I can call myself a Bernardo follower. Since retirement and a life changing event four years ago I’ve been trying to understand what is going on with our very existence. I spent a couple years looking at panpsychism and it never resonated even though I kept trying to believe it. Then I discovered idealism through Bernardo and I knew instantly that this makes sense. I’ve listened to everything I can find with him and it keeps making more sense to me. Thank you Bernardo!
Geez, I'm another retired guy, a card carrying Analytic idealist. In fact, I'm writing an essay right now on it. I knew our generation would catch on to this first.
If one can honestly step outside of personal bias, there is much depth to Idealism. Bernado has done a great job in such a short discussion to explain these depths. If you have ever watched people wearing color blind correcting glasses for the first time, you will see a new experience right there. Thank you for sharing. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
Kastrup examines metaphysics with exceptional clarity - rare to have a philosopher truly able to refute the prevailing paradigm with such rigour and precision. Always a feast for the mind listening to his eloquent and lucid defence of idealism ❤
I've followed Bernardo, Donald Hoffman, Iain Mcgilchrist, Michael Levin, Robert Sapolsky, Rupert Spira and Swami Sarvapriyananda for so long now. There is something fundamentally and intuitively resonant about the way these gentlemen describe the universe, our reality and the response it evokes from us...
I began watching Bernardo Kastrup in his work with Rupert Spira, and I did find his theory unsettling. This discussion helps me to understand his view better than ever before. Huge thanks!
Idealism has a deep intuitive truth to it. After following the logic step by stepit completely changed my worldview. It was dizzying, I felt the room fall away when it happened. It was a real epiphany.
This Podcast has brought out an angle of BK, that I never completely understood before; unity of his version of Idealism with Spirituality! BK's contention that 'all Matter' is Mind at Large, manifesting in form; albeit Dissociated, is an understanding within Spirituality, that it is Consciousness (call it God if you so wish) that manifests as the numerous forms we see. That this dissociation looks like life, is but the icing on the cake. I further found his contention that all is mental; and most likely, is in the form of thoughts, quite in agreement with some sages (who also contend that what we see is ideas), whose interplay with our senses of perception make us see physical objects; which are not physical, at all!
Yes indeed - when I first came across BK I was thrilled that he was giving very good scientific ( and philosophical) arguments for the aeons old philosophy of Advaita Vedanta . Of course there is much in quantum physics - particularly that the observer and the observer are intimately connected - that does the same . E=🕉️
I’ve listened to a lot of interviews with BK and he really pops here. But there are a few hints that it was recorded a few years ago. Would love to know when.
If life can be compared to a dream, then why do I (as the subject) always only experience life through 'my' body-mind, an never through 'other' body minds (the ones appearing in 'my life-dream')?
You’ve may have heard of Sadhguru, Jaggi Vasudev. His talks are always very funny as well as full of insight. He states that he gets his jokes telepathically from the minds of passengers he may be travelling with. He is not a teacher of any spiritual school but is perhaps closest to Vedanta. Ancient Vedanta is saying essentially what Bernardo is saying here about “reality” .. there is only consciousness.
If you are interested then you might wish to look at the videos of Michael James on RUclips. He is an expert on Advaita Vedanta generally and the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi in particular . His most recent video ' in discussion with Sandra ' covers the very subject you are querying - solipsism Vs Idealism etc. Best wishes 🙏🕉️
@@michaeldillon3113 Hola, thanks a lot, I listened to ruclips.net/video/sdce7djsRpc/видео.html at 1:05:30 he says that other "I's" experience is just as real as 'my' experience.That's what I am intuitively sure about as well. But why is there always only the same body-mind appearing here, which makes this observation? Nobody ever could explain that...
❤Matter is mind in form is also said by Sydney Banks in the 70's. He didn't want much to be recorded as he didn't want to be perceived as any kind of leader, but there are some here on YT.
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). ruclips.net/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/видео.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
What if it’s the opposite? What if there are veritable limits to consciousness and it is actually consciousness that cannot fully comprehend physical existence and falls on its own face all the time?
