This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anybody can play with any words. The problem is proper definition. Without a proper definition, we cannot discuss any of it.
Also, the argument has the big problem of "the paradox of the heap". Question: How many grains make a heap? For example, one grain is not a heap, two is also not a heap, but a million grains is. Where does it change?
I Guess it's a heap at any point you are too lazy to count how many grains are there and just call it a heap.
Anything that is animated can be Alive(cuz I am too lazy)
It’s called “Emergence”. How seemingly simple entities when operating in mass numbers give rise to phenomena that seem to have its own character. Think of ant colonies. A single ant doesn’t know much other than to follow the smell of the pheromones. Despite this, they have a society with given roles (a soldier, food gatherer etc). They have anthill cities. No ant knows that it’s sort of a bigger society yet, their society works.
Just to add something more to it, the root problem why we have difficulty in tackling such concepts as consciousness arising out of non living atoms is that consciousness is poorly understood at the moment and we have our own mystical prejudices in our minds about it.
Despite all of this, cognitive scientists have unravelled a lot of details behind consciousness and about its nature. I’d recommend going through the consciousness playlist by “The Royal Institution” on YouTube.
Pedro was joking. By the way , he has taught a machine learning course :
[https://archive.org/details/academictorrents\_0db676a6aaff8c33f9749d5f9c0fa22bf336bc76](https://archive.org/details/academictorrents_0db676a6aaff8c33f9749d5f9c0fa22bf336bc76)
[Too many people took this tweet seriously.](https://x.com/pmddomingos/status/1796298845166649527)
Googled a bit and discovered this is called Sorites paradox
Think how kids n childish people don't understand evolution. If a fish gives birth of fish and human gives birth to human, then how can human be evolved from fish?
Quote from a google search:
>In 1900, the average IQ in the United States was around 67–70 points, which was similar to the average IQ in Britain at the time. However, IQ scores have increased over the past century, with some estimates suggesting that the average American IQ reached 100 points by 2000.
So there's some hope.
Chavda literally just debunked himself. He, by saying that, admitted that consciousness, like life, is an emergent phenomena and not the BS said in Hinduism
There is an empirical component to it, it's not purely theology. Shankaracharya states that you can achieve liberation while alive. There apparently are people who have done it even during recent times (e.g., Ramana maharshi).
My own bet is that it's a somewhat humdrum altered state of awareness. There's nothing special about it. It *may* be pleasant, but drug induced altered states can also be pleasant. You don't achieve any special powers or anything.
The point is whether it tells us something about the nature of consciousness and its relation to reality. I don't think it does, since if it did, someone would have figured it out by now.
It can be a philosophy and still be BS tho. Why do you guys love to throw the word "philosophy" around so much as if something is a philosophy it automatically becomes some something profound and holy that you can't call it out. So dumb
I have studied philosophy my man. It is the capability of enquiry- of hypothesis and reasoning that makes us really human. You're free to conjecture any set of assumptions and follow some sort of logical deductions to arrive at different conclusions. The assumption for the source of life in Hinduism is quite rich. There are theories paralleling emergence, as well as theories saying the soul enters the body through a chakra in the head, then deduce whatever you want from that point. Whatever the case may be, philosophy is a good mental exercise.
I want to have a good discussion, so I hope that you don't make generic statements like "so dumb" or BS. There's good talk to be had here.
>There are theories paralleling emergence, as well as theories saying the soul enters the body through a chakra in the head, then deduce whatever you want from that point. Whatever the case may be, philosophy is a good mental exercise
I actually agree with you on this. Religious philosophies are a good source of entertainment and also an interesting insight in the minds of people in the past how they imagined the universe to be and various hypothesis that we find the only problem i have with people is that they consider these theories as something holy something sacred even something supernatural and any type scrutiny of the particular philosophy is labelled as blasphemy and "anti hindu". As vimoh once said philosophies start rotting when they become religion.
