perspective, from a functionalist perspective, from a behaviouristic
perspective. So, therefore, the materialistic theory of mind would presuppose the ontology
of matter. Hence, this thesis goes against the previous statement, which says, no matter
and therefore, no mind.
So, let us talk about, what is this ontology? The ontology speaks about, is there a mind, if at
all there is a mind, then what kind of stuff it is and what are the features of this mental life?
So, the nature of mental life needs to be studied, needs to be analyzed and that would give
some kind of evidence to talk about the transcendental thesis of consciousness.

So, we need to identify this stuff, we need to name this stuff, just saying here it is, I am
conscious, but I do not know what it is, here it is and not able to know, “not able to know”
what exactly it is, is a quite puzzling thing. So, therefore, we need to look at historically
how consciousness has been defined. So, therefore, the taxonomy of mind is to be brought
in to talk about consciousness.

(Refer Slide Time: 14:42)

If I stick to the earlier statement - no mind, no matter - then I am giving an impression or

trying to emphasize on this point, that is, the primacy of the mental, the primacy of
consciousness, which is a logical primacy, primacy that is grounded on certain ontological
basis and on epistemological basis. So, that would say some kind of immaterialism I am
holding or there is some kind of a monism I am holding to.

Monism, as you know, is a metaphysical thesis and philosophy began with meta-physics.
The metaphysical enquiry discusses a significant question, the metaphysical enquiry
delves into the notion of consciousness, the notion of reality with this question, that is,
what is reality? What is the underlying principle of the reality as a whole and as such, if
this question is to be answered, then the transcendental perspective of mind
would come up with this answer, that reality is based on consciousness, that is, to say, that
it is from consciousness everything has evolved.

So, the existence of consciousness is ontologically and epistemologically grounded on a

universal principle called consciousness. So, as a monistic theory it suggests, that
consciousness is real, so the existence of matter, in fact, theoretically, reducible to the
existence of the mind. This is one kind of, you know, reduction saying, that consciousness
can explain the existence of the world, the existence of the material bodies and its
functions. So, this thesis, from that point of view, this thesis therefore holds, achieve some
kind of a reductionism happening here when you stick to monism. This could also happen
in the case of materialistic monism, which suggests, that matter is real and therefore,
consciousness is the byproduct of the matter.

(Refer Slide Time: 18:21)

So, the monistic materialism would suggest an alternative hypothesis, which will go along
with the second statement that we had suggested, that is, no matter, never mind. Therefore,
we need to see what are the other metaphysical possibilities? The other metaphysical
possibilities are a dualistic hypothesis; say, both matter and mind are real. The moment
you say, that both matter and mind are real, you hold on to the thesis, that matter is
ontologically real and mind is also ontologically real; they have their independent
ontological status.
So, therefore, we need to talk about a kind of a medium, an alternative principle, which
would connect these two ontologically independent phenomena, so mind and the matter,
consciousness and the matter.

So, is dualism a viable thesis, that we will be discussing with reference to an important
modern philosopher, which is considered as the father of modern philosophy, René
Descartes. Now, Descartes’ dualism makes a significant intervention in the whole
discourse of contemporary philosophy of mind, the Cartesian dualism, as it is popularly
known to us, it is also called official thesis; Ryle calls it as an official thesis.

Now, official thesis maintains, that mind is categorically independent of the matter. So, it
is important for us to explicate the dualistic perspective of mind, we would discuss it
separately and extensively, but before that it is also important to look at the other
taxonomies. So, for example, idealism or parallelism, historically if you look at Leibniz,
Leibniz talking about parallelism, where both mind and matter interacts and Leibniz
maintains, that this introduction is based on the principle of harmony. There is a kind of a
harmonious interaction between mind and the body.

And in the contemporary philosophy of mind, one can relate to this idea of parallelism
with reference to the debate, which we have on supervenience theory of mind or emergence
theory of mind. So, the idea of parallelism or a parallelistic theory of mind advocated by
Leibniz as a critic to the dualism, the Cartesian dualism is something very significant and
how the supereminence theory or the emergence notion of mind adheres to the thesis of
parallelism, do they negate, do they accept, we will discuss that. I am sure Professor Nath
would also reflect on this aspect of the theory of mind, particularly the supervenience
theory of mind.

So, let us come back to this idea of the taxonomies. So, there are various taxonomies,
taxonomies which are viewed from a metaphysical point of view, that there is only one
reality, the underlying principle of the realities One, the underlying principle of the
realities is more than one, say two, and if you accept monism, then what kind of monism,
whether it is a monistic materialism or a monistic immaterialism or spiritualism. So, that
one has to think of when we read the contemporary debate. It is very important, that we
need to reflect on this historical facts about the monistic theory of mind, the idealistic
theory of mind and
the dualistic theory of mind because these are the axioms and how these axioms are
rejected by the contemporary philosophers of mind? Why they find, that these axioms are
problematic theories of mind? Why they find, that metaphysics or the metaphysical theory
of mind is, is something very insignificant? So, before they will be in detail to the
contemporary debates it is important therefore, to look at what the transcendental thesis of
consciousness is posing to us.