@@therealfahadameen Im asking you to do this within your belief system. You seem to be entertaining the possibility that physicalism is valid. So as a physicalist, all I'm asking is for you to give me an example, within the physicalist framework, of evidence for purely physical stuff (with "physical" defined according to physicalism). In other words, describe to me, as a physicalist would see it, what you would consider evidence for something that is purely physical stuff, stuff that would exist in the absence of any consciousness whatsoever. (please keep in mind, I'm not asking for proof; merely for valid evidence of any kind - please note, I'm not disputing your point or trying to prove anything about idealism. I strongly disagree with almost everything Bernardo says about it, and I'm definitely not a believer in idealist philosophy, so please don't let any of your preconceptions get in the way of answering this simple question) I don't really see why this should be difficult. At least 95% of neuroscientists believed the universe sailed along quite easily for at least 9 billion years without any consciousness. The late Daniel Dennett believed there never has been anything but purely physical stuff. So you would be in the company of the vast majority of scientists. To conclude, from a physicalist point of view, what would you consider evidence for standalone, purely physical stuff?
@@leatui7 Well, like you nearly indicated, the evidence to the contrary is what is difficult to find. We don’t even really know what “consciousness” is or how to measure/describe it(?). Not that I am disapproving such ideas/experiences - in fact, I am in the journey of understanding it myself. What is “purely” physical? And how can a “consciousness” like me ever expect to comprehend what is truly “out there”? If you are familiar with the works of Anil Seth, could be interesting. Daniel Hoffman and the likes are a notch further postulating we are in a simulation. I did for a long time believe the universe is holographic myself. As such, my comment wasn’t so much as a physicalist but our inability to provide “conclusive evidence”. We are prone to solipsism. I do believe “physical’ and “conscious” are essentially singular when we break reality down to information or probability/quantum fields. All being said, if you take the unmeasured measurer as base, physicalism has done just fine in the last century in terms of describing reality. The world around us is perfectly (depending on measurer’s capacity) predictable and measurable, and we can intervene on it - starting from a gallbladder surgery to landing on the moon (or finding aliens).
According to Yogacara Buddhism (YB), our consciousness is a three-fold transformation of spaces and energy - rather than from the brains. Brains, our sense organs, all physical objects, including our ideas, sciences, and physical laws exist only in names which are illusion of the three-fold transformation. The first transformation is 8th Consciousness, followed by 7th Consciousness, and first 6 Consciousness. These are totally metaphysical. They show up in string theory which are M-theory, F-theory, and 5 superstrings. It's, on the above principle, worth mentioning that string theory can automatically produce entire general relativity (if Einstein has never been born) and all constants required by quantum mechanics (which take a lot of effort to calculate and measure) - as they are produced by the three-fold transformation. Also, we don't "see" with our physical eye organs but with something called "Visual Function of Eye Consciousness" (VFEC) as idealism, as there's nothing exist outside the Mind, hence the actual objects we see are "Image Function of Eye Consciousness" (IFEC). These are repeated for Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body (first 5) and even Mind (6th). Metaverse reality can help to understand. VFEC is like the 2D surface of the goggle the player is wearing where IFEC is like the LED dots on the goggle. That's why string theory naturally has branes (VFEC or the 2D surface of the goggle) and strings on the brane (IFEF or LED dots on the goggle). Exactly like in a metaverse, an apple which thought to exist in reality is an illusion. A metaverse player can never see an apple after taking down the goggle. That's why Yogacara Buddhism, true idealism, says nothing exist outside of consciousness. All the above (transformation and functiona) are through activation of Seeds which are strings in string theory. Seeds are stored in 8th Consciousness where M-theory has dualities to 5 superstrings. In YB, all our experiences are in one of 5 Fruits. 1. The first is Existential (phenomenally correlated to the reptilian brain) which is Type IIB in string theory. 2. The second is Cognition and Action (phenomenally correlated to the cortices) which is Type IIA in string theory. 3. Remember, nothing exists outside of consciousness, the third is called the Superior Fruit which is External (to the body and brain) and Interactions. For example, an apple, conversation, teaching, lesson, bodily movements. These show up as E8xE8 heterotic in string theory. 4. True idealism has to assume that consciousness is the most fundamental. If consciousness is the most fundamental, the number 1 law of the universe is then conservation of conscious actions. The fourth is Maturation which means all our conscious actions wether wholesome or unwholesome will get matured (by 8th Consciousness which has the maturation function). Then there's an endless cycle of birth and death. This is SO(32) heterotic in string theory. 5. Lastly, to get out of the cycles, it's the Fruit of Nirvana. This is Type I in string theory. The above are the reasons why there are 5 superstrings. As an idealistic based consciousness theory needs all the 5. Seeds are also called Dhatus which is an extension of Ayatana. Dhatus and Ayatana basically mean a space that we can't see. As all our experiences are transformation from Seeds, Seeds then need to contain all sorts of information. As Seeds are strings, then Dhatus / Ayatana is naturally the universal hologram. ruclips.net/video/SRIqb18cR_M/видео.html
Over the past few weeks, Bernardo has flipped me. As an electronics engineer, if you'd have told me five years ago I'd become an idealist I would have thought you a fool. Looks like I'm the fool...