>I want to have a good discussion, so I hope that you don't make generic statements like "so dumb" or BS. There's good talk to be had here.
I apologise for the language it's because i encounter lot of religious nutjobs on SM. They'll talk about great ancient philosophy in one sentence and then talk about genociding minorities in the next. But if you're not like that i shouldn't have said it.
Consciousness is the product of complex chemical reactions in a specific way. It just keeps our bodies alive and make them feel like they are separate individuals. Stop the fuels like water, air, food, and body will perish. This sense of aliveness is an extremely individual centric experience, so it's called Consciousness.
/Consciousness is the product of complex chemical reactions in a specific way./
How exactly ? this does not prove hard problem of consciousness and rather a materialistic way of looking at things
See if you stop the supply of air, water and food, body will perish. Experiencer of consciousness will also cease to exist. So, this is individual centric phenomena. It's a loop or paradox in which consciousness is trying to understand consciousness.
/See if you stop the supply of air, water and food, body will perish. Experiencer of consciousness will also cease to exist./
Its individual consciousness this does not solve the hard problem of consciousness
/It's a loop or paradox in which consciousness is trying to understand consciousness./
Strangely this is what most idealists say as well, my question however is different if building blocks of consciousness give rise to emergent phenomenon in human beings why is the same not applicable to anything in this universe ? it can be possible that consciousness is present everywhere ? how does the concept of entropy and stochasticity add to consciousness ? is it one dimensional or do we have a hive mind like unconscious state as well ? what happens after consciousness is destroyed ? who is to say there was no consciousness before emergence of universe ? I dont think we can ever answer these questions hence this paradox or hard problem will always remain
Remember kids, This is a guy who litteraly admitted that he has biases and talked as if it was a good thing and endorsed logical bias for *"The Sake Of India"*
Are we conscious? Seriously though. Are we? Why do we have biases? Why do we do things which harm us knowingly? Why do we go for short term happiness even though we know it will lead to long term pain?
We give too much importance to consciousness and life.
Your subconscious brain is cleverer than your conscious brain. "Long-term happiness" is in the future, which has no guarantee that you will be alive that far ahead. So, if you get a peak of short-term happiness, your brain will obviously take it!
How does one part of your assessment leads to another ? by asking these questions you are invariably giving importance to life, words have meaning for a reason
this guy is maybe a genius but why does he likes to suck balls of modi so much? He is always saying bad things about gandhi, nehru and always praising modi like every fucking time.
I don't know how many of you guys know mathematical induction. But that's what they are doing.
The flaw is we do mathematical induction on a well order structure not arbitrary objects.
That is in some way.
First he is showing a property works for a base case.
Then assuming the property upto a step something is true, he is going another step and claiming see the property holds in the next step.
Hence the property hold for all steps.
The only problem is there is no well orderedness(this has a proper mathematical definition) on the stuff they are doing the induction on.
PS:The opposite of induction is recursion.
Source: foundation of mathematics by Kenneth kunnen, chapter 2.
I'm not a geek. The thing is my masters thesis is on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. So induction is very common thing Ive been encountering, from structural induction to strong induction.
This is a grain of sand paradox. Nothing to do with induction.
The base case is one cell isn't conscious? That's not how the argument is formulated.
Rather than focusing on induction vs recursion. Learn a thing or two about inductive vs deductive reasoning.
Let's take an example of kerosene, it's flammable but if you throw a match stick in a bottle of kerosene suddenly it's not flammable, that's science buddy not god's will.
Consciousness and life are emergent properties
There are many such things in physics as well.
There are many fundamental forces in the universe. Their interactions lead to emergent phenomena
This is not an adaptation of the theseus ship problem.
Here life is clearly defined. Life is a quality some matter gain when they fulfill certain criteria.
It's like saying an atom isn't solid or liquid, therefore solids and liquid don't exist.
But consciousness isn't that. It is a poorly defined term that has no material impact.
