3 ms·
I think the vedantic approach makes more sense. Can you (or can anyone) experience something outside of consciousness ? Why assume any such thing exists if we d
by arnoooooo 7y ago
I think the vedantic approach makes more sense. Can you (or can anyone) experience something outside of consciousness ? Why assume any such thing exists if we don't need it to explain our experience ?
In the vedantic approach, matter is not primary : consciousness is, as in our experience. And consciousness is the only thing there is. Matter is a representation of what happens in consciousness at large, an interface humans use. Humans are localised bundles of consciousness, like "whirlpools" in a "stream of consciousness" if you will.
- visarga 7y agoI used to have the vedantic viewpoint. But now I think it has no power, it's just a convenient explanation. On the other hand evolutionary methods and reinforcement learning proved they can lead to intelligent behaviour. They can both explain and produce human like actions, and are much more parsimonious. They don't require a cosmic consciousness as the source of individual consciousness, instead they require environment, agent and self replication, which are concrete things that remain within the laws of physics. AI has proven how perception, attention, memory, imagination and reward based learning could be implemented in neural nets.