@@5piles consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years is consciousness of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
This was among the top very best discussions I've ever watched on YT, period. As an ex-theoretical physicist who shifted to philosophy of science and mind, I absolutely loved this talk, thanks!
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION (PHYSICS Vs METAPHYSICS): The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, via the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”. The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or to unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter. The NATURAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty. Both the mind and the intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self (or pseudo-ego), even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain, and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology, in accordance with scientific principles. See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above. It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you “Do you exist?”, you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be truly absurd! All that can be said or known about the world, is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject-object dichotomy is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic. So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but he/she is simply interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Obviously, our inner cognitive states cannot mirror the external world, but are encoded, inferential representations thereof. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Cf. The thought experiment, “Schrödinger’s cat”, and Plato’s cave allegory. Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely. As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is rather imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West. As Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, cognitive and physical scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming the Homo sapiens species will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race, but for it to be acted upon. That is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism. So, just as the PHYSICAL scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “It” is conscious, of a steady state (that is, imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga. When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he or she is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that natural phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20). To put it succinctly, religion means to simply understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Unending-Conscious-Being. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that the subject-object duality is illusory (in the sense that it is temporary), and lives one’s life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence and in adherence with his or her unique societal duties, known as “dharma” in the Saṃskṛtam language of ancient India, or as “dhamma” in the Pāli cognate), one is said to “achieve yoga”. The third section of Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully-enlightened religious practitioner (or to be more precise, a religious “attainer”, to coin a new term). An even more succinct distinction between the seemingly-disparate fields of science and religion is that physics is concerned with the objects of perception (either gross or subtle objects), whilst metaphysics deals with the subject of those objects, particularly with the primeval Subject. That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this Holy Scripture. Of course, that does not imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one’s local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi. Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace in the physics community. Cont...
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century: S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). Alternatively, and more parsimoniously (as well as somewhat more elegantly) expressed as: E = A͚ (Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06. Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are extremely hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, assuming one understands what constitutes ACTUAL religion. In fact, the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the Royal Science and the King of Confidential Knowledge. In summary, actual science and actual religion are hypostatically IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of physics (observable phenomena), whilst the other deals with metaphysics (particularly with the subject, that is, the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. Whilst physicists are searching for Ultimate Reality in the subatomic field and without the limits of our universe, mystics are looking within themselves. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to transpersonal psychotherapy, combined with verifiable metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter (apart from the so-called “humanities”). Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication. To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion/dharma (that is, accurate metaphysics), scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism, whereas without objective scientific evidence (that is, accurate physics), religion and spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism. “Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness; just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.” ************* “Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’). This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you. With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited. Because the happiness that is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature. However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken? You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again. What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.” Rupert Spira, English Spiritual Teacher. “Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.” ************* “In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.” ************* “Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.” ************* “Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.” From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, David Joseph Bohm, American Theoretical Physicist.
@@ideacastilluminate It was a pleasure to watch, so looking forward to part 2! I cracked up in laughter at 18:12, when BK says "I promise this is my last question" and you get overwhelmed with terror "NO PLEASE KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING" XD genuine curiosity on your part, and you knew that was _exactly_ the content your audience wanted. Laughed so hard! I appreciated very much that you stayed a bit on the background and let these 2 gentleman go at it, but you seem like a cool knowledgeable dude too, looking forward to more insights from you as well next time.
@@namero999 Exactly, the last thing I wanted to do was get in the way or kill the momentum of this exchange. I am looking forward to part two as well. Thanks again for watching and commenting!
OMG this was so amazing. They were both so enthused and motivated to share ideas and collaborate. Your intuition to not structure this with more questions was so appropriate! Thanks to you all. 👍❤
Sir Bernardo, I have been trying to understand you for years. For some reason, your introductory explanation clicked today... it's weird, but my depression just evaporated.
@@neftysturd Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my RUclips accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
To see these two minds interact and explore each others work without defensiveness and with humility is an incomparable gift to humanity. These curious minds, remind us that enquiry and freedom to question and share knowledge is the path to enlightenment, just at a time when darkness, by suppression, threatens to engulf all.
I have been hoping to see and hear this exact conversation for at least a year. It did not disappoint. Thank you so much for stepping back and allowing these two great minds to play without interruption. Looking forward to the next one!
Six months ago I happened to ask Chatgpt how Bernardo Kastrup's philosophy reflected Michael Levin's research. Now both are really talking, I really enjoyed it, can't wait for part 2.
I think these youtube series could really inspire and enlighten young ppl/students, and we'll see scientific progress & understanding skyrocket over the next few decades
We are the caterpillar, and we are the butterfly as we awaken to understanding who we truly are. We’re part of a big network of intelligence and it’s beautiful the new perspective makes everything different. Thank you Michael.
I've been kicking around the idea that there are many smaller consciousnesses within us that "live their own lives in their own little worlds" - different environments, senses, and effectors. Even different goals and rewards - they might have "full and rewarding" lives of their own but under a completely different set of "rules". I was surprised that Dr. Levin is poking in that area too, at least indirectly and speculatively. This was great!