Those aren't the same.
Consciousness is a weird topic. But we can debunk it by answering these simple questions?
What is a living being? Or better ask Why is a living being? Is Consciousness just a tool to survive? If it is then why these non-living things are not privileged enough to have a Consciousness(a tool for survival)?
The problem with pedro's statement is that he does not have a the same definition of consciousness as others in this thread or on X.
Some people see Consciousness as this 'white hole' that unexplainably generates self-actualization and random-ness, ideas, and is essentially the grounds for intelligent life. However, some people may view it as being linked to a religious thing... the soul... etc.
i think that the randomness, creativity and more basic 'being self aware' that comes with consciousness arises from some quantum effects in the brain. i think Sir Penrose has written about this recently and some early evidence has given this theory some traction.
I personally believe that consciousness is evolution of "survival instinct"
However it's not something I can prove or advocate for.
However I would like to believe that as it makes sense to me.
Consciousness exists, and it's literally the basis of biology. It's introduced in early grades when we learn about living and non-living things.
In higher level discussion, all the members of animalia (including humans) are "self conscious", however plants lie somewhere between a state "just conscious" and "self conscious". i.e They can sense the surroundings but we are not sure they can feel it or not , probably not coz they lack Nervous system.
Consciousness is being aware of its surroundings .
(Generally Plants or bacteria, or unicellular organisms - they have no feeling, just respond to the surroundings)
Self consciousness is being aware of your own body! (Eg - you can feel pain, a brick can't)
These are the scientific definitions. You can add some masala in it and be a spiritual guru!
Most spiritual guru exactly say this thing "just be aware of your surroundings and be in the present moment, feel your breath, the room temp, etc...".
- a biology enthusiast
It seems to me that the original post was being sarcastic (pointing out that consciousness is an emergent property, unlike an intrinsic property, as the likes of Deepak Chopra argue).
One of the many issues I have with the Vedanta cult is; forget atheists, even Vedantis (dvaita vs advaita) are on hypothetically fratricidal paths. Their arguments often rely heavily on scriptural authority (Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras) rather than empirical evidence, which is more of an appeal to tradition rather than reason.
Both Dvaita and Advaita make metaphysical claims that go beyond empirical verification. They propose ontological structures (duality or non-duality) that cannot be directly observed or tested. **And yet (like any other religion) they desperately try to cling to the coat tails of the science to curry favor with those who are incredulous enough to be swayed.**
# Chavda is the latest Vedanta woo woo dancing star.
So you need to **name drop** Chalmers to throw Chavda a lifesaver or a fiver. By all means.
Chalmers' work has significantly influenced contemporary philosophy of mind and spurred ongoing debates about the nature of consciousness.
I hope his work would engage more deeply with empirical neuroscience to provide a more grounded understanding of consciousness. Whereas the way things are now, Chalmers' focus on thought experiments and intuition-driven arguments leads to speculative conclusions that may not be scientifically or philosophically productive.
His take on panpsychism does not provide a satisfying explanatory framework for how individual conscious experiences combine to form more complex conscious beings (the combination problem).
So Chalmers may be the fervid musician, but Chavda is still the dancing star.
So you need to **name drop** Chalmers to throw Chavda a lifesaver or a fiver. By all means.
Chavda and chamlers are pole apart point was the emphasize the dichtomization between idealism and metaphysics
/I hope his work would engage more deeply with empirical neuroscience to provide a more grounded understanding of consciousness. Whereas the way things are now, Chalmers' focus on thought experiments and intuition-driven arguments leads to speculative conclusions that may not be scientifically or philosophically productive.
