"In other words, there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics. " Richard P Feynman.
Hats off to you Sir, I love all your videos , your knowledge, your method of Explanation except for little pronunciation hurdle everything is perfect!!!
Inferential knowledge is based on theory connecting perceived knowledge to inference. This is only validates a theory to with in the data set of perceived knowledge Additional perception may prove theory to be wrong. We can not perceive everything so have to resort to inferential knowledge as long as that is not invalidated by new direct perceptions.
This lecture is very interesting, since it is centered on how Charvaka acquires useful knowledge, which is actually something under heavy debate to this day in Epistemology.
Does that mean "wherever there is smoke there is fire" is wrong statement but it is also a fact that we can really perceive, see with our eyes, notice and realize that whenever there is about to fire there is always smoke first? How can charvaka say that it is not perceivable hence not a inference?? Please reply
@kas 027 no it is not wrong but not always valid too as charvaka will say it. he will agree that if we're seeing smoke then there would be fire in a perceived case but it won't be necessarily always the case. and moreover we cannot verify all the cases. so, inference is not always verifiable and hence cannot be universalised i.e. vyapti cannot be established and hence inference which is based on vyapti will become invalid source of knowledge for charvaka. i hope you get this now. :))
Can anyone pls explain to me the fallacy of interdependence - how concomitance and inference are interdependent- which turns out to be the fourth ground to reject the theory of inference.
for you to make an inference, you need the first statement, with the major term and the middle term, like ""whatever is smoky is fiery". but this statement requires concomitance of smoke and fire. But to know that smoke and fire are always in concomitance, this would be the result of another inference, like induction for example, that in all experiences you had, smoke and fire come together. so inference is based in concomitance, and concomitance is based in inference. thus the interdependence fallacy.
U dont even need any philosophy,all human centric.Nature and other voiceless living being have their own too...so are you going to discard that?If u disagree show me the proof,i can go toe-to-toe with these nonsense.
I completely disagree with the idea of carvarka philosophy and i am focusing on perception . What is real or does the reality changes with space and time and perception ? What if there is nothing like absolute reality or is there a absolute reality for all animals ? What is reality? Who just believes in what he sees, knows and understand kind of practical man , but is it the only reality or limited reality ? Now , what is real depends upon the level of perception of our five senses and then the inference made by our brain ? But, let me ask you the question ? The way we see light or hear the sound is it the only and absolute reality or it differs from animal to animal ? No , we cannot hear or see every sound and light in the same way. So with the limited perception of the infinite, our brain makes the inference with the input given by our lmited perception . ANIMAL THE COLORS THEY SEE RELATIVE TO HUMANS SPIDERS ULTRAVIOLET AND GREEN Different INSECTS (bees) ULTRAVIOLET, BLUE, YELLOW Different CRUSTACEANS (crayfish) BLUE AND RED Less CEPHALOPODS (octopi and squids) BLUE ONLY Less So here the world Real is not not absolute real and its subject to limited human perception .
Your example of different perceptions is great: different animals are able to perceive different wave lengths. If I'm no mistaken, I understood that you defend the existence of an absolute underlying reality (even though you only asked questions and didn't make any claim, really) and, for this reason, you disagree of Charvaka because observation is limited to the means you employ in order to make an observation. I agree that there must be an ultimate underlying reality. However, when you go deep into detail, we are not able to grasp this ultimate underlying reality, does not matter how accurate our modern scientific instruments are and does not matter how wide or how strict the range of observation is. The conclusion is that we always have to set an arbitrary boundary to our ability to determine reality, since our ability of observation is also limited. Taking this conclusion (my conclusion!) back to the lecture, we can understand that, for Charvaka, it was sufficient to set an arbitrary boundary for observing reality, which was how humans observe reality with their senses since, at that time, they lacked scientific instruments and probably they were not interested or curious about how animals perceive the natural world.
@@richardgomes5420 Agree and at the same time I say may not be right but I am just saying broaden you're horizon. There is nothing like objective experiences,the objectively changes with the our thalamus and Pineal gland .