The problem with materialism is that it posits one dimension only; the material or elemental. The reality is that there three dimensions: Consciousness (fundamental); Mind; (elemental emerging with quantum events); and the macro and micro quantum elements. This is what materialists have a hard time understanding. It is important it be understood and the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ be resolved before we head to the latest materialist ideology; trans humanism which could prove to be a worst mistake than communism.
But I understand why people disagree. But.... They are wrong. It's important not to play around with this stuff We should be firm about what we know to be true and we should be gracious with people who disagree
He must be talking about an ontological primitive. Nobody can explain the aspect of reality they take as ground floor. Physicalists and dualists say the same thing.
@@TJ-kk5zf Yep. Anybody who isn't willing to accept the notion that reality has no fundamental aspect.....they all must posit an ontological primitive that wasn't caused by something else. It's so telling when somebody thinks that Bernardo is being silly when he specifies why he has chosen consciousness as his ontological primitive, as if he should then be able to explain what causes it...yikes.
Its time to look at what sent the amish into the feilds with horses not tractors. I like Bernardo, but everything seems to be the same but inverted . As far as a measure of humanistic materialism that leans into human dashboard bias hierarchy knowledge of( indirect & direct) lines of measure treating them the same dualism but lieing about yourself it just continues to ignore this and flip the dualism. Lol As if form and shape evolutionary horizon paradoxes on all scales are still a problem, the same problems of no homogenous galaxies, 3 degrees of motion/separation on all scales still fail. All your saying is that humanist orientation and direction inverted and everything is idealism or alive is the same differences. For 80 years classical American pragmatic christian self sacrificed generations just to be proven correct as it funded everyone to prove them wrong and exclude them from countless fields. .proper orientation and direction allowed millions of 3rd grade health class kids to predict code of life measure despite not being inverted and the dualistic Babylonian evolutionary primordial Darwin goo argued against it and teacher pressured to spit lyle argument against all things phenotypical. This comes from same source platogot his but far more literal and physically time & time again proven. This Newtonian peasants revolt separatist pilgrims puritan gonna find Jesus left over fingerprints in creation map it and improves the human condition can not be ignored! Pragmatism would call it literal miracle prophetic orientation and direction graced by God as he moves through at his own discretion. It's dualistic physically mystified minds Magicians that deflected eastern philosophy, not prayer logic conservative ortho and damn sure ain't European German cursed rationalism progressive interventionism. Every where you can see emerging pragmaticism and everyone trying to deflect away Or into the same Ole failed stuff under new modeling
Pluralism humanism for the so called greater good was handed the keys and hi jacking driving daggers through it. Well now here we the world has had tine to make hard adjustments just as these ancestors had to make so long ago and the great great grandkids help pay for new nations, new borders and time to dug up everything In the past. All Humam history is there for all to see yet still, this reluctance is there.
