Dear Sir,
There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is "not on the disc" and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behavior. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as "I know" or happiness, pain, desire etc.). Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behavior, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes "over-clocking" boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.
More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain's known neural activity. But when someone says "macroscopic quantum phenomena", we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.
There are differences between brain's software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc., are hardwires that operationalize the life's software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots. Here we are with you.
However, since human mind is like a computer, it cannot write its own program. And for writing a program, we need a language. For any language, there is a need for a concept (Óñ¡Óñ¥ÓñÁ) of some deficiency and its rectification (Óñ¡ÓñÁÓññÓÑü ÓñçÓññÓñ┐ ÓñÜÓñ┐ÓññÓÑìÓññÓñÁÓÑâÓññÓÑìÓññÓñ┐). If we have the knowledge (Óñ£ÓÑìÓñ×Óñ¥Óñ¿Óñ«ÓÑì) of the mechanism for rectifying the deficiency, we have a desire to undertake such operation (Óñ£ÓÑìÓñ×Óñ¥Óñ¿ Óñ£Óñ¿ÓÑìÓñ» Óñ¡ÓñÁÓÑçÓñªÓñ┐ÓñÜÓÑìÓñøÓñ¥ ÓñçÓñÜÓÑìÓñøÓñ¥ Óñ£Óñ¿ÓÑìÓñ» ÓñòÓÑâÓññÓñ┐ Óñ¡ÓñÁÓÑçÓññÓÑì). This desire could be of two types. When it has a form "I should have this" (Óñ«Óñ«ÓÑçÓñªÓñé Óñ¡ÓñÁÓññÓÑìÓñÁÓñ┐ÓññÓñ┐), it is internal thought, which draws from similar information stored in the brain to act as the inertia of mind (Óñ¡Óñ¥ÓñÁÓñ¿Óñ¥ Óñ©ÓñéÓñ©ÓÑìÓñòÓñ¥Óñ░). When it is directed at others (ÓññÓñ©ÓÑìÓñ»ÓÑçÓñªÓñé Óñ¡ÓñÁÓññÓÑìÓñÁÓñ┐ÓññÓñ┐), it needs a language that must as you say "express the function of mind without the help of any interpreter" and "that can express all meaning (semantics), all mathematics, and all objects, without having to base on mind - a language inherent to natural function of physical matter and their interaction".
You are right that even for understanding the abstraction of numbers we depend on already existing mechanism (order, means, ability) of perception. Kanaada has listed 17 fundamental (Óñ©ÓÑìÓñÁÓñ¥Óñ¡Óñ¥ÓñÁÓñ┐Óñò) qualities (Óñ--ÓÑüÓñú) and 7 emergent (Óñ¿ÓÑêÓñ©Óñ░ÓÑìÓñ--Óñ┐Óñò) qualities. By quality, we mean analysis (Óñ«Óñ¿ÓÑìÓññÓÑìÓñ░ÓñúÓÑç) by which we come to a conclusion about real nature of anything. For example, when you are looking at the pen you are holding, do you see the same thing that you are holding? No. Because what you "see" is the reflected radiation that comes out of the object (and not the object proper) in your hand, which interacts with your eyes and gets measured. But what you are holding is the object proper which emits radiation and not the radiation. Both ways, it is incomplete information (Óñ...Óñ¿ÓñÁÓñ░ÓÑìÓñúÓÑç ÓñçÓñ«ÓÑç Óñ¡ÓÑéÓñ«Óñ┐Óñâ). Then how do you "know" that it is the same object? Because both these partial inputs are "mixed" in your brain to give you a composite picture through proper analysis.