(Refer Slide Time: 26:02)

Now, it is certainly posing a very serious claim, that is, the concept of mind as a
transcendent is indeed vulnerable. We know that it is vulnerable, then what is that we are
going to study? It only satisfies the query of spiritual persons and also metaphysically
durable. As long as you are pursuing a metaphysical thesis, then it is important to talk
about transcendental notion of consciousness that is what a kind of a feeling, which
Robinson’s reading of the transcendent mind give to us.

Otherwise, if you are debating on the contemporary issues because the contemporary
issues and philosophy of mind deals extensively with the scientific understanding of mind.
Hence, the science of mind rejects the metaphysical thesis; the science of mind rejects the
spiritualist principles. They do not require a thesis where self consciousness is an important
epistemic category to talk about the identity of self. If at all they talk, they talk with a
different vocabulary altogether as khun would say when the two theory differs, the two
theories speaking two different languages, they may be using the same vocabulary, they
may be using the same terms, but they use it
differently meaning, thereby the meaning of the particular term differs from theory to
theory and when meaning differs, the world differs. So, if that kind of change is permissible
and the contemporary understanding of philosophy of mind adheres to the change of
vocabulary and tries to construct its own hypothesis about understanding the self identity
or advocating the self identity, then we need to see, whether their interpretation is justified
from a scientific point of view, we are certainly skeptical about the theory of mind, in the
sense, that we are skeptical about proposing the metaphysical theory of mind, but is it the
case, that we can avoid metaphysics? Is it the case that we can suspend metaphysics and
talk about the reality? What kind of reality it would be if there is an absence of mind?

(Refer Slide Time: 29:20)

Now, Robinson states that mind is a thing apart; neither dependent on nor reducible to
matter; not sharing matter’s features or fate.

So, this is what is the transcendental thesis would talk about. The transcendental thesis talk
about the nature of mind in this way, that it is not sharing the feature of the matter. Matter
has different properties, matter has different features and these properties are knowable.
The science is trying to explain these properties and day-by-day we have
better explanation of the properties; we are having more and more knowledge about
matter.

So, this kind of a progressive attitude, the way science progresses pursuing its epistemic
activities, we need to see, whether we have a similar philosophical progress happening in
the discourse of mind. We are saying that mind does not share the properties of matter;
mind is not dependent on the matter. So, if that is the theoretical point we were going to
talk about, then we need to look at what is the transcendental thesis we are going to
advocate. The transcendental thesis of consciousness talks about the metaphysics of mind
and the metaphysics of mind is discussed, as I say it, from the pre-Socratic philosophy to
the Socratic period and in the modern and the medieval periods of philosophy.

(Refer Slide Time: 31:53)

Thales, who started with this thesis, that water is the constituents of reality, this is a
metaphysical hypothesis or Democrates who talks about atoms is the foundational
metaphysical principles, which would explain the nature of reality.

So, their point of views, the pre-Socrates philosophers’ point of views, emphasizing on
metaphysical study of reality. Pythagoras talked about numbers, so the whole nature-
centric enquiry which we find in the pre-Socratic philosophy, is trying to systematically
answer the metaphysical questions, that what is reality as a whole and as such.

And what is the foundational principle on which the reality is grounded and with the help
of that principle we can explain the reality. So, if that is a kind of a metaphysics, which
say, the pre-Socratic philosophers or the Socratic philosophers, philosophers belong to the
Socratic period are advocating, then we need to look at their point of views.
(Refer Slide Time: 33:24)

Their philosophical thesis say Pythagoras and the Plato. Look at Pythagoras’
conceptualization of mathematical numbers; mathematical knowledge is comprehended
by the virtue of mind’s rational character. Though Pythagoras talks about number is the
ultimate form of reality because with the help of numbers we can quantify the things. So,
but Pythagoras is also concerned with this notion of mind and by virtue of mind’s rational
characteristics, we try to know the existence of numbers.

So, it is the mind, which conceives the existence of numbers, the ontological existence of
number. So, it is a kind of a special self-discovery, the discovery of an eternal truth, hence
assuming that there is a mind and the mind is engaged in epistemic activities. The activity
of understanding the eternal truth, understanding what you called the self, knowing the
self, the true knowledge as Plato says, or eternal knowledge. It is eternal because it is
objectively true, it will never be false, ok.
(Refer Slide Time: 35:27)

The scientific propositions is falsifiable but the kind of truth which Plato is advocating, he
says, that it is objectively true, it is universal and therefore, it is eternal. Now, as you all
know, Plato makes a distinction between sense perceptual knowledge and the eternal
knowledge. The sense perceptual knowledge can vary from context to context, it may
appear illusory, it is doubtable that sense perceptual knowledge is true knowledge.

