Max Tegmark makes this argument. But what do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM
FWIW, according to YS, sattva (the finest state of prakRti?) and puruSa
([pure] consciousness) are atyantaasaMkiirNa [ati-anta- a_saM-kiirNa], that
is, absolutely distinct...
Tegmark recently said that consciousness is a state of matter. As such, he
can eliminate the hard question of consciousness. He can very easily resolve
the problem with objective reductionism--if what he says is true.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
No, he's still l
No, he's still looking at it wrong. Consciousness is energy like
electricity but probably a bit different (shakti). It is and is not a
physical property at once (in the sense that physical property is being
defined here). Your computer has a physical property but it can't do
anything unless y
Max Tegmark proposes a radical idea that may or may not prove computers can be
sentient or that ETs exist in the stars, planets and moons that we see in the
universe. What do you think?
Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
