Well, saaMkhya-yogan mukaan puruSa (tietoisuuden immateriaalinen, sisällyksetön perustila, jota hermoston toiminta "värittää"?)
on täysin erillinen (atyantaasaMkiirNa) prakRtista eli ilmentyneestä materiaalisesta mualimankaikkeuvvesta.
Yhtyykö Chalmers MaharSi Kapilan (saaMkhya) ja MaharSi Patañjalin (yoga) näkemyksiin?
Such non-conscious humanoids don’t exist, of course. (Or perhaps it would be better to say that I know I’m not one, anyhow; I could never know for certain that you aren’t.) But the point is that, in principle, it feels as if they could. Evolution might have produced creatures that were atom-for-atom the same as humans, capable of everything humans can do, except with no spark of awareness inside. As Chalmers explained: “I’m talking to you now, and I can see how you’re behaving; I could do a brain scan, and find out exactly what’s going on in your brain – yet it seems it could be consistent with all that evidence that you have no consciousness at all.” If you were approached by me and my doppelgänger, not knowing which was which, not even the most powerful brain scanner in existence could tell us apart. And the fact that one can even imagine this scenario is sufficient to show that consciousness can’t just be made of ordinary physical atoms.
So consciousness must, somehow, be something extra – an additional ingredient in nature.http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness?CMP=ema_565
