Prediction

We make predictions all the time. For example, at home, if I have to make an urgent phone call to somebody, I immediately look for my cell phone (nothing wrong with doing that) and never for any of the landline phones because they are all cordless and nobody in the family ever puts them back in their bases and to find one of them would involve paging etc. My action here is based on the prediction that no phone would be in its base and one almost always found to be true! Another example: My friend's nine year old son did not do his homework one day because he was sick and he was afraid to go to school the next day lest his teacher may be mad at him. His mother told him to tell the teacher why he could not do the homework and that teacher will not be mad; the kid went to school and his teacher was very nice to him. We do not call these actions predictions because we are so very used to them. But looks like we do know somethings that will happen in the future because of our experience and observation of what happenned in the past a few times.
Come to think of it, scientific discovery is also based on observation and experience and prediction is part of all empirical sciences also. A scientific theory is formulated or a law of nature is discovered by recognizing a pattern in a series of observations. Any theory that is formulated is used not only to explain an observed event but also to predict the future behavior of a system which is within the scope of that theory. Predictiions from science are used by technologies to develop various instruments, medicines etc. Sometimes, when a scientific diiscovery is made, it is very hard for the non-scientist society to believe it because the idea dicovered may appear to contradict what they know. History shows there was bitter resistence to accepting some great discoveries. Copernicus' heliocentric system was considered implausible by the vast majority of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers until Galileo came along who got into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church for his support of Copernicus' theory . It finally took Newton to provide theoretical underpinning for the Copernican theory using theory of gravitation.
So, it may be possible to explain some phenomena that are currently called paranormal when scientists discover what thought is really made up of. Any scientific discovery begins with intuition first and cannot be proved while it is still an intuition; to become an established theory does not happen easily and fast.
"Almost all really new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced."

Illusion

While the non-dual Consciuosness, which is beyond space and time is there for ever, in the dual universe that originated from Oneness both Consciousness and dumbness exist along with illusion, for example, illusion makes the mind appear like Consciousness. Being dumb as opposed to Consciousness is not necessarily ugly nor useless. On the contrary, it is beautiful and very useful in the sense that it is a building block of the dual universe. So also, illusion is not something to be shunned at. It is fun. I realized this when I went to Disney World and watched a 3D show by Kodak. The show began with many mice running away from the screen towards us when all the lights were turned off and then we felt the mice tickling our feet. The audience laughed instead of being annoyed. They knew that mice were not really tickling their feet and simply enjoyed the fact that the feeling was an illusion. There were other episodes in the show and the final one was the biggest thrill. A python first appeared on the screen and slowly started moving towards us. The nearer it came, the louder was the laughter in the room. When it finally reached us and opened its mouth to swallow us, the room was filled with roaring laughter. Why? because illusion is fun when we know that it is illusion. There were also some weak-minded people like me who closed their eyes although we knew very well that the python is merely an illusion and not real. Isn't the power of illusion amazing that it can get you even when you know it is not real! There were one or two children in the room who cried out of fear. So, illusion can cause misery if we think it is real.

What is consciousness anyway?

We say that rocks (and all other lifeless things) are
not conscious. We think that birds, animals, and
other living beings have various degrees of
intelligence and of course, that a human being is more
intelligent than all the other species because for
example, people do arithmetic whereas animals usually
cannot. Interestingly, our packet calculators can do
arithmetic always accurately and much faster than we
but we do not think they are intelligent or conscious.
At the same time, if a person does arithmetic like a
calculator (and we hear about such people once in a
while), he/she would be called a genius! Do we know
what we mean by intelligence or consciousness?

One who is enjoying a sight of birds flying over the
quiet waters of a lake may admire them saying "how
full of life these little birds are" (probably because
a dead bird cannot fly) but clearly, flying is not
something that distinguishes life from lifeless
matter, an airplane can fly much faster. In this age
of robots, we cannot be sure that a bird's ability to
fly on its own whenever it wants to and not needing a
human pilot to fly it, is evidence that birds have
some intelligence but not airplanes because aircraft
do not need human pilots either. Some fighter planes
have computers in them and fly in enemy territories
without human pilots. Nowadays, machines can see,
hear, talk, walk, and even think; they can solve
mathematical problems! Herbert Simon's statement that
there are no discernible limits to the range of things
that computers can be programmed to do has come true.
Some computer scientists believe that the days of
conscious computers are not far off!