@@pinkifloyd7867 Yes its as simple as allowing naturally pragmatic energetic actors to emerge. To witness proper orientation and direction over and over and stop being so hard headed about it. The phenotypical explanatory power is constantly the dominant proof over and over .. Treating Matter as Devine allows time and money to be dictated as local systems that can be manipulated and evolved how powers that be see fit. I like Bernardo but he like most are going through a known history of circling back to Devine matter it's just the other side of the same coin. . Gets in the way while others re loop into finely tuned single cell origin of life ( space is bottleneck) Babylonian evolutionary primordial soup goo that lighting strikes. No, its just uh ,just uh , deductiveness Athens Atomized showers of building blocks of life from comits . No wait it's extreme whatsboutism of panspermia everywhere alive. No it's consciousness everywhere Mean while Lee Cronin and other bad actors looping back to darwins Babylonian matter is divine single cell but let's use abstract assembly Theory selection. All of these are the same conclusions same tricks and all avoid the most pragmatic common sense literally proven most successful explanatory power of all
@@TimG-lq1pe there are two kinds of entities: rules & consequences. The rules are prior, and the consequences of those rules are subsequent. Occam's razor favors models which reduce prior entities, while saying absolutely nothing about the amount of subsequent entities. If Occam's razor favored the reduction of subsequent entities, then the most parsimonious model of reality would be absolutely nothing at all, which we know is false, thus, this heuristic in selecting a model of reality is not even slightly convincing. However, when we consider Occam's razor to be advocating for reducing the amount of prior entities (rules a system follows), then the multiverse, which follows the rule "everything that can happen in a certain way, does happen in that specific way" is the most parsimonious model. Bernardo's only strategy against the Multiverse is the incredulous stare. But, he's directing his incredulous stare at the natural consequences of using (the true version of) Occam's razor as a heuristic.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilovunless you can conceptually reduce consciousness to physical parameters (which is incoherent), idealism is more parsimonious than physicalism no matter how you split it, multiverse or not
Different parts of the brain (eyes, ears, stomach, long term memory) encode information into mathematical structures which are transmitted by neurons to the brain stem. The brain stem decodes the mathematical structures into sensory experience using dedicated neural structures. When these structures are damaged, they result in conditions such as visual agnosia, where a person can only see in black-and-white, but can still remember what different colors are like, and pain asymbolia, a condition where people can still perceive pain but don't have actual suffering or an aversion to it. Now that we know a physical structure in the brain is responsible for decoding a mathematical structure into sense experience, all we have to do is map that physical structure in excruciating detail to find out how it works.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov think this is just a little bit silly as an argument. I know what he means by Occam's razor and I think everyone else does too. I don't think you're correct in how you're defining it. You're correct in saying that technically if he holds parsimony as an orientating heuristic, he should be a solipsist but that's not a serious point, you're being playful.
Yes, lots and lots of people think that something unconscious produces consciousness. The debates are about if those people have any actual theories or is it just an assumption based on other premises. It's fun to hear the different responses. Are you more inclined to say that mindless evolution created consciousness (implying there are some differences between consciousness as unconsciousness) or to say that some aspects of mindless evolution simply are conscious?
I can call myself a Bernardo follower. Since retirement and a life changing event four years ago I’ve been trying to understand what is going on with our very existence. I spent a couple years looking at panpsychism and it never resonated even though I kept trying to believe it. Then I discovered idealism through Bernardo and I knew instantly that this makes sense. I’ve listened to everything I can find with him and it keeps making more sense to me. Thank you Bernardo!
Geez, I'm another retired guy, a card carrying Analytic idealist. In fact, I'm writing an essay right now on it. I knew our generation would catch on to this first.
@@MichaelJones-ek3vx indeed brother!
If one can honestly step outside of personal bias, there is much depth to Idealism. Bernado has done a great job in such a short discussion to explain these depths. If you have ever watched people wearing color blind correcting glasses for the first time, you will see a new experience right there. Thank you for sharing. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
Kastrup examines metaphysics with exceptional clarity - rare to have a philosopher truly able to refute the prevailing paradigm with such rigour and precision. Always a feast for the mind listening to his eloquent and lucid defence of idealism ❤
I've followed Bernardo, Donald Hoffman, Iain Mcgilchrist, Michael Levin, Robert Sapolsky, Rupert Spira and Swami Sarvapriyananda for so long now. There is something fundamentally and intuitively resonant about the way these gentlemen describe the universe, our reality and the response it evokes from us...