Seems though they are all guided towards a greater goal, as its some form of bioelectric field that guides the cells to grow in a specific direction to form a specific organ, and when the parameters aren't set quite right, the cells will finish the job as best they can to make it function. So although it seems like they're their own beings, they are all working together to fulfill a much greater goal, the overall organism which then does as it wishes which seems to be feed/mate to continue the process of cellular reproduction. Its an odd system thats guided by electric fields, that are guided by existence itself
@@sacr3 Yep. There is definitely cooperation and some sort of "greater goal" but I wonder if the sub-systems are aware of them. Perhaps they go about selfishly but their environment and other agents guide them into unwitting cooperation. In a sense, if the other agents become predictable, they start to behave like "natural laws" of the environment - if I do this, that will happen - even though there might be a long chain of agents supposedly deciding things in between the action and the ultimate result.
Great interview, and I'd like to second the others who have pointed out that you did an excellent job leaving space for them to explore and guide their own conversation--sometimes an interviewer needs to lead and ask good questions, but other times it's all about leaving the right amount of room, and you nailed it here. Thanks!
Astounding conversation ❤ I would love to hear about the implications of bio electrical morphology on reproductive pathways. I also find it fascinating how Kastrup’s idealism with mind as primary substrate provides such a rational framework for new, emergent bio morphology
This was amazing, thank you! I was searching for the latest interview with Bernardo Kastrup and I was so excited to find this! You could tell that Bernardo could not contain his enthusiasm either 😄 Looking forward to part 2! And I would love to see Bernardo and Joscha Bach together 😃
As bad as Covid was and is. One positive side effect is the creation of the Zoom call. Which has made it so conversations like this happen and are made available to a greater audience. Thanks so much!
I think these guys really fit together well. They're coming at the thing from opposite ends to some extent, but I think they're both exploring the same unknown territory.
Amazing conversation - the sounds of a new paradigm stirring. At 28:07 Michael Levin describes the 2-headed genome as being indistinguishable from the "normal" genome. At 23:24 Bernardo Kastrup - "This shows that there is more to DNA than just a protein factory" & at 32:14 references to "compound beings" & "unitary zygote". Panpsychism enters the discussion. To this end, the topic of quantum contextuality might be especially relevant to DNA/life processes - references include Kochen & Specker (1967) & John Bell's theorem. DNA entanglement, anyone? Quantum contextuality is, mercifully, inconsistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation, & that's a good thing (ManyWorlds, Schrodinger's Cat are Copenhagen interpretations).
The wild speculation about memory, that Levin proposes near the end ~ @58:00 , relates to questions I have been grappling with intensely for the last 5 or 6 years. (Partly inspired by my first encounters with Levin's and Kastrup's work separately). One conclusion I draw is that "information" isn't ever stored. Information isn't a thing that can be stored. We fall into metaphors that aren't actually useful when we apply the concepts or containers, conduits, and substance to information. I'll go no further with that here, but instead propose a solution to Levin's query about the ability of headless planaria to navigate a maze after losing and regrowing neural tissue. The physical body, has a particular pattern (like an antenna or tuning fork or prism or violin body) which can specify the reconstructive waves within the holographic fields of the environment. No encoding, storage or decoding is necessary, (and this is good, because the encoding/decoding model is fraught with contradictions and problems). The decapitated planaria is missing a part of its physical structure which affords the specifications of the holographic fields. With a complete body, regrown, the planaria can again specify affordances like the maze it previously encountered and encounters again. There would be no way, even in theory, for us to prove that a memory of the maze was stored, based only on the behavior of the planaria completing the maze. We only observe that the maze has been or has not been completed. We can't draw out the motivations, impulses, or inspirations that drive the planaria to complete the math before or after decapitation. And again, we don't need to prove this model. The behavior (maze navigation, or resource foraging) of the planaria is a song that is dormant (as a potential) in the structure of the body, for the planaria to play each time it is inspired to do so by the patterns in the holographic fields of the environment. The inspiration might be explained as an encounter with a "relatively intense" resonance pattern. Yikes. I'll stop there. Any feedback on this runaway train of thought would be appreciated. Edit: I paused the conversation after Levin's query to share my thoughts. After which I continued the conversation to hear Bernardo's response. The questions raised by his curiosity toward "remembering" and "past and future states" fits in with the way I think about our experiences, and the experiences of caterpillars evolving into butterflies, and the experiences of planaria, decapitated planaria, and re-capitated planaria. I can not remember hearing Bernardo or Michael speak about this. If you do have them back for another conversation, I would love to hear them address this topic again. This was a wonderful and fresh conversation. Thank you sharing it with us.
Information processing is access and alteration of the "idea space"? This is an interesting theory, and it should be explored... It would explain quite a lot, perhaps answering the questions regarding the "creative intention" that seems to linger nowhere in sight. I hope indeed it gets onto Levin's radar! Thanks for your contribution.