How do we analyze? We cognize objects or concepts only when they are in transition (Óñ░Óñ£Óñ©Óñ¥ ÓñëÓñªÓÑìÓñÿÓñ¥ÓñƒÓñ┐ÓññÓñ«ÓÑì). We could perceive only when energy exchange takes place leading to transfer from one state to another. Without such transition, nothing ever will be perceptible. In fact this is the explanation for the state before creation. Thus, existence itself dependent on such transition. But cognition through all such transitions have a universal form as "I know (Óñ£Óñ¥Óñ¿Óñ¥Óñ«ÓÑìÓñ»Óñ╣Óñé)", though the objects of cognition differ infinitely. That universal consciousness, when confined in a limited body (Óñ£ÓÑÇÓñÁ) appears differently just like the water of the ocean and the same water inside a pitcher appear different and show different characteristics. We have discussed about it in detail in our previous papers. Thus, there exists a differentiator.
We beg to differ from you regarding "what these ancient thinkers have produced, are derived largely from 'pure thinking', with only limited degree of empirical tools". They practiced "observe (ÓñªÓÑìÓñ░ÓñÀÓÑìÓñƒÓñÁÓÑìÓñ»), learn from others (ÓñÂÓÑìÓñ░ÓÑïÓññÓñÁÓÑìÓñ»), analyze independently (Óñ«Óñ¿ÓÑìÓññÓñÁÓÑìÓñ») and then put to practice (Óñ¿Óñ┐ÓñªÓñ┐ÓñºÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥Óñ©Óñ┐ÓññÓñÁÓÑìÓñ»). Our research methodology as described by Gautama is much more exacting and tasking than modern methodology. Unfortunately, most of our ancient texts were burnt by Moguls and distorted by the British. Now people have forgotten about those and you will not find anyone talking in this language. ALL translations and commentaries of our scriptures are wrong. We interpret these from originals based on the traditional method transmitted to us from our forefathers. But our ancient science was far superior to modern science. Here we give just one example.
One of the emergent qualities listed by Kanaada is mass (Óñ--ÓÑüÓñ░ÓÑüÓññÓÑìÓñÁ). Elementary physics text books say that weight is a product of mass and g and that a stone weighing 1 kg on Earth will weigh about 250 grams on Moon. But how do we "know"? Has anyone actually measured? If yes, which balance and which weight did they use? If they used the same balance and weight measure as on Earth by taking it to the Moon, will g affect only the stone and not the balance or the weight measure? If not why not? If yes, then the effect will cancel each other and the stone will weigh the same as on Earth. If they use another balance and weight measure, then we must apply a conversion factor not only to the stone, but also to the weight measure, leading to the same result. Thus, multiplying mass by g is superfluous. Yet, Kanaada says it is an emerging property because it is regulated not by g, but by another variety of gravitational effect (ÓñåÓñÁÓñ╣), which makes objects "fall". This "fall" through any medium changes its impact. For example, the same stone held under water, will appear light. If we take the same stone to a hill top, it will appear heavier not because of g, but because the lesser density of air affects us more than it affects the stone, which falls at a faster pace. You may say it is the same as g and nothing new. Hence we will give another example.