@@arzoo_singh > the objectively changes with the our thalamus and Pineal gland . Believing on it without the rigor and formality of the scientific method is just blind faith, just a dogma.
@@richardgomes5420 Believing anything is blind faith . As in the sky is red ? Cause I belived it's so ,but it's not ...blind faith agree . I say that we have limited perception and it's difinarely difficult to put certain concepts as in : 1Conciousness 2)Placebo, 3)Qunatum world Under limited defination of science we know . Again we have defined scinece on the basis of our precepetion ? Is their a possibility that a highly evolved spiritualist as in Yogi,Sanyasi and he is also a scientist he may have different view of the world (Thalamus and pineal gland again) What do you say ?
@@arzoo_singh :: You are saying that we have limited abilities, which I agree. You are saying that Science is limited because humans defined the Scientific Method. I agree partially. I explain: Science has far more abilities than we have because we use instruments which overcome our limitations and because we employ mathematical and statistical tools which far overcome our ability to grasp meaning from the data. Then you mention an Yogi, which is a human being, and you argument that a Yogi could possibly overcome Science due to some Pineal gland magic ability. I obviously disagree. If some expanded ability of the Pineal gland would be reality, it would be possible to demonstrate that with the rigid, strict formalism of the Scientific Method. This is why you employ Religion to support this claim: because there are no evidences for this claim and then you resort to faith. The meaning of the word faith is basically "support a claim which you do not have evidences for".
Thank you so much sir for this knowledgeable topic and this season..
xcellent sir ji.thanks for sharing.i hope to get more on western philosophies video too from your side.
"In other words, there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made of atoms acting according to the laws of physics. " Richard P Feynman.
WONDERFUL EXPLANATION, ESPECIALLY YOUR REPETITIONS AND SUMMARIES WHICH MAKE FOR GREAT CLARITY. THANKS.
I am glad to know about our philosophy please also teach us about western philosophy also .
Great work Dr. Satya ...awesome!
Hats off to you Sir, I love all your videos , your knowledge, your method of Explanation except for little pronunciation hurdle everything is perfect!!!
Inferential knowledge is based on theory connecting perceived knowledge to inference. This is only validates a theory to with in the data set of perceived knowledge Additional perception may prove theory to be wrong. We can not perceive everything so have to resort to inferential knowledge as long as that is not invalidated by new direct perceptions.
This lecture is very interesting, since it is centered on how Charvaka acquires useful knowledge, which is actually something under heavy debate to this day in Epistemology.
I spent 5 years in visualization for computers for various charwaks
thank you for great knowledge that i can understand
very useful vedio sir ...keep it up
Cārvāka is always right.
Thank you so much
Does that mean "wherever there is smoke there is fire" is wrong statement but it is also a fact that we can really perceive, see with our eyes, notice and realize that whenever there is about to fire there is always smoke first? How can charvaka say that it is not perceivable hence not a inference??
Please reply
kas 027 ,it is debatable but since we don't know future we can't deduct thing.
@kas 027
no it is not wrong but not always valid too as charvaka will say it.
he will agree that if we're seeing smoke then there would be fire in a perceived case but it won't be necessarily always the case. and moreover we cannot verify all the cases. so, inference is not always verifiable and hence cannot be universalised i.e. vyapti cannot be established and hence inference which is based on vyapti will become invalid source of knowledge for charvaka. i hope you get this now. :))
Y there is no Vedanta philosophy ? Please upload Vedanta philosophy also as it is the best way to learn
Thank you very much sir.
Can anyone pls explain to me the fallacy of interdependence - how concomitance and inference are interdependent- which turns out to be the fourth ground to reject the theory of inference.
for you to make an inference, you need the first statement, with the major term and the middle term, like ""whatever is smoky is fiery". but this statement requires concomitance of smoke and fire. But to know that smoke and fire are always in concomitance, this would be the result of another inference, like induction for example, that in all experiences you had, smoke and fire come together. so inference is based in concomitance, and concomitance is based in inference. thus the interdependence fallacy.