Morphoenetic memory of R. Shaldrake or cerebroespinal fluid medium by M Zappaterra…+ HOLOFLUX by S.R. Joye in exploration of Pibram-Bohn and P.T. Di Chardin-> may have something to do with your point ?
@@ArchonExMachina it would be great if you could say more about what you mean by access and alteration, so that I can understand you're use of those terms. In general, I reserve all information processing to "idea space," or in my own systemizing, to subjectivity. I believe there are at least three necessary categorizations of information, 1) subjective, where there are differences that make a difference to an evolving contextual history 2) objective, which provide constraints to the projections that are reflected/refracted back to subjectivity, 3) abstractive, which are symbolic and syntactic representations that appear to/within subjectivity. The only place that information IS or is processed, is in subjectivity. I don't place any information out in the world to be accessed. There are no bits out there, there are no boundaries out there, there is no math or symbols out there. Thanks for responding to my first comment. I'm always seeking feedback and discussion. I appreciate your questions or comments.
@@koldourrutia oh yes definitely! Pribram and Bohm influenced my thinking and many aspects of my way of sorting things out would fit with their ideas. Sheldrakes ideas about resonance, habit, memory, and evolution have inspired me as well. I know less about the details of DeChardin's work, but what I do know, feels right, intuitively. I'd like to highlight that Bergson goes beyond all of the thinkers you've mentioned. His work is the gold standard in my opinion. Can you share more about zappaterra out joye? I'm not familiar with them. What aspect of their work resonates with what I've shared here? Are there resources I should look into? Obviously I have much more to say than my reckless and sloppy attempt in the comments section.
58:58: in Hinduism we called inner instrument (antah karan) ('ahankar, chitt,buddhi, manas(mann)) here chitt is the one like Brain (HDD) manager/controller who knows where does the stored information kept and it presents it to intellengence(Buddhi) when Buddhi needs to learn/act using past experiences to take the decision for current situation that is presented as various options by Manas (mann) for the 'aham' ('I ' ), so after death, brain divulge all info into chitt and chitt carries it forward to new body's brain. That is the reason a person again try to fulfil his wishes that remained unfulfilled in last birth.
Sounds like the Chitt is integrated with the brain in the sense that it both stores data and transfers data from the old brain to the new brain for buddhi to use. It’s like a backup data store or proxy but it’s not located in the brain it self. Where is the chitt located? It’s not inside the brain because the chitt retains info long after the brain dies. Nobody in this podcast answered either. Bernardo tried to make a parting comment at the very end about memories acting as access pathways into “stateless” states like past, future etc..?? but then the interview just ended without anyone sharing anything else. 🤷♀️ If memory is just metadata (data about past data or a snapshot of events in time) then it has a location somewhere in the chitt aka the Cloud 😭 More on Antah Karan please? 🙏
I think he would agree. I would as well. The use of "part" is a necessary fiction that is part of the dualistic poly-canon that helps (helped) in sense making and communication or illocution.
In conversation like this diseases like cancer are put in other perspective and have the potential of getting cured. Thx for making the connection between these cutting edge dissociated viewpoints within mind at large.
This discussion reminded me of the chapter on the science of life in The Matter with Things by Iain McGilchrist, in which individual cells are reported to evince an apparent awareness of the organism by conducting their function to support the goals of the organism, but without having to be directed from a central location by electrical or chemical means.
It's good that you mention this. I asked him to hang around after Mike left and we recorded another conversation covering the Maudlin incident among other things. I should upload that today or tomorrow. Thanks for watching.
Amazing talk! It seems like Bernardo is more interested in defending his pet TOE "analytic idealism" and distinguishing it from other schools of panpsychism than exploring the implications of Levin's work. I love how Levin is agreeable (I've never heard him fully disagree with anyone) while remaining agnostic to overarching theories of consciousness. I don't think there is any justification to be dogmatic or being stuck in a hole with your idiosyncratic theory when it comes to panpsychism. Levin's work will actually provide evidence into what direction we should go. He doesn't have to pick a side. I've read a few of Bernardo's books but have moved away from that kind of thinking in favor of Michael Levin, Chris Fields, active inference, complexity science, quantum information theory etc. Endlessly debating one's specific path to "everything is mind" has gotten stale in the light of Levin's utterly tantalizing work. Thank you for hosting this!
What I think is strange is the fact that it seems that does not exist a scientific program with projects for probing the interface between our perception (the dashboard metaphor) and the substrate where metabolism presents itself to our perception.
These guys need to talk with Stephan Wolfram about his computational models - hypergraphs - simple rules leading to unexpected and complex outcomes. There seems to be lots of commonality.
Amazing conversation, thanks! I can't but wonder why we would need to stick to either unificative panpsychism or dissociative idealism, why not these are just the fundamental operations of how consciousness works, flowing in and out of bodies, getting together to unify and breaking up to go on their own ways? I'd love Matt Segall added to this conversation three-way.