I began watching Bernardo Kastrup in his work with Rupert Spira, and I did find his theory unsettling. This discussion helps me to understand his view better than ever before. Huge thanks!
Idealism has a deep intuitive truth to it. After following the logic step by stepit completely changed my worldview. It was dizzying, I felt the room fall away when it happened. It was a real epiphany.
This Podcast has brought out an angle of BK, that I never completely understood before; unity of his version of Idealism with Spirituality!
BK's contention that 'all Matter' is Mind at Large, manifesting in form; albeit Dissociated, is an understanding within Spirituality, that it is Consciousness (call it God if you so wish) that manifests as the numerous forms we see. That this dissociation looks like life, is but the icing on the cake. I further found his contention that all is mental; and most likely, is in the form of thoughts, quite in agreement with some sages (who also contend that what we see is ideas), whose interplay with our senses of perception make us see physical objects; which are not physical, at all!
Yes indeed - when I first came across BK I was thrilled that he was giving very good scientific ( and philosophical) arguments for the aeons old philosophy of Advaita Vedanta .
Of course there is much in quantum physics - particularly that the observer and the observer are intimately connected - that does the same .
E=🕉️
Enjoyed this, you're a good interviewer
I’ve listened to a lot of interviews with BK and he really pops here. But there are a few hints that it was recorded a few years ago. Would love to know when.
Materialism is literally stupid.
But it makes a capitalist economic view more profitable if everything is just matter and animals don’t feel.
This idea is as self-explanatory as the mind's eye sees the world.
If life can be compared to a dream, then why do I (as the subject) always only experience life through 'my' body-mind, an never through 'other' body minds (the ones appearing in 'my life-dream')?
But you are 😂
You’ve may have heard of Sadhguru, Jaggi Vasudev. His talks are always very funny as well as full of insight.
He states that he gets his jokes telepathically from the minds of passengers he may be travelling with.
He is not a teacher of any spiritual school but is perhaps closest to Vedanta. Ancient Vedanta is saying essentially what Bernardo is saying here about “reality” .. there is only consciousness.
@@seabud6408 this doesn't address my question at all unfortunately
If you are interested then you might wish to look at the videos of Michael James on RUclips. He is an expert on Advaita Vedanta generally and the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi in particular .
His most recent video ' in discussion with Sandra ' covers the very subject you are querying - solipsism Vs Idealism etc.
Best wishes 🙏🕉️
@@michaeldillon3113 Hola, thanks a lot, I listened to
ruclips.net/video/sdce7djsRpc/видео.html
at 1:05:30 he says that other "I's" experience is just as real as 'my' experience.That's what I am intuitively sure about as well.
But why is there always only the same body-mind appearing here, which makes this observation? Nobody ever could explain that...
This makes so much sense 👏
BK is on point as always. & it's NO exaggeration either, pathological narratives are afoot.
❤Matter is mind in form is also said by Sydney Banks in the 70's. He didn't want much to be recorded as he didn't want to be perceived as any kind of leader, but there are some here on YT.
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia).
ruclips.net/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/видео.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
The mind is all there is living itself as its reality. It's mental reality of the mind alone.
So universal Mind is unable to do what lower personal minds can?
What if it’s the opposite? What if there are veritable limits to consciousness and it is actually consciousness that cannot fully comprehend physical existence and falls on its own face all the time?
Is there any empirical evidence for the existence of purely physical stuff outside consciousness? What would evidence for such a thing even look like?
@@leatui7 how can there be “empirical” “evidence” if your postulate is “all is mind”? Neither the math nor the method would add up.
@@therealfahadameen Im asking you to do this within your belief system. You seem to be entertaining the possibility that physicalism is valid. So as a physicalist, all I'm asking is for you to give me an example, within the physicalist framework, of evidence for purely physical stuff (with "physical" defined according to physicalism).
In other words, describe to me, as a physicalist would see it, what you would consider evidence for something that is purely physical stuff, stuff that would exist in the absence of any consciousness whatsoever.