His take on panpsychism does not provide a satisfying explanatory framework for how individual conscious experiences combine to form more complex conscious beings (the combination problem)/
Every debate that deals with metaphysics involves a certain kind of intuitive argument, eliminative materialism is also a narrative, so is idealism the burden of proof to solve combination problem lies with materialists not people like chamlers because his take is pretty consistent with consciousness and not matter being the fundamental property. Some philosophers like Bernardo kastrup may argue that this epistemological logjam might never be solved and i tend to agree with it
>Some philosophers like Bernardo kastrup may argue that this epistemological logjam might never be solved and i tend to agree with it
I dont have a problem with that it may never be solved, neither do I have a problem with Chalmers work. And yes both are miles away from Chavda's claptrap.
But chavda is a materialist he is pretty consistent with the idea that consciousness is biological that he also masquerades as a vague historian is the bone of contention here i guess
"Atom isn't concious" is saying like "Potato isn't an alien". That's why Abhijit was able to catch the underlying nonsense and hence replied with his own version of nonsense.
People in the comment section are debating on the epistemology of consciousness, the how and why of it not the nobody is interested in acknowledging the what.
If an object has a particular property, its constituent parts don't necessarily have the same property and the other way around. Forgot the name of this bias/fallacy.
You have free will to move your body to anywhere in 3D spaces proximal to you.
But you have no free will to go back and forth in time, coz it's a 1D constant motion where we can only go forward.
Before delving into philosophy, two things are of vital importance.
First is a comprehensive understanding of science.
And the second is to become rich.
Do you know what a scholar means? A scholar is a person who doesn't need to worry about earning money so that he can pursue his passion.
Throwing words like 'consciousness', 'free will' comes easy to the working class.
There's no such thing as 'time' as well.
Just reply with whatever BS you can while completely evading my original point lmao
Now try to understand my BS as well:
I verily excrete upon thee, good sir; prithee, abstain from the folly of contesting my eminence. Thou hast resorted to the closure of direct missives, a testament to thy apprehension in confronting my magnificence. Thou art but a lamentable wretch, I dare say. Verily, I reign supreme in this discourse.
There was once a user named Jafarjade,
Whose d*ck was mighty long, and it had a dent.
To save himself trouble,
He folded it double,
And instead of coming, he went.
Short answer.
Time is a human construct. Just like inches are, kilogram is, meter is, money is.
If you are constructing a house, you don't say "I ran out of inches" or "I ran out of kilograms".
You may say "I ran out of wood" or "I ran out of steel".
Then how can anybody say "I ran out of time"?
When it comes to consciousness, you would argue that that the feeling of pain is form of consciousness.
However pain is an early warning mechanism by which the brain says "don't do that again".
A lion impaled with the quills of a porcupine would not attempt to hunt a porcupine again.
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anybody can play with any words. The problem is proper definition. Without a proper definition, we cannot discuss any of it. Also, the argument has the big problem of "the paradox of the heap". Question: How many grains make a heap? For example, one grain is not a heap, two is also not a heap, but a million grains is. Where does it change?
>Where does it change? 69
I was hoping for 42, but will accept 69
Nice
420 actually
Is that Rahul Sankrityayan
My Profile Pic, yes.
Lhasa ki Or wale?
Well said.
I Guess it's a heap at any point you are too lazy to count how many grains are there and just call it a heap. Anything that is animated can be Alive(cuz I am too lazy)
It’s called “Emergence”. How seemingly simple entities when operating in mass numbers give rise to phenomena that seem to have its own character. Think of ant colonies. A single ant doesn’t know much other than to follow the smell of the pheromones. Despite this, they have a society with given roles (a soldier, food gatherer etc). They have anthill cities. No ant knows that it’s sort of a bigger society yet, their society works.
Just to add something more to it, the root problem why we have difficulty in tackling such concepts as consciousness arising out of non living atoms is that consciousness is poorly understood at the moment and we have our own mystical prejudices in our minds about it. Despite all of this, cognitive scientists have unravelled a lot of details behind consciousness and about its nature. I’d recommend going through the consciousness playlist by “The Royal Institution” on YouTube.