Hey, tip for the podcast: Please include some of the most profound or interesting ideas discussed in the video in your thumbnail or title. A catchy clickbait is not a crime, but a useful tactic for visibility. I am interested personally in these kinds of topics in particular, as in this video. Browsing your other videos, I'm sorry but I don't have any idea what they discuss, as I am not familiar with the people by name.
Bernardo and I had another conversation right after this one and Friston comes up, stay tuned. I think Michael is informed by Friston's work as well. Thanks for watching!
unreal to see these two together 🌞
Amazing. We need a whole series with these two. The meeting is so ripe with potential it almost hurts
I agree! Thanks for watching.
neither can rigorously observe consciousness so nothing testable or nonmetaphysical will take place.
they might as well be talking about physicalism.
@@5piles
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years is consciousness of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
@@5pilesyour ideas are welcome here.
Humanity has hope as a result of this happening.
This was among the top very best discussions I've ever watched on YT, period. As an ex-theoretical physicist who shifted to philosophy of science and mind, I absolutely loved this talk, thanks!
Thanks so much for watching. I'll try to make sure there's a part two.
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION (PHYSICS Vs METAPHYSICS):
The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, via the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”.
The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or to unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter.
The NATURAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty.
Both the mind and the intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self (or pseudo-ego), even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain, and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology, in accordance with scientific principles.
See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above.
It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” that precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone was to ask you “Do you exist?”, you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be truly absurd!
All that can be said or known about the world, is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject-object dichotomy is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic.
So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not seeing the tree in any isomorphic sense, but he/she is simply interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Obviously, our inner cognitive states cannot mirror the external world, but are encoded, inferential representations thereof. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Cf. The thought experiment, “Schrödinger’s cat”, and Plato’s cave allegory.
Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way that promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those that are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely.
As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is rather imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“Brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness (except “[The] Monad”) due to monism being a relatively esoteric concept in the West.
As Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, cognitive and physical scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming the Homo sapiens species will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race, but for it to be acted upon. That is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism.
So, just as the PHYSICAL scientific method is based on hypothesis, observation, and repeatable experimentation, so too is METAPHYSICAL science. The hypothesis for supernatural science is as follows: that there is an eternal ground of all being, and that “It” is conscious, of a steady state (that is, imperturbable peace), and that everything tangible and intangible is inherently of its nature. In the case of mysticism, the repeatable experiment is known as “religion” (“yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of religion/yoga.
When a sincere and suitably-qualified aspirant CORRECTLY practices the scientific process of “yoga”, under the guidance of an authoritative pedagogue, he or she is assured of realizing the fact of the unity of the totality of existence, and achieving union with that Divine Principle, just as every enlightened sage has done for millennia. The symptoms of a person who has achieved union with the Supreme can very easily be confirmed by an accomplished yogi, in the same way that natural phenomena can be verified by a trained physicist (cf. Chapters 16 and 20).
To put it succinctly, religion means to simply understand and realize that the fundamental nature of Reality is One Unending-Conscious-Being. In other words, when one knows for CERTAIN that the subject-object duality is illusory (in the sense that it is temporary), and lives one’s life in harmony with that realization (by living a life of non-violence and in adherence with his or her unique societal duties, known as “dharma” in the Saṃskṛtam language of ancient India, or as “dhamma” in the Pāli cognate), one is said to “achieve yoga”. The third section of Chapter 17 summarizes the symptoms of a fully-enlightened religious practitioner (or to be more precise, a religious “attainer”, to coin a new term).
An even more succinct distinction between the seemingly-disparate fields of science and religion is that physics is concerned with the objects of perception (either gross or subtle objects), whilst metaphysics deals with the subject of those objects, particularly with the primeval Subject.
That realization usually (but not always) comes about via the practice of the SCIENTIFIC process of religion described in Chapter 16 of this Holy Scripture. Of course, that does not imply that a each and every yogi is a perfected saint. Just as each physicist can be ranked according to his particular knowledge of physics, so too, each religionist falls somewhere in a spectrum of realization and understanding. Unfortunately, an authentic yogi is extremely rare, so one should be careful to not compare one’s local (so-called) monk/preacher/priest/rabbi to a true yogi.
Some of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, including Neils Henrik David Bohr and John Stewart Bell, have hypothesized that quantum particles, such as photons, have no precise location in space (quantum nonlocality) until they are PERSONALLY observed. This phenomenon was later demonstrated to be a scientific fact. Whether this should be regarded as proving that the physical world itself is “nonlocal” is a point of contention, but the terminology of “quantum nonlocality” is nowadays commonplace in the physics community.
Cont...
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century:
S+O = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
Alternatively, and more parsimoniously (as well as somewhat more elegantly) expressed as:
E = A͚ (Everything, including all potential and actual objects, plus The Subject, is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06.
Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are extremely hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, assuming one understands what constitutes ACTUAL religion. In fact, the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the Royal Science and the King of Confidential Knowledge.
