And lecturing us on everything from health, race relations to politics. The media seem to consider him an expert on everything. He is the “celebrity” guest at the moment. Not long ago he popped up on the UK media as a political commentator which I find laughable.
People critical of Kastrup's aversion to Harris here are obviously unaware that Sam Harris is very happy to publicly and uncharitably criticize these ideas (and the people that work on them) to the point of insult, without fully grasping them, whether at the philosophical, scientific, or even experiential (i.e. "spiritual") level. Once you understand what Conscious Realism (Don Hoffman) or Analytical Idealism (Bernardo Kastrup) are proposing and also, _why the alternative materialist theories don't work_ , it's difficult to listen to Sam Harris's (mis)characterization of those ideas and not see him as someone _really_ out of his depth, but trying to insert himself in a conversation for attention (and given the mic just because he's a public VIP). Before you protest as to his qualifications, consider that Kastrup and Hoffman are both academic polymaths, with a solid background that spans computer science, psychology, math, physics and philosophy. They pull from those various perspectives and are dedicating the bulk of their time on exploring and advancing these ideas. That's the reason they can routinely and so confidently challenge their colleagues from those various fields that explore consciousness, but from a materialist framework (C. Koch, J. Tononi, S. Hameroff, etc). Sam Harris is a dabbler, he's a very eloquent public figure who's made some astute observations about society which he wrote some books about, but that's nowhere near his league.
That’s a really good point. Can you please provide evidence (link it here when you have time) of Sam Harris talking about these ideas in the dismissive and derogatory way that you’re describing. I would be very, very interested in seeing and hearing that. Thank you for your time! Keep up the good fight for good ideas 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼. Again, post it here when you have time. Thanks again. Again, thanks. Thanks again.
@ok8667 Sure. Here are two examples. This conversation with Rupert Spira is self-explanatory, as Spira accurately points out the flaws in Harris's assumptions ruclips.net/video/Dpr6WhJEnIs/видео.htmlsi=5SyNaIITYvIHIS4g . In a later interaction with Lex Fridman ruclips.net/video/7u1_26QTdh0/видео.htmlsi=RQL7AAT4earxbHRf , Harris is asked about Hoffman's theory. Considering his own shaky understanding of it, the gracious thing would be to simply admit that he's out of his depth and needs to look into it more before commenting. Having seemingly learned nothing from his exchange with Spira, he decides instead to impersonate some qualified authority and proceeds to attack with his signature approach to criticism, where he builds a strawman and then marks his disagreements with subtle insults. We're graced with such nuggets as "bizarrely anthropocentric claims" after he's reduced Hoffman's take on consciousness to human consciousness (perhaps even to solipsism), or adjectives such as "parochial", all the while displaying his profound misunderstanding of what he's disagreeing with. When he comments (emphasis mine) that "there are few stops on the train of idealism and _kinda new age thinking_ , and eastern philosophy, that philosophically I don't see a need to take" one may forget that he was asked about Don Hoffman, a scientist as solid as they come. He's clearly uncomfortable with this topic that incorporates a fair amount of rigorous physics and philosophy, and you'll see that he latches on to an opportunity to change the subject by the 10th minute.
@ok8667 Sure here are two examples. This excerpt of his conversation with Rupert Spira is self-explanatory. Spira points out some relevant flaws in Sam Harris's reasoning about reality and consciousness. This already should've been a warning to Harris that he could benefit from reevaluating his assumptions. ruclips.net/video/Dpr6WhJEnIs/видео.htmlsi=KS6jfbCw6zpaGYSh In a later interview by Lex Fridman, Harris is asked about Don Hoffman's theory. Considering his shaky understanding of the topic, the gracious thing would be to admit that he's a bit out of his depth and needs to more carefully review Hoffman's arguments before commenting. But having seemingly learned nothing from his exchange with Spira, he decides instead to impersonate a qualified authority and proceeds to attack, with his characteristic combination of strawmen and subtle insults. We're graced with such nuggets as "bizarrely anthropocentric claim" (having thus reduced Hoffman's take on consciousness to _human_ consciousness), or adjectives like "parochial", to qualify ideas that many actually serious scientists and philosophers deem compelling. When he comments (emphasis mine) "there are few stops on the train of idealism, *and kinda new age thinking* , and eastern philosophy, that philosophically I don't see a need to take", one may forget that he was asked about Don Hoffman, a scientist as solid as they come. Harris is clearly uncomfortable with this topic that, when pushed, involves a fair amount of rigorous physics and philosophy and you'll notice that he clutches at an opportunity to change the subject by the 10th minute. ruclips.net/video/7u1_26QTdh0/видео.htmlsi=ra26-VyTQMnD1epw
I recently listened to a conversation between Sam Harris and Rupert Spira. Sam Harris’ misinterpretation of idealism and the fundamental tenants of nonduality were so vast that they bordered on the infinite, to quote David Bentley Hart. Harris is completely locked into a mechanistic worldview and he’s more interested in arguing and converting than he is in any sort of authentic dialogue with dissenting voices. It’s sad. He’s a smart man and chooses to fight imaginary opponents. In that sense, one may call him a fundamentalist.