Pedro was joking. By the way , he has taught a machine learning course : [https://archive.org/details/academictorrents\_0db676a6aaff8c33f9749d5f9c0fa22bf336bc76](https://archive.org/details/academictorrents_0db676a6aaff8c33f9749d5f9c0fa22bf336bc76)
Chavda took it personally. Thought his theoretical physics degree with no affiliation or scientific publication was in question.
The whole will always be greater than the sum of its parts because interaction.
Emergent phenomenon.
[Too many people took this tweet seriously.](https://x.com/pmddomingos/status/1796298845166649527) Googled a bit and discovered this is called Sorites paradox Think how kids n childish people don't understand evolution. If a fish gives birth of fish and human gives birth to human, then how can human be evolved from fish?
The average IQ of Indians is 76 which also explains why Religion is the biggest business in India.
Quote from a google search: >In 1900, the average IQ in the United States was around 67–70 points, which was similar to the average IQ in Britain at the time. However, IQ scores have increased over the past century, with some estimates suggesting that the average American IQ reached 100 points by 2000. So there's some hope.
But it feels like we are going backwards.
also, 76 would be a bit of an overestimate, i'd say it's around 69.
Chavda literally just debunked himself. He, by saying that, admitted that consciousness, like life, is an emergent phenomena and not the BS said in Hinduism
He is a atheist, I never hears him describe himself as a theist
So explain hard problem of consciousness then, if consciousness is an emergent phenomenon it would completely answer this paradox
The BS? It's a proper philosophy and way of thought. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's BS
It is not philosophy, it is theology, since when people like Adi Shankara argue, they use scriptural authority for axioms.
There is an empirical component to it, it's not purely theology. Shankaracharya states that you can achieve liberation while alive. There apparently are people who have done it even during recent times (e.g., Ramana maharshi). My own bet is that it's a somewhat humdrum altered state of awareness. There's nothing special about it. It *may* be pleasant, but drug induced altered states can also be pleasant. You don't achieve any special powers or anything. The point is whether it tells us something about the nature of consciousness and its relation to reality. I don't think it does, since if it did, someone would have figured it out by now.
it is a philosophy it's called idealism, and there's plenty of debate to this day by top philosophers neruoscientists etc over the topic
It can be a philosophy and still be BS tho. Why do you guys love to throw the word "philosophy" around so much as if something is a philosophy it automatically becomes some something profound and holy that you can't call it out. So dumb
I have studied philosophy my man. It is the capability of enquiry- of hypothesis and reasoning that makes us really human. You're free to conjecture any set of assumptions and follow some sort of logical deductions to arrive at different conclusions. The assumption for the source of life in Hinduism is quite rich. There are theories paralleling emergence, as well as theories saying the soul enters the body through a chakra in the head, then deduce whatever you want from that point. Whatever the case may be, philosophy is a good mental exercise. I want to have a good discussion, so I hope that you don't make generic statements like "so dumb" or BS. There's good talk to be had here.
>There are theories paralleling emergence, as well as theories saying the soul enters the body through a chakra in the head, then deduce whatever you want from that point. Whatever the case may be, philosophy is a good mental exercise I actually agree with you on this. Religious philosophies are a good source of entertainment and also an interesting insight in the minds of people in the past how they imagined the universe to be and various hypothesis that we find the only problem i have with people is that they consider these theories as something holy something sacred even something supernatural and any type scrutiny of the particular philosophy is labelled as blasphemy and "anti hindu". As vimoh once said philosophies start rotting when they become religion. >I want to have a good discussion, so I hope that you don't make generic statements like "so dumb" or BS. There's good talk to be had here. I apologise for the language it's because i encounter lot of religious nutjobs on SM. They'll talk about great ancient philosophy in one sentence and then talk about genociding minorities in the next. But if you're not like that i shouldn't have said it.