In summary, actual science and actual religion are hypostatically IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of physics (observable phenomena), whilst the other deals with metaphysics (particularly with the subject, that is, the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. Whilst physicists are searching for Ultimate Reality in the subatomic field and without the limits of our universe, mystics are looking within themselves. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to transpersonal psychotherapy, combined with verifiable metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter (apart from the so-called “humanities”). Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication.
To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion/dharma (that is, accurate metaphysics), scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism, whereas without objective scientific evidence (that is, accurate physics), religion and spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism.
“Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness;
just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.”
*************
“Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’).
This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you.
With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited.
Because the happiness that is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature.
However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken?
You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again.
What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.”
Rupert Spira, English Spiritual Teacher.
“Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.”
*************
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.”
*************
“Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.”
*************
“Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.”
From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”,
David Joseph Bohm, American Theoretical Physicist.
Please
Literally the conversation I've been the most hyped about. Thanks for making this happen.
Thanks so much for watching!
@@ideacastilluminate It was a pleasure to watch, so looking forward to part 2!
I cracked up in laughter at 18:12, when BK says "I promise this is my last question" and you get overwhelmed with terror "NO PLEASE KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING" XD genuine curiosity on your part, and you knew that was _exactly_ the content your audience wanted. Laughed so hard!
I appreciated very much that you stayed a bit on the background and let these 2 gentleman go at it, but you seem like a cool knowledgeable dude too, looking forward to more insights from you as well next time.
@@namero999 Exactly, the last thing I wanted to do was get in the way or kill the momentum of this exchange. I am looking forward to part two as well. Thanks again for watching and commenting!
Two of my hero’s come together
Hallelujah
OMG this was so amazing. They were both so enthused and motivated to share ideas and collaborate. Your intuition to not structure this with more questions was so appropriate! Thanks to you all. 👍❤
Thanks for watching Gloria!
Agree
Sir Bernardo, I have been trying to understand you for years. For some reason, your introductory explanation clicked today... it's weird, but my depression just evaporated.
Same here.
So is he a miracle healer and not a philosopher?
@@Thomas-gk42 Lol, no that had little to do with him... I think grasping the theory gave me a sense of existential relief, somehow.
@@neftysturdthank you, I really don´t like that guy, and his statements don´t fit with me. But it´s ok of course, if it´s good for you.☺
@@neftysturd
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my RUclips accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
Great interviewer! Not to many podcasters would have the confidence and wisdom to let these two talk as he did.
Yes!!
It's heartwarming seeing Kastrup looking up to a fellow scientist the way he does Levin
What a treat. I hope they become good friends, they are 2 of my favourite people to listen to.
Amen! Here's to collaboration between them.
To see these two minds interact and explore each others work without defensiveness and with humility is an incomparable gift to humanity. These curious minds, remind us that enquiry and freedom to question and share knowledge is the path to enlightenment, just at a time when darkness, by suppression, threatens to engulf all.
Great "interview"!! So valuable letting Bernardo and Michael converse freely for "our" benefit. TY!
I didn't dare get in their way! Thanks for watching.
Engagements like these have become mainstream & people derive fascination, inspiration, education, coherence… Fantastic for both individuals & society
This is brilliant. Thank you to whoever made this happen. Love both of their work.
Thanks for watching!
One of the best conversations on how idealism can be used to help explain biogenesis. Loved it. Thanks guys.
I have been hoping to see and hear this exact conversation for at least a year. It did not disappoint. Thank you so much for stepping back and allowing these two great minds to play without interruption. Looking forward to the next one!
Thanks for watching!
My gosh, that last bombshell Bernardo dropped was so incredibly profound. I really hope they make that the subject of the next talk. Looking forward.
Wow wow wow….
Thank you so much for bringing these two fine minds together. I pray there will be more of their interactions with you to come.
I hope to have them back in a few weeks, stay tuned and thanks for watching!
Six months ago I happened to ask Chatgpt how Bernardo Kastrup's philosophy reflected Michael Levin's research. Now both are really talking, I really enjoyed it, can't wait for part 2.
This is one of the most mind blowing interviews I've seen for a while
I think these youtube series could really inspire and enlighten young ppl/students, and we'll see scientific progress & understanding skyrocket over the next few decades
Fascinating to hear these two talk and thanks to Justin for making it possible. I hope the conversation will be ongoing.
Thanks Gareth! Here's at least one more conversation.
Great convo, these 2 are fantastic. Thanks, and also thanks to RUclips for the recommendation.
Glad you found the conversation!
Omg a total grand slam. Ive watched this a few times now. You cant just watch it once! 🔥❤️
My mind is beyond blown by this conversation. It makes reconsider dna 🧬 and what life is all together.
My goodness 😬
We are the caterpillar, and we are the butterfly as we awaken to understanding who we truly are. We’re part of a big network of intelligence and it’s beautiful the new perspective makes everything different. Thank you Michael.
I've been waiting a long time for these two to finally have a dialogue. Thank you for finally making it happen!
Thanks for watching!
This was BRILLIANT! Thanks to everyone!
Thanks for watching!