Well said, I couldn't agree more. I believe Sam is a smart guy as well and if he genuinely wants to seek truth, then I think he, and all of us, would benefit from him having a good faith discussion with Bernardo.
'I believe Sam Harris is smart' is that sarcasm? Genuine question 😂🙃 Harris is smart at being a performer. His arguments are not thoroughgoing and definitely not original.
What incorrect beliefs does Harris hold about idealism and what correct beliefs should he hold in their place. And what is the justification for these beliefs?
Sam Harris is an academic desperate to ‘get it.’ Tim Freke is another, turning inside out to try to understand but giving the argument to the Ego. Guys - just feel it. Rupert Spira has been infinitely patient with both.
To all the comments saying Bernardo was showing weakness or saying he was being disrespectful to Sam Harris. Sam identified as one of the four horsman of the new atheists. Him and the others where extremely disrespectful to anyone without their opinion. Summed up by Richard Dawkins announcing to a large crowd that" everyone needs to stop being so damn respectful"😅😅😅
Would it be possible for you or Bernardo to make an animation describing of how reality really is or how Idealism is the true way. I logically understand it but if there was an animation it would be amazing.
I respect Sam Harris. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I consider him a very intelligent, articulate, and clear thinker who has his heart in the right place. With that said, however, he does tend to make straw mans out of ideas that he is critical of such as religion, idealism, God, reincarnation, etc. I would very much love to see a debate between Harris and Kastrup on the subject of physicalism vs. idealism.
Bernardo and Hoffman have had several discussions together, I have watched them on utube, they are very familiar with each other and agree on a lot however their focus is on different things.
yes it's a great pity that this channel click baits so much, it's almost like the people they mention in the title want nothing to do with them. or the channel is a big fraud.
I couldnt stand Sam Harris since he became more public/famous and I started listening to his speeches/debates/ideas. Being someone who’s experienced many mystical experiences, I can’t listen too long to someone who’s so convinced of the materialist reductionism. Reassuring to hear Bernardo feeling similar about him.
You do realize Sam Harris waking up app is practically dedicated to non dual perspectives and meditation? Sam invites people to investigate non duality as a matter of their own experience. At the end of the day, that's all we CAN know. Everything else is a series of beliefs, claims and theories, for the time being anyway. I'm a huge fan of Bernardo and idealism, but I think the criticism is a little unfair. I would like to see a conversation between these two.
A practical view on meditation is not the same thing as his metaphysics. It is his metaphysics that Bernardo criticizes. Metaphysically, Harris is a materialist with property dualist leanings. I would also like to see a conversation between these two.
