Chitta is only one small aspect of the consciousness perhaps he could go into that some more before passing over foundational assumptions. Otherwise very interesting talk. Thank you 🙏
@seshsampath
2 жыл бұрын
Satt Chitt Ananda Truth, Consciousness and bliss I think.
@rahulranjan9013
Жыл бұрын
Chit is different than Chitta. Chitta is an aspect of consciousness, other being manas (mind), ahankara (ego), etc. But Chit includes all of that. It literally means Consciousness itself.
@somut2706
Жыл бұрын
Dear prof Prakash, very nice theorem on consciousness. I am interested in your subject. I am now 70 year old. Where can I get your book or ppt which explains for beginners like me. I mean, any ppt for dummy,s like me. I heard something like fitness function. Also our ancestors had better perception then present generation. I feel shankara charya philosophy of non dualism is because of his perception to saying I am not this body, mind, I am a pure consciousness and there is no point in fighting amongst people for superiority. Can I say those people who believed and followed Shankar philosophy were more intelligent in physical world due to inherent genes in them. Can you comment .
@Corteum
Жыл бұрын
What are you most interested in knowing? Do you want to know consciousness intellectually, objectively?
@Big_Black_Dick
3 жыл бұрын
i see u guys are going back to ur roots putting out some real info like u always used 2 lol everyone else in the comments seems shocked and astonished but u guys have always been here trying to enlighten us
@Sonofsol
3 жыл бұрын
Wtf... 😬
@arstan9962
2 жыл бұрын
As a physicist, I can't accept the view of panpsychism, but I like the idea that a fit payoff strategy (function) does not need to preserve the world structure in order to become successful. There is something deep in this idea, even though that theorem (most likely) does not apply exactly to our real world. Suddenly I begin to understand why there are so many stupid people living on the planet, why so many people believe in astrology, numerology, scientology, aliens and whatnot. They are just fit enough to survive and to pass their genes further. You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals. So... 40:43
@seshsampath
2 жыл бұрын
Color combination of the slides are bad. Only Pigeon with 4 receptors could see. Not for ordinary humans with basic perception that evolution has give. I was going by the verbal explanation and a pretty interesting talk. Thanks
@scientious
2 жыл бұрын
14:00 Interface dominates. ~ Yes, this is correct. However, describing it as interface vs truth is not accurate. Stating it this way will tend to lead you to the wrong conclusions about sensory functions. 16:00 And there's the wrong conclusion as I expected. To be honest I'm not quite sure if this relates to a misapplication of set theory or is more a case of language theory, but both would be inadequate for this analysis. 16:15 And there's the false dichotomy. He's defining truth as a one to one correspondence to all possible information states -- which would be truly laughable. No wonder he takes this detour. 16:48 Theorem two is a misapplication of Bayes theorem. However, his incorrect assumption would lead to this conclusion. So, his logic is good. 19:00 Equivocation fallacy. 19:30 This isn't a fallacy as such, but it reaches the wrong conclusion because the assumptions are only partially representative. 20:00 Seriously? This is a red herring. 21:36 And this Hoffman's which I've already dismissed. So, that's enough.
@whatisthis-y8w
10 ай бұрын
(84) Jesus said: When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into existence before you, which neither die nor are made manifest, how much will you bear?
Пікірлер: 16