Never seen beloved Brilliant BK so thrilled to speak with genius ML. Bravo both
Well done and thanks for bringing this pair together. Facinating.
Thanks for watching!
One of the most fascinating and inspiring discussions I have ever heard 💯💎
Thanks for watching!
What an awesome pairing of guests. Love listening to these two brilliant and modest men speak about such a fascinating subject. Thanks!
Thanks for watching Lee!
I've been waiting for this and the outcome exceeded my expectations. I hope for another round and more new insights.
Thank you so much for watching and stay tuned for part two.
Superb! Can't wait!
Absolutely cannot wait for part 2!! Bravo! 🎉
I've been kicking around the idea that there are many smaller consciousnesses within us that "live their own lives in their own little worlds" - different environments, senses, and effectors. Even different goals and rewards - they might have "full and rewarding" lives of their own but under a completely different set of "rules". I was surprised that Dr. Levin is poking in that area too, at least indirectly and speculatively. This was great!
Seems though they are all guided towards a greater goal, as its some form of bioelectric field that guides the cells to grow in a specific direction to form a specific organ, and when the parameters aren't set quite right, the cells will finish the job as best they can to make it function.
So although it seems like they're their own beings, they are all working together to fulfill a much greater goal, the overall organism which then does as it wishes which seems to be feed/mate to continue the process of cellular reproduction.
Its an odd system thats guided by electric fields, that are guided by existence itself
@@sacr3 Yep. There is definitely cooperation and some sort of "greater goal" but I wonder if the sub-systems are aware of them. Perhaps they go about selfishly but their environment and other agents guide them into unwitting cooperation. In a sense, if the other agents become predictable, they start to behave like "natural laws" of the environment - if I do this, that will happen - even though there might be a long chain of agents supposedly deciding things in between the action and the ultimate result.
Beyond fascinating. Much gratitude to you, Bernado and Michael.
Thank you so much for watching!
Amazing conversation ! Thank you!
Thank you very much for watching!
I definitely would love a part 2! 🤙🔥
Brilliant!! Thanks for getting these two great minds together! Looking forward to round 2!!!
Thank you very much for watching and here's to a part two!
Incredible thank you for hosting this conversation.
Thanks for watching.
Great interview, and I'd like to second the others who have pointed out that you did an excellent job leaving space for them to explore and guide their own conversation--sometimes an interviewer needs to lead and ask good questions, but other times it's all about leaving the right amount of room, and you nailed it here. Thanks!
Thanks so much Alex, I'm glad you liked the interview.
Astounding conversation ❤ I would love to hear about the implications of bio electrical morphology on reproductive pathways. I also find it fascinating how Kastrup’s idealism with mind as primary substrate provides such a rational framework for new, emergent bio morphology
I have literally been waiting to hear a conversation between these two titans.
I am glad it came together, thanks for watching!
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed;)
Alchemical gold!
Literally my two favourite thinkers in one conversation !!
Thanks for putting this together. Looking forward to the next convo. Please make sure the topic including AGI, Intelligence, the self and God.
Thanks Amidu, I will be sure to ask them to cover those matters.
This was amazing, thank you! I was searching for the latest interview with Bernardo Kastrup and I was so excited to find this! You could tell that Bernardo could not contain his enthusiasm either 😄 Looking forward to part 2! And I would love to see Bernardo and Joscha Bach together 😃
Thanks Heleen!
59:25 hehehe, “not to get too weird “ , that horse already left the stable! Great talk, really enjoyed, thank you so much!
Thanks for watching!
As bad as Covid was and is. One positive side effect is the creation of the Zoom call. Which has made it so conversations like this happen and are made available to a greater audience. Thanks so much!
I agree, thanks for watching!
Wow, brilliant and so hopeful to opening our minds.
Just awesome🙏 Waiting for session #2
Part 2 so looking forward to hearing more
Earned my subscription, getting to the split brain problem and Michael's moment of a conscious observer appearing only 8 min in is amazing
Thanks for subscribing and commenting!
Thanks for getting these two together
Thanks for watching!
I think these guys really fit together well. They're coming at the thing from opposite ends to some extent, but I think they're both exploring the same unknown territory.
Great -two together - look forward to part 2
Thank you very much to share you ideas openly!
Thanks for bringing this to us 👊
Thank you very much for watching!
Amazing conversation - the sounds of a new paradigm stirring. At 28:07 Michael Levin describes the 2-headed genome as being indistinguishable from the "normal" genome. At 23:24 Bernardo Kastrup - "This shows that there is more to DNA than just a protein factory" & at 32:14 references to "compound beings" & "unitary zygote". Panpsychism enters the discussion. To this end, the topic of quantum contextuality might be especially relevant to DNA/life processes - references include Kochen & Specker (1967) & John Bell's theorem. DNA entanglement, anyone? Quantum contextuality is, mercifully, inconsistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation, & that's a good thing (ManyWorlds, Schrodinger's Cat are Copenhagen interpretations).
