It was always Anand’s contention that cross-pollination of ideas with disparate origins resulted in greater understanding. This was not merely a philosophical idea for him but a tenet he lived by. He often wrote in favor of what he called ‘intellectual Ahiṃsā’, describing it as ‘a dispositional attitude of open inclusiveness to distinct points of view …’
What drew him first to philosophy was the field of epistemology, which is the study of human knowledge—what it is, how we obtain it and its limitations. Within epistemology, he was most fascinated by modal epistemology, which is the exploration of how we evaluate and come to know modal claims, that is, claims about possibility, necessity or contingency. For example, the modal claim that ‘while Anand has died it is possible that Anand is still alive’ can be analyzed based on the physicist Hugh Everett’s many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Under this account, there exists an infinity of other worlds parallel to our own, and in countless of these worlds, there are versions of Anand who continue to thrive.
The connection between philosophical thought experiments and ‘what if’ stories that science fiction explores was not lost on him. He co-founded the Science Fiction and Philosophy Society through the American Philosophy Association and often used science fiction examples to make philosophical points. For example, in the piece titled ‘Are LLMs natural born bullshitters?’ in The Philosophers’ Magazine, he explores whether large language models (LLMs) can be said to have mental states. Appreciating that this is well-trodden ground for science-fiction, he begins with examples from Star Trek, in which the crew are tasked with understanding alien minds. Aware that the alien ‘mind’ that we are most likely to encounter first will be an artificial intelligence, he argued elsewhere in favor of AIs that meet certain criteria to be included in the moral sphere, as certain non-human animals already are.
To explore the great questions that continue to swirl around the nature of the self and consciousness, Anand labored to bring the work of classical Indian philosophers into conversation with the work of contemporary analytic philosophers. Even as he argued in favor of cross-cultural engagement, he remained fascinated by one of the big questions underlying epistemology: what justifies us to make knowledge claims? Modernity has an answer in ‘physicalism’, which allows only those claims that can be tested by physics and other sciences to be included within the knowledge sphere.
One claim that millions believe to be true is that we exist not by accident, but by design. If we reject the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then the laws of physics appear to many to be ‘fine-tuned’ to allow for matter, and therefore humans, to exist. Is it therefore possible that there exists some greater purpose to each of our lives, one that will be revealed to us after we die? What I can say is that Anand, gentle as always, would have suggested I approach the question with both intellectual rigor and openness. I miss him.
As published in January, 2025 print edition of Locus Magazine
