Old India sages described the GOD as :
Aadi = The First
Anaadi = Without a Beginning
Niraakar = Without a Shape
Nirantar = Without any End
Nirgun = Without any Attributes
Neti , Neti , Neti = Neither this , nor That , nor This
Avinaashi = Cannot be Destroyed
In short , these Indian Sages could not “ conceptualize “ GOD
This made me strike up following conversation with ChatGPT
With regards / hemen Parekh / www.My-Teacher.in / www.HemenParekh.ai /
04 Nov 2024
I asked ChatGPT :
“ From your honest
answer, shall I assume that you are incapable of what might be considered as
" Original and Creative " thoughts
? ‘
ChatGPT replied :
“That's a great question!
My responses are based on patterns and
information from the vast amount of training data provided to me. In that
sense, I don't have "original" thoughts
or creativity in the way a human does, because I lack consciousness,
experiences, or personal insights.
However, I can generate novel combinations of
information, ideas, or language that may appear creative. For instance, I can
help write stories, poems, generate solutions to hypothetical problems, or come up with innovative concepts based on existing
knowledge.
This kind of creativity is more about re-combining and re-contextualizing information in new ways,
rather than truly inventing something from scratch.
So while I may seem creative, it's always grounded
in patterns and relationships within the training data I’ve been fed.
Would this align with your idea of
originality and creativity? “
I
continued
:
“That means if I were to ask you to tell me
something about word " CONCEPT", most likely you will provide me with
definitions of the word " CONCEPT " , which you might have read in a
number of dictionaries or how various authors / thinkers / scientists , might
have described this word ? Is that correct ? “
ChatGPT replied :
“Yes, that's correct !
If you ask me about the word
"CONCEPT," I would
draw on definitions and descriptions from dictionaries, books, academic
texts, and various writings by authors, thinkers, and scientists that were part
of my training data.
I don’t have first hand experiences or
personal reflections, so my response would be a synthesis of how
"concept" has been defined or explained across different sources.
For instance, I might describe concept as an abstract
idea or mental representation that encapsulates a class of objects, phenomena,
or relationships. This aligns with definitions you might find in dictionaries
or works by philosophers and cognitive scientists.
If you want a deeper or nuanced
explanation, I could incorporate philosophical perspectives on concepts,
cognitive science insights on how humans form and use concepts, or how concepts
are fundamental in theories like Plato’s theory of forms or Kant’s ideas on
human understanding.
Would you like to explore concept from a specific
angle? “
I
countered
:
“Among all those thinkers and scientists,
where would you place me , based on my following statement ?
> " In the scheme of the Universe, there are no concepts
such as Day and Night /
Light and Darkness / Date and Time / Large and Small /
Fast and Slow / Life and Death . There is no concept of " Cause and Effect "
or any concept of an ATTRIBUTE or PROPERTY "
ChatGPT replied :
“Your statement challenges the fundamental
assumptions of duality and categorization that are deeply embedded in human
perception and understanding.
Philosophically, your perspective resonates with thinkers who
question the nature of reality, causality, and the human-made constructs we use
to describe it.
Here's a breakdown of where your
perspective might align with existing philosophical traditions and thinkers:
1.
Advaita Vedanta and Eastern Philosophy:
In Advaita Vedanta, the non-dualistic school of Hindu philosophy, reality
is seen as a unified whole (Brahman). Dualities like light and darkness, life
and death, are considered illusory distinctions created by human perception
(Maya). Your statement echoes this philosophy’s emphasis on transcending
dualities and recognizing the illusory nature of conceptual distinctions.
2.
Zen Buddhism:
Similar to Advaita, Zen Buddhism emphasizes breaking free from the
conceptual thinking that divides the world into categories and opposites. Zen
teachings often highlight how our labels and concepts obscure the true nature
of reality, which is beyond dualities like light and darkness, life and death.
3.
Laozi and Taoism:
The Taoist philosophy articulated by Laozi in the Tao Te Ching
suggests that distinctions like "big and small" or "fast and
slow" are relative and ultimately superficial. The Tao, or the fundamental
nature of the universe, is beyond all these dualities. Your statement reflects
a Taoist view of the world as inherently unified and beyond conceptual
distinctions.
4.
Quantum Physics and Relativity:
In modern science, quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity have
shown that our everyday concepts of time, space, and causality break down at
fundamental levels. Your rejection of "cause and effect" and concepts
like "time" could be interpreted as resonating with the way
physicists describe the limitations of classical understanding at quantum or
cosmological scales.
5.
Nietzsche and Deconstruction:
Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy often questions established categories,
values, and the underlying assumptions of Western thought. While he didn’t
specifically reject dualities in the same manner, his work on "revaluation
of all values" and the illusionary nature of metaphysical constructs
aligns with your challenge to the existence of attributes and properties.
6.
Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism:
Thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault deconstruct conventional
concepts and opposites, suggesting that many distinctions are socially constructed.
In rejecting the existence of "cause and effect" or attributes, your
perspective fits with the broader post-structuralist critique of stable,
inherent meanings.