(please keep in mind, I'm not asking for proof; merely for valid evidence of any kind - please note, I'm not disputing your point or trying to prove anything about idealism. I strongly disagree with almost everything Bernardo says about it, and I'm definitely not a believer in idealist philosophy, so please don't let any of your preconceptions get in the way of answering this simple question)
I don't really see why this should be difficult. At least 95% of neuroscientists believed the universe sailed along quite easily for at least 9 billion years without any consciousness. The late Daniel Dennett believed there never has been anything but purely physical stuff. So you would be in the company of the vast majority of scientists.
To conclude, from a physicalist point of view, what would you consider evidence for standalone, purely physical stuff?
@@leatui7 Well, like you nearly indicated, the evidence to the contrary is what is difficult to find. We don’t even really know what “consciousness” is or how to measure/describe it(?). Not that I am disapproving such ideas/experiences - in fact, I am in the journey of understanding it myself. What is “purely” physical? And how can a “consciousness” like me ever expect to comprehend what is truly “out there”? If you are familiar with the works of Anil Seth, could be interesting. Daniel Hoffman and the likes are a notch further postulating we are in a simulation. I did for a long time believe the universe is holographic myself. As such, my comment wasn’t so much as a physicalist but our inability to provide “conclusive evidence”. We are prone to solipsism. I do believe “physical’ and “conscious” are essentially singular when we break reality down to information or probability/quantum fields.
All being said, if you take the unmeasured measurer as base, physicalism has done just fine in the last century in terms of describing reality. The world around us is perfectly (depending on measurer’s capacity) predictable and measurable, and we can intervene on it - starting from a gallbladder surgery to landing on the moon (or finding aliens).
@@leatui7 That’s quite incredible. I replied last night and find that RUclips has somehow not posted it. Coincidence?
According to Yogacara Buddhism (YB), our consciousness is a three-fold transformation of spaces and energy - rather than from the brains. Brains, our sense organs, all physical objects, including our ideas, sciences, and physical laws exist only in names which are illusion of the three-fold transformation.
The first transformation is 8th Consciousness, followed by 7th Consciousness, and first 6 Consciousness. These are totally metaphysical. They show up in string theory which are M-theory, F-theory, and 5 superstrings.
It's, on the above principle, worth mentioning that string theory can automatically produce entire general relativity (if Einstein has never been born) and all constants required by quantum mechanics (which take a lot of effort to calculate and measure) - as they are produced by the three-fold transformation.
Also, we don't "see" with our physical eye organs but with something called "Visual Function of Eye Consciousness" (VFEC) as idealism, as there's nothing exist outside the Mind, hence the actual objects we see are "Image Function of Eye Consciousness" (IFEC). These are repeated for Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body (first 5) and even Mind (6th). Metaverse reality can help to understand. VFEC is like the 2D surface of the goggle the player is wearing where IFEC is like the LED dots on the goggle. That's why string theory naturally has branes (VFEC or the 2D surface of the goggle) and strings on the brane (IFEF or LED dots on the goggle). Exactly like in a metaverse, an apple which thought to exist in reality is an illusion. A metaverse player can never see an apple after taking down the goggle. That's why Yogacara Buddhism, true idealism, says nothing exist outside of consciousness.
All the above (transformation and functiona) are through activation of Seeds which are strings in string theory. Seeds are stored in 8th Consciousness where M-theory has dualities to 5 superstrings. In YB, all our experiences are in one of 5 Fruits.
1. The first is Existential (phenomenally correlated to the reptilian brain) which is Type IIB in string theory.
2. The second is Cognition and Action (phenomenally correlated to the cortices) which is Type IIA in string theory.
3. Remember, nothing exists outside of consciousness, the third is called the Superior Fruit which is External (to the body and brain) and Interactions. For example, an apple, conversation, teaching, lesson, bodily movements. These show up as E8xE8 heterotic in string theory.
