Now if we look at it, the scientists would say that the feelings and consciousness is associated with the brain but we know that brain is just the external tool. Consciousness originally comes from the soul. The soul is spiritual, the body is gross material. In the body one of the main organs that becomes the route for the consciousness is the brain. Now the soul is here in the heart and the brain is on the top of the head. How does consciousness coming from the soul go to the brain and from the brain it goes to the rest of the body.

That is done through the mind. It is not that the mind is just situated in the heart or near the brain. The mind is sort of subtle element and it is distributed. But the focus of the mind is that it act as a interface between the soul and the body. For example, there is a user, say that I am working on a computer and I am having some hardware.

There is a printer and I press print, and the printer prints or I turn some command in a monitor changes. There is a hardware which is like the gross body. Then there is the user who am I. In between the two there is software, there operating system, there are various programs. Now if we ask where is the operating system situated? Now we can say ok, there is memory and in the memory certain things are situated but then if we go to the memory whole operating system is not exactly a thing because ultimately memory is just what some signals are situated over there.

Just as a software is associated with the hardware but it is subtle. But the function is the software acts as a interface between the user and the computer. In philosophy there are these two perspectives. One is called ontology. Ontology means what it is actually. Second is functionality, that means how it works.

So what it is actually and how it works. So what it is, the mind? Mind we understand is a subtle element. But because it is subtle we cannot directly perceive it. We can perceive it through its effects, function. For example, gravity. We cannot see or touch gravity. You must have, have you heard of a word called Hata… Hata Yoga? Hata means, ha means sun, ta means moon. It is a science of sun and moon. How this sun and moon is related to us, everything is happening within us accordingly. Only because our bodies are aligned with the cycles of the sun and the moon, we can exist here and the planet is moving around the sun, not diesel powered.

So it is the perfection of the geometry which is making the solar system work. It is the perfection of the geometry which is making the universe happen, the galaxies happen. So the whole universe is a geometrically a perfect condition. When it loses its geometry it ceases to exist. So accordingly there is a certain geometry to this. If you arrange yourself in a certain way, if you just learn to sit in a particular way - to give you an analogy, maybe many of the young people are not exposed to this these days.

There was a time when your Tata Sky and Reliance and other things were not there, we used to have an aluminum contraption on top of our homes. So you are watching your favorite cricket match, suddenly your TV goes boop, boop, boop.

You have to get it right. If you just get it right, you get a sixer in your house. You remember those things, the antenna? So similarly this one Gestures , if you just learn to hold it right, if you understand the geometry of this body, just learn to sit right, everything that you wish to perceive in the Existence can be perceived. Just adjusting a piece of aluminum, the whole world poured into your sitting room. When that is so, this is a much more sophisticated machine.

If you just learn to hold it right, you can perceive the whole Existence the way it is. You can download the cosmos if you want. So, based on this is the science of yoga. Understanding the geometry of the Existence and getting your own system into a perfect harmony with that. The very earth that you walk upon is tremendously intelligent.

Did it ever do that? No such thing ever happened. Just its neighbor is producing coconuts, by mistake did it ever produce a coconut? But employing your logical intelligence many times, you end up into that kind of situations.

One interpretation is that DB was a semi-zombie, with a brain like any other brain, but partially lacking the magical add-on of consciousness.

Chalmers knows how wildly improbable his ideas can seem, and takes this in his stride: at philosophy conferences, he is fond of clambering on stage to sing The Zombie Blues, a lament about the miseries of having no consciousness. McGinn, to be fair, has made a career from such hatchet jobs. But strong feelings only slightly more politely expressed are commonplace.

Not everybody agrees there is a Hard Problem to begin with — making the whole debate kickstarted by Chalmers an exercise in pointlessness.

This is the point at which the debate tends to collapse into incredulous laughter and head-shaking: neither camp can quite believe what the other is saying. Chalmers has speculated, largely in jest, that Dennett himself might be a zombie. But everybody now accepts that goldness and silveriness are really just differences in atoms.

However hard it feels to accept, we should concede that consciousness is just the physical brain, doing what brains do. Light is electromagnetic radiation; life is just the label we give to certain kinds of objects that can grow and reproduce. Eventually, neuroscience will show that consciousness is just brain states. After all, our brains evolved to help us solve down-to-earth problems of survival and reproduction; there is no particular reason to assume they should be capable of cracking every big philosophical puzzle we happen to throw at them.

O r maybe it is: in the last few years, several scientists and philosophers, Chalmers and Koch among them, have begun to look seriously again at a viewpoint so bizarre that it has been neglected for more than a century, except among followers of eastern spiritual traditions, or in the kookier corners of the new age. Besides, panpsychism might help unravel an enigma that has attached to the study of consciousness from the start: if humans have it, and apes have it, and dogs and pigs probably have it, and maybe birds, too — well, where does it stop?

Growing up as the child of German-born Catholics, Koch had a dachshund named Purzel. The problem is that there seems to be no logical reason to draw the line at dogs, or sparrows or mice or insects, or, for that matter, trees or rocks. Which is how Koch and Chalmers have both found themselves arguing, in the pages of the New York Review of Books, that an ordinary household thermostat or a photodiode, of the kind you might find in your smoke detector, might in principle be conscious.

The argument unfolds as follows: physicists have no problem accepting that certain fundamental aspects of reality — such as space, mass, or electrical charge — just do exist. Explanations have to stop somewhere. The panpsychist hunch is that consciousness could be like that, too — and that if it is, there is no particular reason to assume that it only occurs in certain kinds of matter.

It is the argument that anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised. But in principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smartphone, or a thermostat. The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscious machines that we bestow on animals? Koch, for his part, tries to avoid stepping on insects as he walks. Sure enough, when people fall into a deep sleep, or receive an injection of anaesthetic, as they slip into unconsciousness, the device demonstrates that their brain integration declines, too.

Gather enough of this kind of evidence, Koch argues and in theory you could take any device, measure the complexity of the information contained in it, then deduce whether or not it was conscious. But even if one were willing to accept the perplexing claim that a smartphone could be conscious, could you ever know that it was true? Surely only the smartphone itself could ever know that?

Koch shrugged. Personally, I have no experience of black holes.