A computer, our PC for example, can exhibit some
intelligent behaviors like human beings whereas a
simple typewriter cannot although both the typewriter
and the PC (of today) are not conscious. This
capability of the PC is because of being equipped with
a memory with some contents called software. When we
key letters into a typewriter, it responds by hitting
the paper where the letters are typed and saved. The
PC on the other hand, has a memory where it stores not
only the letters recently typed but where there are
other data and software instructions already stored.
When a 'return' character is input, it starts the
process of executing the software which performs
various intelligent tasks; for example, it can tell
that an earlier memo of the boss is inconsistent with
the one typed into it now. Note that neither the
typewriter that types a memo on the paper, nor the
paper which contains the memo, nor the PC into which
the same memo is entered understand the contents of
the memo but the PC can judge the contents of the memo
like we do!

We are able to prepare the PC to pretend such
intelligence because information residing in our
brains (at least some of it) can be mapped into
languages, and then words can be mapped into some
physical material (hardware) units, and therefore
mappings of information (from the brain) can be stored
in the PC's memory. The PC is then able to carry out
all the operations of receiving, storing, retrieving,
and processing and act as though it understands its
memory contents but it does not. So, to remember
something is not consciousness; a machine can remember
something without understanding what it means! Nor
does arguing logically require consciousness because
again, a machine can do it.

On the other hand, unlike the computer, the brain
understands its memory contents, at least some of them
or to some degree; that is what we think anyway (the
answer to "do I know myself " is "yes and no"!). Of
course, the physical apparatus and the memory
structure of the brain and the computer are entirely
different. Some brain scientists say that this feeling
of understanding, knowing, or consciousness is a
macroscopic and cumulative effect of neuron activity
just like temperature is the macroscopic effect of
particle dynamics at the microscopic level. Although
this explanation sounds reasonable, it implies that a
human being's consciousness disappears when the neural
activity ceases (the brain dies). The implication is
not consistent with what eastern philosophies (and
probably Christian theology too) say namely that
"spiritual" stuff survives when the physical body
dies.This stuff includes the so called "Consciousness"
and the so called soul. A difference between the two
is: soul is individualistic; there are many souls;
Consciousness is just one and not fragmented. The
area of major conflict between scientists and
spiritualists is this spiritual stuff.

What about emotions, anger, joy, envy, passion, etc.?
They seem like they are part of human consciousness
and lifeless objects do not seem to have emotions. A
chess playing program may play chess very
intelligently but it does not care a bit about winning
or losing (like one of those enlightened sages!). That
is so because the program does not have the desire to
win the game to begin with. An emotion occurs as a
response to fulfillment or non-fulfillment of some
desire or the anticipation of fulfillment or
non-fulfillment of a desire and obviously, lifeless
objects do not have desires. Are desires part of
consciousness? It seems reasonable to assume that one
can be conscious without any desire. If desire is not
consciousness and if desire does not exist in pure
lifeless matter, it could be part of the "mind out of
brain" that Deepak is talking about.

Then there is the ability of human beings to make
choices and decisions; but again, there are
decision-making computer programs also. To make a
decision, a program depends upon some rules stored in
the computer memory and strictly follows them to
arrive at the decision; the program never violates any
stored instruction. So also, a human being's
decisions and choices depend upon his/her memory
because the decisions almost always depend upon
desires, ambitions, goals, etc. all of which expect
some benefits in the future and all of which are
stored in the memory. Such a decision is mechanical
also in the sense that a machine can make it. However,
like before, it seems reasonable to assume that a
human being has the ability to make a decision without
depending upon any beliefs, convictions, and
experiences, in other words not depending upon any
memories of the past, nor expecting any benefit in
return (the so called free will). If we assume that
free will exists, then it must be all pervading and
everlasting because free will is "free" from all laws
and limitations including those of space and time.
Free will is the uiversal consciousness that
spiritualists talk about.

So, what is consciousness anyway? Is it memory? Is it
logic? Is it desires? Is it emotions, is it thoughts?
Is it free will? Is it all of those? Or, none of
those?