Видео

he's just a presentist

This is one of the best and most scholarly presentations in the Idealist/Panpsychist discussions anywhere on the internet. I will watch this many times to absorb all the vagaries of the ideas presented. I do have one suggestion for the author: next time please drop the background soundtrack! The music is very distracting and, at times, downright annoying.

I remember Patricia Churchland saying something like "our thinking that there is any thinking at all is an illusion".

Tbh, I do disagree on Bernardo in that there being intelligent design to the universe would be bad. But I'm coming from a different perspective, I'm aware I have a more spiritualist bent... See, if we are all part of Universal Mind, then our pain is its pain. But for us, a lifetime of suffering is just a blip to it. It only feels big to us because of our narrow perspective. The whole millions of years of evolution and "nature red in tooth and claw" thing might be pretty tiny to it. In which case, well... My body hurts a *lot* when I go for a run (I am very unfit), but I accept it because I know that the end result of the run (I get fitter) is worth the pain. But maybe an individual cell in me might disagree, all it knows is "AAAAAAAAA BURNING BURNING".

You are God dreaming eternal energy playing hide and seek perfection

Using "consciousness" as the foundation of reality makes no sense - we're taking the most complex thing we know (human awareness) and pretending it's the simplest thing? That's backwards. It's like saying the most advanced iPhone apps are what phones are "made of." Why not just call it something neutral like "patterns" or "structure"? That actually explains things better - simple patterns combine to make complex ones, eventually building up to consciousness. Way clearer than trying to explain how conscious reality creates unconscious rocks 🤔

Can't we say that the interaction problem could be solved by saying that God is the way by which the mind can interact with the non mental?

It seems like these worries about a definition of ‘physical’ bear more on what a definition is than what the physical is. If we can know and agree on what it means, (and I think if we both engage in good faith we obviously can) why do we need to spend time crafting a foolproof sentence that captures it? Definitions are notoriously hard- can you give me a reductive definition of “love?” “knowledge?” “red?” “exists?” And if not, does that really mean we have no idea what they are, so they must not exist? Definitions are mere epistemic tools we use to make discussing the world easier, the physicalist need not be troubled by the difficulty in finding the perfect one to capture so fundamental a concept as “physical.” (Also, though it feels kinda convoluted, why can’t we define ‘physical’ as the combination of spacetime and things located in spacetime?)

You do realize that this view says that there is an afterlife right? After we die we go back to the whole. We become one with god again. When you die in a dream you wake up inside the normal you. We don’t know if god is a system, an individual or the urgrund. But worst that will happen will propably be that we will go back into the urgrund and best case is continued life as an individual in some other world or reincarnation. Crazy…. With logic we have proven that this is most likely. I think that’s crazy. I think we can also postulate that God is smart. You can’t just dream this banger of a universe if ur not smart. Is he an individual or does he have a will? We don’t know. But I think it’s the Christian god because that’s the religion on earth with the best historical proof and thus the most likely in my opinion. And if it’s not him, me being moral will be good in any other scenario also. And if being moral is not important than it’s not bad for me either. In every way, I have won 😈😈

Gonzalez Timothy Moore Steven Thompson Daniel

Thompson Eric Miller Laura Garcia Deborah

Have you talked to Bernardo Kastrup yet?

I think your division of empirical reality and physical reality is not really well thought out. You can use terms any way you want but Carroll would just claim that there is only one reality call it empirical/physical. The argument here is that the entity posited by physics are all that are required for an explanation of any natural phenomena. Positing anything extra is going against occam's razor. I think the issue is the starting point, if you are a cartesian then of course all that one has access to representings, while carroll is taking a humean pragmatic stance where all impressions are of external reality and you study the regularities. Here all there is external reality.

As big of a fan as I am of BK, I feel like he hasn't refuted Sean Carroll (or Sabine Hossenfelder). Sean actually admits he doesn't know anything with 100% certainty and is humble enough to say that everything he knows could be wrong, but it would require undeniable proof to convince him that his current understanding of the universe is incorrect. I would say Sean's argument is stronger than BK's at the moment, despite my desire for the latter to be right, but like Sean, I have to go where the evidence leads me. I guess that makes me an idiot materialist, too, but also like Sean I'm at least agnostic to the other argument. I see none of that from BK, who seems to know with absolute certainty that he's right and others are wrong, accusing them of being overconfident and that they can't possibly "know this shit," yet he's guilty of the very same thing. We're only human after all.

Young Michael Taylor Ronald Clark Scott

Harris Eric Thompson Lisa Garcia Ronald

Jackson Matthew Lopez John Lee Carol

Debate Tjump, you coward

Monastic idealism, the idealist white nationalist. "Hey, only white spirits allowed" 😂😂

Thompson Laura White Amy Hernandez Mark

Take a tumor that changes a person's whole personality which is real and has happened! Materialism explains that very well and also allows us to treat it through surgery that treats the tumor and allows the person's personality to return to normal ! This seems like clear evidence that materialism is correct and beneficial and is why every respectable college in the world adheres to it How does any of these consciousness as fundamental approaches actually help in this situation described above?