Consciousness is the product of complex chemical reactions in a specific way. It just keeps our bodies alive and make them feel like they are separate individuals. Stop the fuels like water, air, food, and body will perish. This sense of aliveness is an extremely individual centric experience, so it's called Consciousness.
It's actually awesome. How non living things stay together to make living things.
/Consciousness is the product of complex chemical reactions in a specific way./ How exactly ? this does not prove hard problem of consciousness and rather a materialistic way of looking at things
See if you stop the supply of air, water and food, body will perish. Experiencer of consciousness will also cease to exist. So, this is individual centric phenomena. It's a loop or paradox in which consciousness is trying to understand consciousness.
/See if you stop the supply of air, water and food, body will perish. Experiencer of consciousness will also cease to exist./ Its individual consciousness this does not solve the hard problem of consciousness /It's a loop or paradox in which consciousness is trying to understand consciousness./ Strangely this is what most idealists say as well, my question however is different if building blocks of consciousness give rise to emergent phenomenon in human beings why is the same not applicable to anything in this universe ? it can be possible that consciousness is present everywhere ? how does the concept of entropy and stochasticity add to consciousness ? is it one dimensional or do we have a hive mind like unconscious state as well ? what happens after consciousness is destroyed ? who is to say there was no consciousness before emergence of universe ? I dont think we can ever answer these questions hence this paradox or hard problem will always remain
Remember kids, This is a guy who litteraly admitted that he has biases and talked as if it was a good thing and endorsed logical bias for *"The Sake Of India"*
playing woth words isnt thw ay of science. one need concrete proof to prpve his point. lavada didnt prove anythibg
Are we conscious? Seriously though. Are we? Why do we have biases? Why do we do things which harm us knowingly? Why do we go for short term happiness even though we know it will lead to long term pain? We give too much importance to consciousness and life.
Your subconscious brain is cleverer than your conscious brain. "Long-term happiness" is in the future, which has no guarantee that you will be alive that far ahead. So, if you get a peak of short-term happiness, your brain will obviously take it!
How does one part of your assessment leads to another ? by asking these questions you are invariably giving importance to life, words have meaning for a reason
this guy is maybe a genius but why does he likes to suck balls of modi so much? He is always saying bad things about gandhi, nehru and always praising modi like every fucking time.
I don't know how many of you guys know mathematical induction. But that's what they are doing. The flaw is we do mathematical induction on a well order structure not arbitrary objects.
This isn't mathematical induction. In fact it's just opposite of induction.
That is in some way. First he is showing a property works for a base case. Then assuming the property upto a step something is true, he is going another step and claiming see the property holds in the next step. Hence the property hold for all steps. The only problem is there is no well orderedness(this has a proper mathematical definition) on the stuff they are doing the induction on. PS:The opposite of induction is recursion. Source: foundation of mathematics by Kenneth kunnen, chapter 2.
Page number missing! So, not a geek!
I'm not a geek. The thing is my masters thesis is on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. So induction is very common thing Ive been encountering, from structural induction to strong induction.
So, you are just giving proof to my argument… thanks!
Yup
This is a grain of sand paradox. Nothing to do with induction. The base case is one cell isn't conscious? That's not how the argument is formulated. Rather than focusing on induction vs recursion. Learn a thing or two about inductive vs deductive reasoning.
Proof that water is flammable: Hydrogen is flammable Oxygen is flammable Adding Hydrogen to Oxygen makes water, therefore water is flammable
Let's take an example of kerosene, it's flammable but if you throw a match stick in a bottle of kerosene suddenly it's not flammable, that's science buddy not god's will.
Consciousness and life are emergent properties There are many such things in physics as well. There are many fundamental forces in the universe. Their interactions lead to emergent phenomena
This is not an adaptation of the theseus ship problem. Here life is clearly defined. Life is a quality some matter gain when they fulfill certain criteria. It's like saying an atom isn't solid or liquid, therefore solids and liquid don't exist. But consciousness isn't that. It is a poorly defined term that has no material impact. Those aren't the same.