Well? I think you might be mischaracterizing both his point of view on meditation and his metaphysics. To me, a practical view on meditation would be breathing for relaxation, or measurable health benefits, or promoting a kind of practical non-reactivity, and would not involve discussion of non-duality, Dzogchen or psychedelics or enlightenment. How many materialists have gone to Tibet to receive non-dual teachings directly from Buddhist Dzogchen masters?I heard him suggest the other day on the app that the brain could be a receiver not the generator of consciousness. I think he's open to some kind of transpersonal theory as a possibility, but as a neuroscientist, I think he feels he has to be careful when it comes to metaphysical beliefs. People in the spiritual/meditation/new age community have all kinds of exotic metaphysical beliefs, and so his carefulness if warranted not to get lumped in with those folks. I also think Sam is quick to point out that even if the brain turns out to be the generator of consciousness, I think he at least would agree with Bernardo that our reality is an illusion of our senses, and the self/ego is also an illusory construct, at least in the way normal people think about these things, and those insights by themselves are profound. But I can't imagine Richard Dawkins having a meditation app with non-dual teachings on it, getting people to recognize their "true nature" or taking psychedelics. A true materialist would reject all of it as ridiculous, and any spiritual path as a waste of time, because there is no spirit and no path by definition. I suggest you download his app and listen for a month, and I think you will discover a very different' Sam than the one portrayed on Twitter. @@MonisticIdealism
I have no idea who is right or wrong in this topic ,but so offputting and arrogant the way Bernado speaks about Sam Harris, if he think Sam Harris is wrong, just say so,why the need to belittle someone else opinions and views ,regardless if one think they are wrong.
Aww poor Sam Harris constantly getting “straw manned” for claiming that “torture may be an ethical necessity”!! Sam Harris constantly belittles people and constantly uses intellectually dishonest buzz words, history revisionism and memes to demonise his political opponents. Grow up and stop whining and just simply provide a scrap of evidence that a strictly reductive materialism or philosophical naturalism is a complete theory of reality? Ill wait! Debates get heated. Iron sharpens iron!!
I thought Sam would be sympathetic or at least very understanding of your take on idealism given his view of consciousness. He’s said many times, consciousness is the only thing that can’t be an illusion and the only thing truly matters.
I feel the same way. I knew he was a materialist but I thought he would at least be able to appreciate the monism of idealism, but misunderstandings got in the way.
It looks to me that Sam Harris doesn't like to be proven wrong, the position he took on covid-19 and Donald Trump are destroying his credibility, despite this, he doubles down.
@@MonisticIdealism TBH I'm not really informed what Chalmers latest theory is. Last I checked he seemd to subscribe to some form of dualism that still had a materialist grounding. And I am not sold to Kastrup either. All metaphysics that seem to provide a loophole out of death are suspicious to me because thats how you bait people.
@@GreyZone7 I'm not entirely sure what his position is these days either, but he cited this quote in a recent paper: "One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist".
I don't think I can link to it here, but Ars Technica just posted an interview with him a few days ago - article is titled 'Exploring mind-bending questions about reality and virtual worlds via The Matrix'.
I like Kastrup's ideas and even though Harris can be closed-minded at times, it is not wise for Kastrup to talk in this manner. He is setting himself up. And he really looked like a baby that time he walked off that debate with Tim Maudlin.
Next time just say you disagree with him. This “he’s too afraid too debate me” “hopefully he opens his mind” “he has a degree from Stanford yet is somehow a big dummy know-it-all” “he wont debate me because he cares too much about his image and I will obviously obliterate it because I’m such a genius” shit is infantile. Should be beneath Kastrup and the host. It actually is possible to politely disagree and even to politely say you think someone is very wrong about a topic. Would go a long way, and maybe people would be more willing to debate you if you were mature and thus you could get your ideas out to a larger audience. I’ve never heard of Kastrup till just now and it’s probably because the way he talks about people he disagrees with keeps him from getting a conversation with them.
Listening to Sam Harris is what first introduced me to the concept of mindfulness and actually changed my life for the better. Kastrup just seems obsessed with his own ego and winning debates, but isn't actually interested in providing any practical or actionable insights that can be applied to people's lives. One thing I've noticed is that what people accuse others of is typically true of themselves. In this case, Kastrup says that Sam Harris is obsessed with his own ego and image, but if you listen to both of them it's pretty obvious that Kastrup is the egocentric one. He doesn't actually try to help people improve their lives in any practical sense, he just tries to win arguments.
Take a tumor that changes a person's whole personality which is real and has happened! Materialism explains that very well and also allows us to treat it through surgery that treats the tumor and allows the person's personality to return to normal ! This seems like clear evidence that materialism is correct and beneficial and is why every respectable college in the world adheres to it How does any of these consciousness as fundamental approaches actually help in this situation described above?