It is explained in his famous parable, called the parable of cave, I will talk about it in my
lecture on Plato’s theory of mind, but briefly tell about the parable. In the parable of cave,
the prisoners look at the shadows and they find, the shadows are real, the mind conceives
the shadows as a reality and later on, the prisoners finds, that is not the reality, that is not
the true notion of reality; reality is something different.

Shadows are not real. So, there is a difference between what Plato calls opinion or Doxa
and knowledge; knowledge are real. When you talk about knowledge, we need to talk
about the knower who is engaged in these perceptual activities in the emotional and
intellectual activities because it is the mind or the spirit who is engaged in these activities.

So, there is a kind of a divine mind, which Plato and Aristotle are talking about, even the
Greeks are talking about the divine mind. The Indian philosophy is emphatically
advocating on the divine mind, the universal consciousness called the Brahman; it is the
Brahman who is a universal knower. So, the Brahman, which is the creative of the
universe, so therefore, Brahman is the first cause. In the medieval history, you will also
find, that Augustine, Anslem and many religious thinkers are talking about God, the
spiritual being is the creator of the universe.
(Refer Slide Time: 38:38)

Aristotle talks about the notion of an unmoved mover. The notion of an unmoved mover
in Aristotle says, God has this creative power, the divine mind has this creative power, it
is the power, which has designed the entire universe.

So, in that sense, you have clues. You have clues here in the philosophical thesis of
traditional Greek philosophy. The traditional Greek philosophers, the pre-Socratic and
Socratic period philosophers, the medieval philosophers like Anselm, Augustine and many
others and also to some extent, in fact, the great extent, Descartes is also accepting the
religious view of mind.

The transcendental thesis is supported by the philosophical and the religious thesis
advocated by traditional Greek philosophers and the medieval philosophers and to great
extent Descartes, who is a sympathizer of the religion.
(Refer Slide Time: 40:16)

We also need to look at the Indian perspective, Upanishads, is the great source of
knowledge advocates immaterialism. As I said, Brahman is the universal consciousness,
is the source of the entire creation and Brahman is the knower, it is the knower and it is
the creator and it is the creation itself.

So, there is no creation and created dichotomy when we talk about the universal
consciousness called Brahman, as it has been viewed from the perspective of Advaita-
Vedanta. Advaita-Vedanta denies the dichotomy, that exists between the knower and the
known the moment when realizes, that everything is Brahman, the ontological dichotomy
is dissolved; it is dissolved forever.

So, this realization is not only an epistemic realization about the existence of oneself, about
the existence of one’s owns being, but also knowledge or realization about the existence
of the nature of the entire reality, the entire cosmos. So, a realized being is a being who
knows the entire cosmos, the cosmic reality, which is a transcendental form of reality,
independent of our everyday consciousness. So, that is what, the Upanishads will talk
about.
(Refer Slide Time: 42:32)

Now, look at this metaphysical-epistemic thesis that we are concerned with before; I will
be talking about the Upanishads little later, but let us summarize what this metaphysical
epistemic thesis of transcendental theory of consciousness.

Now, the transcendental theory of consciousness talks about, there must be knowledge
independent of experience. So, all that we see, all that we perceive are not permanent, they
are not true. See, this notion of permanence, eternity, or eternal is a notion of appearance
and reality is something very significant. When you say that reality, we accept the notion
of reality is a kind of an eternal principle. When you talk about change, appearances, we
mean, that these are not really real, they are just a temporary phenomenon, their existence
is temporary, their existence is condition. Hence, the knowledge about those phenomena
are also conditions and therefore, they are not permanent knowledge. So, the metaphysical
and epistemic thesis would talk about the knowledge of consciousness, knowledge of the
transcendental notion of consciousness, for you say, that it is independent of our
experience of the objects, which are empirically there, which are there in the mundane
world.

So, all experience must be related to senses, that is, our empirical experiences are
experiences of everyday life about the mundane world, but the knowledge of the eternity
is a non-sensory knowledge. The knowledge of the self, the knowledge of this
transcendental consciousness is a non-sensory experience. It is not that it is not an
experiential knowledge, it is indeed an experiential knowledge, but that is not a sensory
experiential knowledge.

The experience of the shadows, which Plato is talking about, is certainly an experiential
knowledge because the prisoners were perceiving the shadows’ reality, but shadows were
found not real, shadows were mere appearances. Hence, the sense experiential knowledge
is not an eternal truth. So, the transcendental thesis poses a kind of an argument, argument
for the existence of consciousness, which is experienceable in a non-sensory way.

So, therefore, it is a non-sensory knowledge, is an immaterial, non-material knowledge.

Being immaterial mind as such is embodied without itself being a body. So, it is the mind,
which decides its existence; it is the mind, which talks about its primacy.

So, in that sense, from an epistemological point of view, mind is not dependent on the
body. So, whenever we talk about the metaphysics of mind, we need to bring in this
epistemic element. Otherwise, the discourse from the metaphysics of mind talking about
the transcendental thesis of consciousness will not make sense. So, today, let us conclude
with this idea, that the transcendental thesis of mind talks about the metaphysics of mind.