4. True idealism has to assume that consciousness is the most fundamental. If consciousness is the most fundamental, the number 1 law of the universe is then conservation of conscious actions. The fourth is Maturation which means all our conscious actions wether wholesome or unwholesome will get matured (by 8th Consciousness which has the maturation function). Then there's an endless cycle of birth and death. This is SO(32) heterotic in string theory.
5. Lastly, to get out of the cycles, it's the Fruit of Nirvana. This is Type I in string theory.
The above are the reasons why there are 5 superstrings. As an idealistic based consciousness theory needs all the 5.
Seeds are also called Dhatus which is an extension of Ayatana. Dhatus and Ayatana basically mean a space that we can't see. As all our experiences are transformation from Seeds, Seeds then need to contain all sorts of information. As Seeds are strings, then Dhatus / Ayatana is naturally the universal hologram.
ruclips.net/video/SRIqb18cR_M/видео.html
BK is the Galileo of Consciousness. E=🕉️
Over the past few weeks, Bernardo has flipped me. As an electronics engineer, if you'd have told me five years ago I'd become an idealist I would have thought you a fool. Looks like I'm the fool...
How nicely BK explains Advaita.. 👌
The problem with materialism is that it posits one dimension only; the material or elemental. The reality is that there three dimensions: Consciousness (fundamental); Mind; (elemental emerging with quantum events); and the macro and micro quantum elements. This is what materialists have a hard time understanding. It is important it be understood and the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ be resolved before we head to the latest materialist ideology; trans humanism which could prove to be a worst mistake than communism.
I'm no one special but i pay attention to these issues and ive not heard any successful oppositions to Bernardo's views.
what is consciousness again?
"I don't need to explain it". Not turtles all the way down. The cogito on steroids. Godel's incompleteness at the base.
" Lo...do not say either here nor there..."
Thanks for watching!
Ask open-end questions: “Why did you go for PhD?” Not: “Did you get PhD to go into academia?” Interviewer’s ego gets in the way of a good interview.
I think what bk is saying is obviously true.
But I understand why people disagree. But.... They are wrong. It's important not to play around with this stuff
We should be firm about what we know to be true and we should be gracious with people who disagree
"i do not need to explain it" B. Kastrup
He must be talking about an ontological primitive. Nobody can explain the aspect of reality they take as ground floor. Physicalists and dualists say the same thing.
religion too
@@TJ-kk5zf
Yep. Anybody who isn't willing to accept the notion that reality has no fundamental aspect.....they all must posit an ontological primitive that wasn't caused by something else. It's so telling when somebody thinks that Bernardo is being silly when he specifies why he has chosen consciousness as his ontological primitive, as if he should then be able to explain what causes it...yikes.
@@rooruffneck no fundamental aspect? explain how you come to that (pretty stupid and illogical) (non) conclusion
@@TJ-kk5zf
No, I'm saying reality does have a fundamental aspect.
Consciousness is formless, materialism is form.How can form know formless..you only dreaming with the dregree only.
Its time to look at what sent the amish into the feilds with horses not tractors.
I like Bernardo, but everything seems to be the same but inverted . As far as a measure of humanistic materialism that leans into human dashboard bias hierarchy knowledge of( indirect & direct) lines of measure treating them the same dualism but lieing about yourself it just continues to ignore this and flip the dualism. Lol
As if form and shape evolutionary horizon paradoxes on all scales are still a problem, the same problems of no homogenous galaxies, 3 degrees of motion/separation on all scales still fail.
All your saying is that humanist orientation and direction inverted and everything is idealism or alive is the same differences.
For 80 years classical American pragmatic christian self sacrificed generations just to be proven correct as it funded everyone to prove them wrong and exclude them from countless fields.
.proper orientation and direction allowed millions of 3rd grade health class kids to predict code of life measure despite not being inverted and the dualistic Babylonian evolutionary primordial Darwin goo argued against it and teacher pressured to spit lyle argument against all things phenotypical.
This comes from same source platogot his but far more literal and physically time & time again proven.
This Newtonian peasants revolt separatist pilgrims puritan gonna find Jesus left over fingerprints in creation map it and improves the human condition can not be ignored!
Pragmatism would call it literal miracle prophetic orientation and direction graced by God as he moves through at his own discretion.
