Is Resistance (physical etc.) the 'ego' of inanimate objects? Is that proof of their awareness & consciousness?

Consciousness, Ego, Awareness - all these are manifestation of SELF...or more specifically self interest.

It is not inertia that defines self, but desire. I.e. the 'self' must be pursuing an agenda. The 'agenda' of Life is energy acquisition & replication.

There is a Logic to the Universe that lies at the core of Life, but discerning if it is conscious is a bit beyond the mental capacity of human philosophers. We cannot be SURE it is not purely by the limitations of our senses, and our time...BUT as we classically define LIFE, the answer is no.

Life is an energy machine that replicates. Ego is the 'program' driving the process. Hence to be 'ego' - Resistance must be active rather than passive. Inertia is not enough. The Ego must actively pursue a path to resource & energy or actively inhibit their removal.

Ego is life's pursuit of desire or self interest. Objects lacking this characteristic are called 'non-life' or inanimate. So resistance is not the 'ego' of inanimate objects since 'inanimate' means lacking ego - which is to say, lacking life.

The moment an object is addressed as 'inanimate' it is an acknowledgement that it is not animate is it not? Otherwise, why should it be so addressed? If the ego matter about the inanimate is true, Then the question arises, what about the so called animate objects. Are the animate ones ego less?

The correct situation should be, exactly opposite-non-animation in the case of inanimate object is due to inertia of mass. While animation in the animate object is due to ego!

Treating the above philosophically, as both the animate and inanimate objects are subject to change and decay, they can not be 'real'. 'Ego' can not be associated with unreal thing. The one that is real can not have ego and therefore, 'ego' itself is unreal!!

I think we can say for certain that inanimate (non-organic) matter has no consciousness simply due to the fact that this type of matter (unlike trees or any other living things) don't change in any way. They don't grow & chemically their molecules don't renew, whereas anything living is in constant flux.

As for "resistance" in the physical world, it's an illusion. We all know nothing is solid, therefore what we see as resistance are actually just molecules in motion bumping into each other! By the way, ego is just love of self - it is nothing more than a vehicle which we should love and cherish!

dear

i like your question very much. so here i am going to try ans it.

for the first question its ans may no and for the second it is also no.

1]REASONS 1.in this case EGO means reserving something which have its value or belonging a function for itself.

2 all objects have its value and it shows everything acting a function. its function may help others and may harm others too. coz, everyting is interdependance.

2]REASON 1 for an inanimate objects have no soul and senses. with this reason we may know which have no consciousness and awareness. thererfore it it can not prove.

2 for the inanimate objects may have function and works like living beings but you must know that its function is limmited. but living beings are not. coz, improvement and development would act upon living being. but the turning point of living being's limit is the time when they can liberate from sense of EGO.

thanks for all to give me a chance to answer this quetion.

No. If I throw a rock in space, it wont turn around and come back. If inanimate objects had this ego that caused it to retain its motion (or lack thereof)... then you could not propel matter... an object in motion will stay in the same motion even when acted upon by an unbalanced force.

If anything, objects have no ego whatsoever, they are completely malleable, bendable to anyones will by taking on new momentum as easily as it does.

Inanimate objects are not endowed with life.

They lack consciousness or motion. They are Not energetic. They may not have ego. I think.

Only artificial intelligence/feelings, ego, happiness can be put within non-living things/inanimate things...

Well, probably because there are no neural-connections enabling consciousness or thought process or anything. I think the real question is, how can we be sure we have consciousness, or free will, for that matter?

The 'resistance' is our own perception. Do walls, boxes, floors, etc have an ego. Not according to my perception, though-who am I to say, really? How can something not be part of the entirety?

ego is dangerous for health