Thank you 🙏🏾
how does this not have 1 mln views?!
two of my heroes. fantastic discussion!
Thanks for watching!
That really was mind expanding. Thanks.
Thanks for watching!
The wild speculation about memory, that Levin proposes near the end ~ @58:00 , relates to questions I have been grappling with intensely for the last 5 or 6 years. (Partly inspired by my first encounters with Levin's and Kastrup's work separately). One conclusion I draw is that "information" isn't ever stored. Information isn't a thing that can be stored. We fall into metaphors that aren't actually useful when we apply the concepts or containers, conduits, and substance to information. I'll go no further with that here, but instead propose a solution to Levin's query about the ability of headless planaria to navigate a maze after losing and regrowing neural tissue. The physical body, has a particular pattern (like an antenna or tuning fork or prism or violin body) which can specify the reconstructive waves within the holographic fields of the environment. No encoding, storage or decoding is necessary, (and this is good, because the encoding/decoding model is fraught with contradictions and problems). The decapitated planaria is missing a part of its physical structure which affords the specifications of the holographic fields. With a complete body, regrown, the planaria can again specify affordances like the maze it previously encountered and encounters again. There would be no way, even in theory, for us to prove that a memory of the maze was stored, based only on the behavior of the planaria completing the maze. We only observe that the maze has been or has not been completed. We can't draw out the motivations, impulses, or inspirations that drive the planaria to complete the math before or after decapitation. And again, we don't need to prove this model. The behavior (maze navigation, or resource foraging) of the planaria is a song that is dormant (as a potential) in the structure of the body, for the planaria to play each time it is inspired to do so by the patterns in the holographic fields of the environment. The inspiration might be explained as an encounter with a "relatively intense" resonance pattern. Yikes. I'll stop there. Any feedback on this runaway train of thought would be appreciated.
Edit: I paused the conversation after Levin's query to share my thoughts. After which I continued the conversation to hear Bernardo's response. The questions raised by his curiosity toward "remembering" and "past and future states" fits in with the way I think about our experiences, and the experiences of caterpillars evolving into butterflies, and the experiences of planaria, decapitated planaria, and re-capitated planaria. I can not remember hearing Bernardo or Michael speak about this. If you do have them back for another conversation, I would love to hear them address this topic again. This was a wonderful and fresh conversation. Thank you sharing it with us.
Thanks for your comment. I will include your question in the next dialogue if I can, thanks!
Information processing is access and alteration of the "idea space"? This is an interesting theory, and it should be explored... It would explain quite a lot, perhaps answering the questions regarding the "creative intention" that seems to linger nowhere in sight. I hope indeed it gets onto Levin's radar! Thanks for your contribution.
Morphoenetic memory of R. Shaldrake or cerebroespinal fluid medium by M Zappaterra…+ HOLOFLUX by S.R. Joye in exploration of Pibram-Bohn and P.T. Di Chardin-> may have something to do with your point ?
@@ArchonExMachina it would be great if you could say more about what you mean by access and alteration, so that I can understand you're use of those terms. In general, I reserve all information processing to "idea space," or in my own systemizing, to subjectivity. I believe there are at least three necessary categorizations of information, 1) subjective, where there are differences that make a difference to an evolving contextual history 2) objective, which provide constraints to the projections that are reflected/refracted back to subjectivity, 3) abstractive, which are symbolic and syntactic representations that appear to/within subjectivity. The only place that information IS or is processed, is in subjectivity. I don't place any information out in the world to be accessed. There are no bits out there, there are no boundaries out there, there is no math or symbols out there.
Thanks for responding to my first comment. I'm always seeking feedback and discussion. I appreciate your questions or comments.
@@koldourrutia oh yes definitely! Pribram and Bohm influenced my thinking and many aspects of my way of sorting things out would fit with their ideas. Sheldrakes ideas about resonance, habit, memory, and evolution have inspired me as well. I know less about the details of DeChardin's work, but what I do know, feels right, intuitively. I'd like to highlight that Bergson goes beyond all of the thinkers you've mentioned. His work is the gold standard in my opinion.
Can you share more about zappaterra out joye? I'm not familiar with them. What aspect of their work resonates with what I've shared here? Are there resources I should look into? Obviously I have much more to say than my reckless and sloppy attempt in the comments section.
58:58: in Hinduism we called inner instrument (antah karan) ('ahankar, chitt,buddhi, manas(mann))
here chitt is the one like Brain (HDD) manager/controller who knows where does the stored information kept and it presents it to intellengence(Buddhi) when Buddhi needs to learn/act using past experiences to take the decision for current situation that is presented as various options by Manas (mann) for the 'aham' ('I ' ), so after death, brain divulge all info into chitt and chitt carries it forward to new body's brain. That is the reason a person again try to fulfil his wishes that remained unfulfilled in last birth.