It’s impossible to debate idealists, unless they agree not to first presume physical reality, only to try and disprove it. It’s not logical. So, once they agree not to presume physical reality, how do you even make an appointment to debate them?! We need to agree on the matter, the time and the space. Kastrup’s a pseud.
“Kastrups a pseud” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! And look up [Ad hominem Fallacy]. That’s very ironic coming from someone who defends a person like Sam Harris who actually bragged… “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.” (Sam Harris). According to the human rights lawyer Lutz Oette…. “Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette). It actually gets a lot worse because according to Sam Harris… “The only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own ” (Sam Harris). Imagine the size of Sam Harris’s ego!! He even recently admitted that he would mischaracterise and lie about someone if he personally deemed them an “existential threat”. He’s clearly an ideologue and would be an enormous threat to democracy if he ever got into power!! Remember the good old days when thoughtful materialists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments for a strictly reductive materialism or philosophical naturalism??? NEITHER DO I!! Just remember that if you are going to defend Sam Harris don’t forget to defend torture and nuclear strikes against men, women and children for “collateral” reasons? I rest my case!!
Kastrup’s invitation is hardly an invitation. “I want to debate him so I can expose him on all his bullshit.” No one is going to accept an invitation from someone who wants to eat your face. Sam Harris is really sharp and is an even better debater, I don’t think Kastrup knows what he is asking for. This is coming from someone who thinks very highly of Kastrup as well.
Well to be fair Sam Harris showed ignorance and that would be offensive to someone who’s a professional in this field, it’s like all the scientists get offended and start calling "pseudoscience" to things like ghost box
@@G_Singh222 Showed ignorance he bleeds it. To quote David Bentley Hart "Sam Harris is an orphan form a boys school who got lucky and wrote a best seller but, he's really just an undergraduate and he writes like one."
@@Autobotmatt428 Bentley is wrong from the jump. Sam has MULTIPLE best sellers that changed many humans lives. Nobody knows who the fuck Bentley is to be fair. They live in two completely different strata.
Look up Ad hominem fallacy and straw man fallacy!! It’s interesting that Sam Harris has recently been caught out as a liar and got so cock sure of himself that he admitted he would lie to interfere with the democratic process. He’s lost all credibility now.
@@MonisticIdealism Not so much. He's professor of behavioral science; says our ideas, values and thoughts occur in the moment . . . thinking is not rooted in the depths of a personal unconscious within us. In discussing his reappraisal of how the mind works with Bernardo, some interesting ideas and observations may arise.
I would like to say where the idea came from when nothing exist there is place for idea ,and how so many ideas are same ans how ideas converted into reality 😅😅😅
Your and Bernando's assessment of Harris is harsh, and I'm not sure it's totally justified; he had a good conversation with Swami Sarvapriyananda and, while he stuck to his materialist position, he did seem to engage with Advaita Vedanta at its own level and wasn't arguing against strawmen. Maybe he's also changed in this regard in the past couple years.
I've read all of Harris's books and he was instrumental in changing my life as well as millions of other people. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett were catalysts that transformed lives by leading them away from bs faith based religions and other superstitions. Having said all that I believe Harris's opinion on idealism is 10 years old and he has said a few times that I know of that it was incomplete and even I believe somewhat infantile. Unprofessional isn't something I can comment on but one I do know....Kastrup is OBVIOUSLY doing a very basic bitch troll job to garner attention. I like Kastrup but this is sad to see. He's not getting his debate with Harris because as I said Harris doesn't have the same opinions about idealism and has said they were wrong. Kastrup meanwhile is embarrassing himself and is obviously emotional which is weak.
“Garner attention”. Are you actually familiar with Kastrup’s full body of work? The last thing he needs to do is take a swipe at Harris for a modicum of attention. Kastrup has his opinions - mostly evidence based and the sound bytes in the above video are part of a much larger piece needing context. You judging him as weak and emotional is way off. That’s not at all what he is demonstrating. Passionate yes. Infantile, no. Oh, and it’s not weak to show emotion, perhaps just human.