U dont even need any philosophy,all human centric.Nature and other voiceless living being have their own too...so are you going to discard that?If u disagree show me the proof,i can go toe-to-toe with these nonsense.
Thank you sir
Dear sir ,this is not the way to teach philosophy.Neverthless ,good effort
MANOJ gupta If this is not the way , how can one teach philosophy better?
Can you please teach?
nice
I completely disagree with the idea of carvarka philosophy and i am focusing on perception .
What is real or does the reality changes with space and time and perception ?
What if there is nothing like absolute reality or is there a absolute reality for all animals ?
What is reality?
Who just believes in what he sees, knows and understand kind of practical man , but is it the only reality or limited reality ?
Now , what is real depends upon the level of perception of our five senses and then the inference made by our brain ?
But, let me ask you the question ?
The way we see light or hear the sound is it the only and absolute reality or it differs from animal to animal ?
No , we cannot hear or see every sound and light in the same way. So with the limited perception of the infinite, our brain makes the inference with the input given by our lmited perception .
ANIMAL THE COLORS THEY SEE RELATIVE TO HUMANS
SPIDERS ULTRAVIOLET AND GREEN Different
INSECTS (bees) ULTRAVIOLET, BLUE, YELLOW Different
CRUSTACEANS (crayfish) BLUE AND RED Less
CEPHALOPODS (octopi and squids) BLUE ONLY Less
So here the world Real is not not absolute real and its subject to limited human perception .
Your example of different perceptions is great: different animals are able to perceive different wave lengths. If I'm no mistaken, I understood that you defend the existence of an absolute underlying reality (even though you only asked questions and didn't make any claim, really) and, for this reason, you disagree of Charvaka because observation is limited to the means you employ in order to make an observation.
I agree that there must be an ultimate underlying reality. However, when you go deep into detail, we are not able to grasp this ultimate underlying reality, does not matter how accurate our modern scientific instruments are and does not matter how wide or how strict the range of observation is.
The conclusion is that we always have to set an arbitrary boundary to our ability to determine reality, since our ability of observation is also limited.
Taking this conclusion (my conclusion!) back to the lecture, we can understand that, for Charvaka, it was sufficient to set an arbitrary boundary for observing reality, which was how humans observe reality with their senses since, at that time, they lacked scientific instruments and probably they were not interested or curious about how animals perceive the natural world.
@@richardgomes5420 Agree and at the same time I say may not be right but I am just saying broaden you're horizon.
There is nothing like objective experiences,the objectively changes with the our thalamus and Pineal gland .
@@arzoo_singh > the objectively changes with the our thalamus and Pineal gland .
Believing on it without the rigor and formality of the scientific method is just blind faith, just a dogma.
@@richardgomes5420 Believing anything is blind faith .
As in the sky is red ?
Cause I belived it's so ,but it's not ...blind faith agree .
I say that we have limited perception and it's difinarely difficult to put certain concepts as in :
1Conciousness
2)Placebo,
3)Qunatum world
Under limited defination of science we know .
Again we have defined scinece on the basis of our precepetion ?
Is their a possibility that a highly evolved spiritualist as in Yogi,Sanyasi and he is also a scientist he may have different view of the world (Thalamus and pineal gland again)
What do you say ?
@@arzoo_singh :: You are saying that we have limited abilities, which I agree.
You are saying that Science is limited because humans defined the Scientific Method. I agree partially. I explain: Science has far more abilities than we have because we use instruments which overcome our limitations and because we employ mathematical and statistical tools which far overcome our ability to grasp meaning from the data.
Then you mention an Yogi, which is a human being, and you argument that a Yogi could possibly overcome Science due to some Pineal gland magic ability. I obviously disagree.
If some expanded ability of the Pineal gland would be reality, it would be possible to demonstrate that with the rigid, strict formalism of the Scientific Method. This is why you employ Religion to support this claim: because there are no evidences for this claim and then you resort to faith.
The meaning of the word faith is basically "support a claim which you do not have evidences for".
Hindu Atheism