Sounds like the Chitt is integrated with the brain in the sense that it both stores data and transfers data from the old brain to the new brain for buddhi to use. It’s like a backup data store or proxy but it’s not located in the brain it self. Where is the chitt located? It’s not inside the brain because the chitt retains info long after the brain dies. Nobody in this podcast answered either. Bernardo tried to make a parting comment at the very end about memories acting as access pathways into “stateless” states like past, future etc..?? but then the interview just ended without anyone sharing anything else. 🤷♀️ If memory is just metadata (data about past data or a snapshot of events in time) then it has a location somewhere in the chitt aka the Cloud 😭 More on Antah Karan please? 🙏
Such a great convo! Thanks 🙌
Thank you so much for watching!
Wonderful conversation!
So interesting. Thank you!
Thank you for watching!
Waiting forward to part 2. This was way to short! So interesting. 🤯
I agree, Michael is usually good for about an hour. Here's to part two and thanks for watching!
PERFECT MATCH UP.
Now we just need to see Levin talk with Vervaeke more
Agreed!
Absolutely loved this.. please do more :)
Will do, thanks for watching!
You are everything,not a "part" of everything,there is only everything ever.
I think he would agree. I would as well. The use of "part" is a necessary fiction that is part of the dualistic poly-canon that helps (helped) in sense making and communication or illocution.
great job on letting the two just talk, all too often i see hosts jump in when the flow is getting really good
Thanks!
thank you for this really inspiring piece
Thanks for watcing!
That was great! Thanks to all involved :)
Thanks for watching!
In conversation like this diseases like cancer are put in other perspective and have the potential of getting cured. Thx for making the connection between these cutting edge dissociated viewpoints within mind at large.
Thanks for watching!
This discussion reminded me of the chapter on the science of life in The Matter with Things by Iain McGilchrist, in which individual cells are reported to evince an apparent awareness of the organism by conducting their function to support the goals of the organism, but without having to be directed from a central location by electrical or chemical means.
This is Amazing!
Fascinating !
Fantastic!
Please, at 16:49 what does Dr. Levin is saying? ("...standard like we can make a *tple* and we...". Thank you very much, amazing conversation.
Really great discussion!
Thanks for watching!
this is like surfing the underlying awesomity. great insights.
This conversation has created many new synapses in my brain
Awesome ❤
Amazing Bernard didn't run away after calling the other guest stupid! Well done
It's good that you mention this. I asked him to hang around after Mike left and we recorded another conversation covering the Maudlin incident among other things. I should upload that today or tomorrow. Thanks for watching.
Fascinating.
Amazing talk! It seems like Bernardo is more interested in defending his pet TOE "analytic idealism" and distinguishing it from other schools of panpsychism than exploring the implications of Levin's work. I love how Levin is agreeable (I've never heard him fully disagree with anyone) while remaining agnostic to overarching theories of consciousness. I don't think there is any justification to be dogmatic or being stuck in a hole with your idiosyncratic theory when it comes to panpsychism. Levin's work will actually provide evidence into what direction we should go. He doesn't have to pick a side. I've read a few of Bernardo's books but have moved away from that kind of thinking in favor of Michael Levin, Chris Fields, active inference, complexity science, quantum information theory etc. Endlessly debating one's specific path to "everything is mind" has gotten stale in the light of Levin's utterly tantalizing work. Thank you for hosting this!
What I think is strange is the fact that it seems that does not exist a scientific program with projects for probing the interface between our perception (the dashboard metaphor) and the substrate where metabolism presents itself to our perception.
These guys need to talk with Stephan Wolfram about his computational models - hypergraphs - simple rules leading to unexpected and complex outcomes. There seems to be lots of commonality.
Phenomenal
Amazing conversation, thanks! I can't but wonder why we would need to stick to either unificative panpsychism or dissociative idealism, why not these are just the fundamental operations of how consciousness works, flowing in and out of bodies, getting together to unify and breaking up to go on their own ways? I'd love Matt Segall added to this conversation three-way.
I'd love to add Matt to this conversation. I've had him on with Bernardo and two solo interviews, he's a great person.
need more! 😂❤
Hopefully, more to come!
Man... These guys are smart!
Certainly a soulful creation of the mindsets healing the body of the world health
Thanks!
I wonder if they know the work of Humberto Maturana, specifically the concept of autopoiesis
I will ask if there isa part two, thanks.
Hey, tip for the podcast: Please include some of the most profound or interesting ideas discussed in the video in your thumbnail or title. A catchy clickbait is not a crime, but a useful tactic for visibility. I am interested personally in these kinds of topics in particular, as in this video. Browsing your other videos, I'm sorry but I don't have any idea what they discuss, as I am not familiar with the people by name.
Thanks for the advice, I am, alas a no budget guy with all the tech competency of a Luddite. I will try to up the game just the same, thanks!
Michael holding back, that gives me concern.
Plasticity of boundaries allows for stages of conscious development, or levels of enlightenment, the continuous birth of new identity
Not even ten minutes in and I keep thinking of Markov blankets; Karl Friston should join the discussion for sure
Bernardo and I had another conversation right after this one and Friston comes up, stay tuned. I think Michael is informed by Friston's work as well. Thanks for watching!