It's dualistic physically mystified minds Magicians that deflected eastern philosophy, not prayer logic conservative ortho and damn sure ain't European German cursed rationalism progressive interventionism.
Every where you can see emerging pragmaticism and everyone trying to deflect away Or into the same Ole failed stuff under new modeling
Pluralism humanism for the so called greater good was handed the keys and hi jacking driving daggers through it.
Well now here we the world has had tine to make hard adjustments just as these ancestors had to make so long ago and the great great grandkids help pay for new nations, new borders and time to dug up everything In the past. All
Humam history is there for all to see yet still, this reluctance is there.
And itts so simple 🤣
@@pinkifloyd7867 Yes its as simple as allowing naturally pragmatic energetic actors to emerge.
To witness proper orientation and direction over and over and stop being so hard headed about it.
The phenotypical explanatory power is constantly the dominant proof over and over ..
Treating Matter as Devine allows time and money to be dictated as local systems that can be manipulated and evolved how powers that be see fit.
I like Bernardo but he like most are going through a known history of circling back to Devine matter it's just the other side of the same coin. .
Gets in the way while others re loop into finely tuned single cell origin of life ( space is bottleneck) Babylonian evolutionary primordial soup goo that lighting strikes.
No, its just uh ,just uh , deductiveness Athens Atomized showers of building blocks of life from comits .
No wait it's extreme whatsboutism of panspermia everywhere alive.
No it's consciousness everywhere
Mean while Lee Cronin and other bad actors looping back to darwins Babylonian matter is divine single cell but let's use abstract assembly Theory selection.
All of these are the same conclusions same tricks and all avoid the most pragmatic common sense literally proven most successful explanatory power of all
bernardo doesn't understand occams razor
Explain more
@@TimG-lq1pe there are two kinds of entities: rules & consequences. The rules are prior, and the consequences of those rules are subsequent. Occam's razor favors models which reduce prior entities, while saying absolutely nothing about the amount of subsequent entities. If Occam's razor favored the reduction of subsequent entities, then the most parsimonious model of reality would be absolutely nothing at all, which we know is false, thus, this heuristic in selecting a model of reality is not even slightly convincing. However, when we consider Occam's razor to be advocating for reducing the amount of prior entities (rules a system follows), then the multiverse, which follows the rule "everything that can happen in a certain way, does happen in that specific way" is the most parsimonious model. Bernardo's only strategy against the Multiverse is the incredulous stare. But, he's directing his incredulous stare at the natural consequences of using (the true version of) Occam's razor as a heuristic.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilovunless you can conceptually reduce consciousness to physical parameters (which is incoherent), idealism is more parsimonious than physicalism no matter how you split it, multiverse or not
Different parts of the brain (eyes, ears, stomach, long term memory) encode information into mathematical structures which are transmitted by neurons to the brain stem. The brain stem decodes the mathematical structures into sensory experience using dedicated neural structures. When these structures are damaged, they result in conditions such as visual agnosia, where a person can only see in black-and-white, but can still remember what different colors are like, and pain asymbolia, a condition where people can still perceive pain but don't have actual suffering or an aversion to it. Now that we know a physical structure in the brain is responsible for decoding a mathematical structure into sense experience, all we have to do is map that physical structure in excruciating detail to find out how it works.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov think this is just a little bit silly as an argument.
I know what he means by Occam's razor and I think everyone else does too. I don't think you're correct in how you're defining it.
You're correct in saying that technically if he holds parsimony as an orientating heuristic, he should be a solipsist but that's not a serious point, you're being playful.
I disagree. I think consciousness came from mindless evolution
how... and why?
Yes, lots and lots of people think that something unconscious produces consciousness. The debates are about if those people have any actual theories or is it just an assumption based on other premises. It's fun to hear the different responses.
Are you more inclined to say that mindless evolution created consciousness (implying there are some differences between consciousness as unconsciousness) or to say that some aspects of mindless evolution simply are conscious?
@rooruffneck "evolution created." Son do you see the contradiction in that? How does something mindless have volition?
@@TJ-kk5zf "have volition." My child, do you see the question you are begging there?
That's mindless