The problem with us humans is that we believe in either/or rather than in both. All the disciplines: Religion; Philosophy; Psychology have recommended the Middle Way or negotiation a path between opposites. The reason being is that we live in a dual system of good and bad choices and in one instance a choice may be right, in a different instance it may be wrong. Absolutes work in a Universal sense not in a relative sense. In relativity there are no absolutes; choice depends on the particular case, what is right in one instance may be wrong in another. That is why as humans we came endowed with reason, as unlike nature we cannot depend on determinism or depend on instinct alone. We have to question our instincts through reason to determine what is right or wrong in a particular situation. Religious and moral precepts help and it is good to be familiar with them.

The music

Solipsism solves both the combination and decombination problem as well as the interaction problem.

Anyone who has Bernardo on, instant sub!

My main concern with idealism is that it seems to lead to solipsism.

At 3:44:55 I disagree with Levin. Cancer is really a metabolic disease. Has to do with the degradation of the mitochondria. These are the organelles responsible for celular respiration and use the Kreb´s Cycle to form 38 ATP. But in all cancer cells these organelles are disfunctional and they use a much less efficient anaerobic process call glycolysis to generate 2 ATP. This degradation has come about by humans not eating species specific food, which through 4.5 million years of evolution has been 80% Carnivore. See Dr Bart Kay!

that thumbnail is absurd

Epistemic structural realism would I see be a version of structuralism that would be compatible with pantheism or panentheism or the concept of the absolute

Process not substance

Is idealism open to structural realism an relational metaphysics

2:00:40… Aphorism

This is solipsism

Lose the AI voice.

Bertardo is a fool.

Last night I told all mental projections to disappear and most people did but about 5 remained. As soon as they disappeared one of the remaining people closest to me ran away immediately but I chased it down and told it not to be scared and talked to it.

what's your vision about the afterlife? I mean, after the material body die.

I watched the interview with Kastrup on Idealism and by the end of it everything pretty much made sense. Bernardo satisfied on pretty much every criticism of Idealism. I’ve been interested in Panpsychism as well but I have to say that after watching this all I see is a hot mess of incoherent statements that go nowhere. I love the interviewers. I think they did all they could to get answers but in the end the guest just convinced me that Panpsychism is incoherent. I have yet to find a good orator on Panpsychism like idealism has with Kastrup. I think I’m going to focus on Idealism from here on out. Trying to keep an open mind but all I hear is silliness. No disrespect to the guest. And again the hosts were wonderful.

I heard about some research on tulpamancy practices done where the research participants were asked to build in their mind imaginary characters. Participants were asked to fully image their imaginary character and create full personalities and speech for them. They found that after a while these imaginary characters seemed to take on behaviors independent of their creator's imagination as if they had become fully autonomous agents with a consciousness of their own.

If the One has a *fundamental' predisposition to self-locate via dissociation, you get a a person-relation from the start. That be my view.

What was Fichte's argument that the notion of personhood is there are at least two?

I don’t think we can coherently say that mind would give rise to a completely separate ontological substance.

Seems like maybe the way idealism would most inform science would be how it can provide a rantional for different introspective methodologies and why they can be shedding light on objective reality. If physicalism denies that fundamental patterns can be found via careful observation of highly developed consciousness, well, that's one more strike against it.

Science is empirical, yes. And as idealists this might make it sound like we, then,, ARE able to have a science that tells us about the nature of reality. But I think we are still left with the behaviors that we then interpret and make arguments about the nature. This is why even in a future where there are ONLY idealists, there will still be massive debates about how to interpret the meaning of nature's behavior.

I think the short answer to “why” is… “Y knot” lol

As an Omnist, I think Panentheism is the ideal theological/metaphysical map for future humanity. Traditional theism effectively divides everything into two, which is a fundamentally dualistic conception of everything... there IS duality and separation in the universe, but positing God as 'external' to to the universe has many flaws. Pantheism makes more sense; but in my estimation, it makes the mistake of presuming that the universe we experience with our sense-perception is 'the whole thing'. I think this would effectively inhibit our ever-expanding understanding of phenomenality; and all evidence points to the idea that there is far more to the universe than we can normatively perceive.

The One of platonism is beyond being and all description, the absolute, the monad, the simple are all rough synonyms for this principle. If mind were the fundamental principle that would entail the fundamental principle being a complex being, (the thinker-the object of thought- the action of the thinker thinking the object of the thought). The error in idealism is the same as the error in Abrahamic religion. It makes the fundamental principle a COMPLEX BEING not an ultimately simple principle like Platonism or vedantic works. This is an issue because we have a perfectly coherent theory of Emanationism in Platonism that all subsists on the principle of the one, from this we rationally and necessarily derive the forms, numbers, reason, logos, structure. this is were idealism has its problem because it just posits mind as the fundamental principle and provides no philosophical justification for it other than it’s the only explanation for the soul, mind, reason, free will, etc but the mistake lies in assuming that mind is actually what is most fundamental. Idealism ontologically starts at a more immanent point than does Platonism.

It's a long road to change worldviews. Multiple converging lines reasoning and evidence all point to consciousness as The ontological primitive of reality.

Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.