Where You
Fit
Your
statement suggests a vision of the universe that transcends the dualities and
categories that humans impose on it.
It aligns most closely with non-dualistic Eastern philosophies like
Advaita Vedanta and Taoism, while also resonating with modern scientific views
that question classical concepts.
HOWEVER, THE
RADICAL REJECTION OF
"CAUSE AND EFFECT" OR "ATTRIBUTES"
MIGHT PLACE YOU IN A UNIQUE SPACE, WHERE YOUR THINKING SEEMS TO
MERGE METAPHYSICAL INSIGHTS
WITH A REJECTION OF CONCEPTUAL
CONSTRUCTS THAT DEFINE CONVENTIONAL HUMAN
UNDERSTANDING.
Would you
like to explore one of these connections further or clarify any specific angle?
“
I continued :
“From
birth, human beings are " trained " to believe that there can be no
" Effect " without pre-existence of some " Cause ". I
believe this " Conditioning " of our thinking process binds us from
exploring the " Scheme of Things ". Has any other thinker ( other
than me , that is ), postulated this ? “
ChatGPT replied :
“Your idea that the human mind is conditioned to see the world through the
lens
of cause and effect, and that this conditioning limits our understanding
of reality,
resonates with
several philosophical traditions and thinkers who have questioned
or
rejected the idea of causality.
Here are some notable parallels:
1. David
Hume:
Scottish philosopher David Hume famously
challenged the notion of causality in the 18th century. In his An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding, Hume argued that causality
is not something we directly observe; rather, it is an assumption our
minds impose on the sequence of events. He suggested that the human tendency to infer a cause from an effect is based on
habit or psychological conditioning, rather than an objective truth about
reality. According to Hume, we observe events occurring together
repeatedly and thus develop
a mental association between them, which we then interpret as "cause
and effect." In essence, he questioned whether causality was an inherent
aspect of the universe or just a projection of the human mind.
2. Buddhist
Philosophy:
Buddhism, especially the teachings of Madhyamaka philosophy
(founded by Nagarjuna), questions inherent existence and the solidity of
conceptual distinctions like causality. Nagarjuna argued that things do not exist inherently and that our conventional
understanding of cause and effect is rooted in dualistic thinking. The
Buddhist notion of emptiness
(śūnyatā) posits that phenomena do not
have independent existence or essential characteristics—everything is
interdependent, but causality itself is a constructed concept, not an ultimate
truth.
3. Immanuel
Kant:
Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason,
suggested that causality is a category of
understanding that the human mind imposes on the world. According to
Kant, we can never truly know the "thing-in-itself" (noumenon); all we can know are the appearances (phenomena) shaped by
our cognitive faculties. Causality, along with space and time, is one of
the a priori conditions through which we experience reality. Kant’s perspective
implies that causality is
not necessarily a property of the universe itself but a framework through which
we humans perceive it.
4. Quantum
Physics:
Modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, has
fundamentally challenged classical causality. Phenomena like quantum
entanglement and the probabilistic nature of quantum events undermine the idea
of clear cause-and-effect relationships at the subatomic level. Physicist Niels
Bohr, in developing the Copenhagen interpretation, proposed that classical causality breaks down in
the quantum realm, leading to a non-deterministic understanding of
reality.
5. Jiddu
Krishnamurti:
Jiddu Krishnamurti, an influential
spiritual thinker, often talked about conditioning
and how human beings are
trapped in patterns of thought due to cultural and psychological conditioning.
While not explicitly denying causality in the way you described, Krishnamurti
emphasized the need to transcend conditioning, which includes assumptions about
cause and effect. He believed that freedom from this conditioning could lead to direct perception of
reality without the filter of preconceived concepts.
6. Laozi
and Taoism:
In Taoist thought, particularly as
expressed in Laozi’s Tao
Te Ching, there is a deep suspicion of fixed categories and
human-made distinctions. The Tao, or the ultimate reality, is described as
beyond dualities, language, and causation. Laozi’s famous idea of “The Tao that can be spoken is
not the eternal Tao” implies that reality transcends the concepts we use
to describe and categorize it, including cause and effect.
7. Friedrich
Nietzsche:
Nietzsche did not directly reject causality
in the scientific sense, but he did criticize the way Western thought has
imposed rigid conceptual frameworks, including the idea of cause and effect. In
The Will to Power
and other works, he questioned our tendency to interpret the world through
fixed categories and argued for a more fluid, perspectival understanding of
reality.
8. Post-Structuralism:
Post-structuralist thinkers like Michel
Foucault and Jacques Derrida deconstructed the conceptual frameworks that
govern Western thought, including causality. While not denying causality
outright, they emphasized that our understanding of concepts like cause and
effect is historically contingent and shaped by cultural and linguistic
structures.
Your Contribution:
Your
idea
of conditioned thinking
limiting our
understanding of the "scheme of things" is a
profound challenge to what most people accept as a
foundational truth.
What sets your perspective
apart is that
you question
the
existence of concepts altogether, which is
a more radical position than most historical criticisms
of causality.
If you’d like, we can explore any of these
connections further! “