W/ all respect, Scott, take a deep breath and chill out. One can find Kastrup's comments a bit distasteful, but it's not as if he spit in his face or anything. Relax.
Materialism and idealism are both equally incoherent... one insists on saying consciousness can be described by 3rd person properties like position and momenum... the other insists that objective non-conscious reality that gives us our regularity of experience is actually conscious without giving any reason to believe so. There is consciousness... there is also a non-conscious reality which gives us all the regularity and commonality we experience. The hardheaded insistence that these two are somehow the same thing is the problem.
@@MonisticIdealism You don't like him, I understand that. This country is becoming more hostile. I hope to be in Asia soon. Please don't ever come there.
Why did it take you a month to come out with a video that is only 4 minutes? And this video is pretty pointless. Kastrup did not challenge Harris on Idealism. You brought it up and instigated it and he downplayed it by saying Harris would never debate him. Someone boldly saying someone else would never debate him is legit NOT challenging someone. Kastup even insulted him by saying Harris doesn't even know what Idealism is. Even said he couldnt forgive Harris.
I told my subscribers the other day in my community tab that I'm working on a longer video that's not ready yet. In the mean time I've posted a clip from my very long discussion with Bernardo, which has been asked of me by a few people to do. Also, Bernardo is saying that he's open to debating Harris here, he just believes Harris will not accept. If you read the many tweets Bernardo has to say about Harris it's even more clear clear he's challenging him and calling him out publicly. Here's an example tweet, which is just one of many: twitter.com/BernardoKastrup/status/1406333064431771650?t=ClpPiSPhuI9xLiFISK6Oew&s=19
@@MonisticIdealism Well, looking at this comment section, you certainly failed thus far to spark a debate on Idealism.😆 And Harris is likely never going to see his unless someone brings it to his attention, and even then he might not bother to look at it.
I would like to say where the idea came from when nothing exist there is place for idea ,and how so many ideas are same ans how ideas converted into reality 😅😅😅
I would like to say where the idea came from when nothing exist there is place for idea ,and how so many ideas are same ans how ideas converted into reality 😅😅😅
Harris hasn't got time ... he is out measuring morality !!
Lol!
And lecturing us on everything from health, race relations to politics. The media seem to consider him an expert on everything. He is the “celebrity” guest at the moment. Not long ago he popped up on the UK media as a political commentator which I find laughable.
That’s antisemitic!
@@stefanoicepick What is .. ? And how do you know ?
Sam Harris measuring morality is like hearing impaired judging Frederic Chopin piano competition.
People critical of Kastrup's aversion to Harris here are obviously unaware that Sam Harris is very happy to publicly and uncharitably criticize these ideas (and the people that work on them) to the point of insult, without fully grasping them, whether at the philosophical, scientific, or even experiential (i.e. "spiritual") level. Once you understand what Conscious Realism (Don Hoffman) or Analytical Idealism (Bernardo Kastrup) are proposing and also, _why the alternative materialist theories don't work_ , it's difficult to listen to Sam Harris's (mis)characterization of those ideas and not see him as someone _really_ out of his depth, but trying to insert himself in a conversation for attention (and given the mic just because he's a public VIP). Before you protest as to his qualifications, consider that Kastrup and Hoffman are both academic polymaths, with a solid background that spans computer science, psychology, math, physics and philosophy. They pull from those various perspectives and are dedicating the bulk of their time on exploring and advancing these ideas. That's the reason they can routinely and so confidently challenge their colleagues from those various fields that explore consciousness, but from a materialist framework (C. Koch, J. Tononi, S. Hameroff, etc). Sam Harris is a dabbler, he's a very eloquent public figure who's made some astute observations about society which he wrote some books about, but that's nowhere near his league.
Isn't Harris' wife a fan of Hoffman's work? I saw her on Lex Friedman's show and she seemed interested in his ideas.
Well said - I completely agree. Kastrup & Hoffman are the biggest influenced on my own studies in philosophy of mind!
That’s a really good point. Can you please provide evidence (link it here when you have time) of Sam Harris talking about these ideas in the dismissive and derogatory way that you’re describing. I would be very, very interested in seeing and hearing that. Thank you for your time! Keep up the good fight for good ideas 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼. Again, post it here when you have time. Thanks again. Again, thanks. Thanks again.