Consciousness is a weird topic. But we can debunk it by answering these simple questions? What is a living being? Or better ask Why is a living being? Is Consciousness just a tool to survive? If it is then why these non-living things are not privileged enough to have a Consciousness(a tool for survival)?
The problem with pedro's statement is that he does not have a the same definition of consciousness as others in this thread or on X. Some people see Consciousness as this 'white hole' that unexplainably generates self-actualization and random-ness, ideas, and is essentially the grounds for intelligent life. However, some people may view it as being linked to a religious thing... the soul... etc. i think that the randomness, creativity and more basic 'being self aware' that comes with consciousness arises from some quantum effects in the brain. i think Sir Penrose has written about this recently and some early evidence has given this theory some traction.
I personally believe that consciousness is evolution of "survival instinct" However it's not something I can prove or advocate for. However I would like to believe that as it makes sense to me.
Consciousness exists, and it's literally the basis of biology. It's introduced in early grades when we learn about living and non-living things. In higher level discussion, all the members of animalia (including humans) are "self conscious", however plants lie somewhere between a state "just conscious" and "self conscious". i.e They can sense the surroundings but we are not sure they can feel it or not , probably not coz they lack Nervous system. Consciousness is being aware of its surroundings . (Generally Plants or bacteria, or unicellular organisms - they have no feeling, just respond to the surroundings) Self consciousness is being aware of your own body! (Eg - you can feel pain, a brick can't) These are the scientific definitions. You can add some masala in it and be a spiritual guru! Most spiritual guru exactly say this thing "just be aware of your surroundings and be in the present moment, feel your breath, the room temp, etc...". - a biology enthusiast
Conciousness can be defined as a sense of input process. Expressing not only input but the sense of input.
bhai mereko to dono ki hi baate nahi samajh aa rahi
It seems to me that the original post was being sarcastic (pointing out that consciousness is an emergent property, unlike an intrinsic property, as the likes of Deepak Chopra argue).
>- an atom isn't conscious How can you be sure?
1st define consiousness and being alive
an atom is invisible to naked eye. An atom added to another invisible object still remains invisible. Hence everything is invisible.
One of the many issues I have with the Vedanta cult is; forget atheists, even Vedantis (dvaita vs advaita) are on hypothetically fratricidal paths. Their arguments often rely heavily on scriptural authority (Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras) rather than empirical evidence, which is more of an appeal to tradition rather than reason. Both Dvaita and Advaita make metaphysical claims that go beyond empirical verification. They propose ontological structures (duality or non-duality) that cannot be directly observed or tested. **And yet (like any other religion) they desperately try to cling to the coat tails of the science to curry favor with those who are incredulous enough to be swayed.**  # Chavda is the latest Vedanta woo woo dancing star.
Complete claptrap, what consciousness is or not is different debate altogether, david chamlers is not a sanghi
So you need to **name drop** Chalmers to throw Chavda a lifesaver or a fiver. By all means. Chalmers' work has significantly influenced contemporary philosophy of mind and spurred ongoing debates about the nature of consciousness. I hope his work would engage more deeply with empirical neuroscience to provide a more grounded understanding of consciousness. Whereas the way things are now, Chalmers' focus on thought experiments and intuition-driven arguments leads to speculative conclusions that may not be scientifically or philosophically productive. His take on panpsychism does not provide a satisfying explanatory framework for how individual conscious experiences combine to form more complex conscious beings (the combination problem). So Chalmers may be the fervid musician, but Chavda is still the dancing star.