Let us take the example of fluidity (ÓñªÓÑìÓñ░ÓñÁÓññÓÑìÓñÁ). Why does it behave differently from solids even though both have mass? It flows laterally over any base. You will say it is not as tightly held (ÓññÓñ░Óñ▓Óñ¥ÓñÁÓñ»ÓñÁ) as solids (Óñ¿Óñ┐ÓñÁÓñ┐ÓñíÓñ¥ÓñÁÓñ»ÓñÁ). But then it is different from gas which is also not held tightly (ÓñÁÓñ┐Óñ░Óñ▓Óñ¥ÓñÁÓñ»ÓñÁ). Then why does not the fluid evaporate like gas? If it is an intermediate stage between solids and gases, what made it like that? Kanaada says: it is another variety of gravitational effect (Óñ¬ÓÑìÓñ░ÓñÁÓñ╣), which is the generally understood gravity. Gravity is considered by our ancients as an inter-body force (ÓñëÓñªÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥Óñ«), whereas the strong (Óñ...Óñ¿ÓÑìÓññÓñ░ÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥Óñ«), weak (beta decay only - ÓñÁÓñ╣Óñ┐Óñ░ÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥Óñ«) and electromagnetic (ÓñëÓñ¬Óñ»Óñ¥Óñ«) interactions are intra-body forces - they arise from within the body. They divide the weak force into two different categories, which is now being called the fifth fundamental force of Nature (Óñ»Óñ¥ÓññÓñ»Óñ¥Óñ«). (Recently a 6.8¤â anomaly has been reported in the opening angle and invariant mass distributions of e+eÔê' pairs produced in 8Be nuclear transitions. The data are explained by a 17 MeV vector gauge boson X that is produced in the decay of an excited state to the ground state, 8BeÔê--Ôå'8BeÔÇëX, and then decays through XÔå'e+eÔê'. The X boson mediates a fifth force with a characteristic range of 12 fm and has millicharged couplings to up and down quarks and electrons, and a proton coupling that is suppressed relative to neutrons. The protophobic X boson may also alleviate the current 3.6¤â discrepancy between the predicted and measured values of the muon's anomalous magnetic DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803.).
Our ancients held that gravity is a composite of seven different forces with one single and 3 pairs (Óñ©Óñ¥ÓñòÓñ×ÓÑìÓñ£Óñ¿Óñ¥ Óñ©Óñ¬ÓÑìÓññÓñÑÓñ«Óñ¥Óñ╣ÓÑüÓñ░ÓÑçÓñòÓñ£Óñé ÓñÀÓñíÓñ┐Óñ£ÓÑìÓñ£Óñ«Óñ¥). These have different functions. The generally understood gravity is not an attractive force, but a stabilizing force that stabilizes orbits of bodies at the maximum possible distance (ÓñëÓñ░ÓÑüÓñ--Óñ¥Óñ» Óñ¬ÓÑìÓñ░ÓññÓñ┐ÓñÀÓÑìÓñáÓñ¥) from their common barycenter. Obviously, this is related to their respective masses. Since distance is measured from the respective centers of masses (Óñ╣ÓÑâÓñªÓñ»Óñ«ÓÑì), the bodies are treated as point particles. The other varieties of gravity can explain the Pioneer Anomaly (Óñ...Óñ¿ÓÑüÓñÁÓñ╣), the sudden deflection of Voyager 2 beyond the orbit of Saturn (Óñ©ÓñéÓñÁÓñ╣), and the fly-by anomaly etc. Interestingly, these could describe many other properties of substances including inertia and sound.
All you are pointing out is limitedness of human beings. This is true. That is why we call schools - ÓñÁÓñ┐ÓñªÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥Óñ▓Óñ» and not knowledge centers - Óñ£ÓÑìÓñ×Óñ¥Óñ¿Óñ¥Óñ▓Óñ». ÓñÁÓñ┐ÓñªÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥ is related to its complement ignorance - Óñ...ÓñÁÓñ┐ÓñªÓÑìÓñ»Óñ¥. Then it is different for different persons. Hence you cannot put any universal limit on it. Nature neither proves anyone right or wrong. It is the degree of knowledge that is exposed.
We are sure you are aware of the many limitations of Maxwell's laws. Prashastapaada, whom we have referred, had discussed relativity - specifically the equivalence principle in his book. Russell used it as his paradox in set theory. Even string theory got its name and concept from ÓñÁÓñ¥Óñ»ÓÑüÓñ░ÓÑìÓñÁÓÑê Óñ--ÓÑîÓññÓñ«Óñâ ÓññÓññÓÑì Óñ©ÓÑéÓññÓÑìÓñ░Óñ«ÓÑì. We have books dealing with technical subjects dealt with in ancient times, which have been acknowledged as valid scientific books by the world scientific community. Thus, it is not correct to say that "tools and technologies did not exist).
Regards,
basudeba