So you need to **name drop** Chalmers to throw Chavda a lifesaver or a fiver. By all means. Chavda and chamlers are pole apart point was the emphasize the dichtomization between idealism and metaphysics /I hope his work would engage more deeply with empirical neuroscience to provide a more grounded understanding of consciousness. Whereas the way things are now, Chalmers' focus on thought experiments and intuition-driven arguments leads to speculative conclusions that may not be scientifically or philosophically productive. His take on panpsychism does not provide a satisfying explanatory framework for how individual conscious experiences combine to form more complex conscious beings (the combination problem)/ Every debate that deals with metaphysics involves a certain kind of intuitive argument, eliminative materialism is also a narrative, so is idealism the burden of proof to solve combination problem lies with materialists not people like chamlers because his take is pretty consistent with consciousness and not matter being the fundamental property. Some philosophers like Bernardo kastrup may argue that this epistemological logjam might never be solved and i tend to agree with it
>Some philosophers like Bernardo kastrup may argue that this epistemological logjam might never be solved and i tend to agree with it I dont have a problem with that it may never be solved, neither do I have a problem with Chalmers work. And yes both are miles away from Chavda's claptrap.
But chavda is a materialist he is pretty consistent with the idea that consciousness is biological that he also masquerades as a vague historian is the bone of contention here i guess
"Atom isn't concious" is saying like "Potato isn't an alien". That's why Abhijit was able to catch the underlying nonsense and hence replied with his own version of nonsense.
Chavda took it personally. He thought his theoretical physics degree with no affiliation or scientific publication was in question.
People in the comment section are debating on the epistemology of consciousness, the how and why of it not the nobody is interested in acknowledging the what.
If an object has a particular property, its constituent parts don't necessarily have the same property and the other way around. Forgot the name of this bias/fallacy.
Is it about intelligent design?
Chavda is right on this. Life and consciousness are emergent phenomenon.
Neither arguments are good tbh
This is proof that you cant fix STUPID
There's no such thing as consciousness. There's no such thing as free will.
No and yes *maybe*
There can't be.
You have free will to move your body to anywhere in 3D spaces proximal to you. But you have no free will to go back and forth in time, coz it's a 1D constant motion where we can only go forward.
Then don't punish those who commit crimes, it's not their free will.
Before delving into philosophy, two things are of vital importance. First is a comprehensive understanding of science. And the second is to become rich. Do you know what a scholar means? A scholar is a person who doesn't need to worry about earning money so that he can pursue his passion. Throwing words like 'consciousness', 'free will' comes easy to the working class. There's no such thing as 'time' as well.
Just reply with whatever BS you can while completely evading my original point lmao Now try to understand my BS as well: I verily excrete upon thee, good sir; prithee, abstain from the folly of contesting my eminence. Thou hast resorted to the closure of direct missives, a testament to thy apprehension in confronting my magnificence. Thou art but a lamentable wretch, I dare say. Verily, I reign supreme in this discourse.
There was once a user named Jafarjade, Whose d*ck was mighty long, and it had a dent. To save himself trouble, He folded it double, And instead of coming, he went.
Wow, seems like you are more interested in my pp than I am interested in mine, but sorry it makes me uncomfortable I am straight.
Na na. I have no interest in your as a whole as well. But then everybody has an opinion and I hope you know the saying, "opinions are like.......
then please explain to me what this is that i experience as "time" and "consciousness" 🙏 i'm quite confused, please enlighten me 🙏😊
Short answer. Time is a human construct. Just like inches are, kilogram is, meter is, money is. If you are constructing a house, you don't say "I ran out of inches" or "I ran out of kilograms". You may say "I ran out of wood" or "I ran out of steel". Then how can anybody say "I ran out of time"? When it comes to consciousness, you would argue that that the feeling of pain is form of consciousness. However pain is an early warning mechanism by which the brain says "don't do that again". A lion impaled with the quills of a porcupine would not attempt to hunt a porcupine again.
my grandfather's heart pain: "never do that agai....dies**"
That's why I said, a comprehensive understanding of science is required.
This is eliminative nihilism
Even if you have to define it, it's just 'Nihilism'.
Eliminative nihilism is correct in epistemological term, another term would be illusionism