@ok8667 Sure. Here are two examples.
This conversation with Rupert Spira is self-explanatory, as Spira accurately points out the flaws in Harris's assumptions ruclips.net/video/Dpr6WhJEnIs/видео.htmlsi=5SyNaIITYvIHIS4g .
In a later interaction with Lex Fridman ruclips.net/video/7u1_26QTdh0/видео.htmlsi=RQL7AAT4earxbHRf , Harris is asked about Hoffman's theory. Considering his own shaky understanding of it, the gracious thing would be to simply admit that he's out of his depth and needs to look into it more before commenting. Having seemingly learned nothing from his exchange with Spira, he decides instead to impersonate some qualified authority and proceeds to attack with his signature approach to criticism, where he builds a strawman and then marks his disagreements with subtle insults. We're graced with such nuggets as "bizarrely anthropocentric claims" after he's reduced Hoffman's take on consciousness to human consciousness (perhaps even to solipsism), or adjectives such as "parochial", all the while displaying his profound misunderstanding of what he's disagreeing with. When he comments (emphasis mine) that "there are few stops on the train of idealism and _kinda new age thinking_ , and eastern philosophy, that philosophically I don't see a need to take" one may forget that he was asked about Don Hoffman, a scientist as solid as they come. He's clearly uncomfortable with this topic that incorporates a fair amount of rigorous physics and philosophy, and you'll see that he latches on to an opportunity to change the subject by the 10th minute.
@ok8667 Sure here are two examples.
This excerpt of his conversation with Rupert Spira is self-explanatory. Spira points out some relevant flaws in Sam Harris's reasoning about reality and consciousness. This already should've been a warning to Harris that he could benefit from reevaluating his assumptions. ruclips.net/video/Dpr6WhJEnIs/видео.htmlsi=KS6jfbCw6zpaGYSh
In a later interview by Lex Fridman, Harris is asked about Don Hoffman's theory. Considering his shaky understanding of the topic, the gracious thing would be to admit that he's a bit out of his depth and needs to more carefully review Hoffman's arguments before commenting. But having seemingly learned nothing from his exchange with Spira, he decides instead to impersonate a qualified authority and proceeds to attack, with his characteristic combination of strawmen and subtle insults. We're graced with such nuggets as "bizarrely anthropocentric claim" (having thus reduced Hoffman's take on consciousness to _human_ consciousness), or adjectives like "parochial", to qualify ideas that many actually serious scientists and philosophers deem compelling. When he comments (emphasis mine) "there are few stops on the train of idealism, *and kinda new age thinking* , and eastern philosophy, that philosophically I don't see a need to take", one may forget that he was asked about Don Hoffman, a scientist as solid as they come. Harris is clearly uncomfortable with this topic that, when pushed, involves a fair amount of rigorous physics and philosophy and you'll notice that he clutches at an opportunity to change the subject by the 10th minute. ruclips.net/video/7u1_26QTdh0/видео.htmlsi=ra26-VyTQMnD1epw
He doesn’t have the free will to make this decision!
He also suffers from TDS
Your idea of free will just reading what you said is off in what Sam's definition of free will is
:)))
Shots fired!!!
I recently listened to a conversation between Sam Harris and Rupert Spira. Sam Harris’ misinterpretation of idealism and the fundamental tenants of nonduality were so vast that they bordered on the infinite, to quote David Bentley Hart. Harris is completely locked into a mechanistic worldview and he’s more interested in arguing and converting than he is in any sort of authentic dialogue with dissenting voices. It’s sad. He’s a smart man and chooses to fight imaginary opponents. In that sense, one may call him a fundamentalist.
Well said, I couldn't agree more. I believe Sam is a smart guy as well and if he genuinely wants to seek truth, then I think he, and all of us, would benefit from him having a good faith discussion with Bernardo.
@@MonisticIdealism I know I certainly would love to hear it! Thank you for your kindness. 🙏🏻
'I believe Sam Harris is smart' is that sarcasm? Genuine question 😂🙃
Harris is smart at being a performer.
His arguments are not thoroughgoing and definitely not original.
What incorrect beliefs does Harris hold about idealism and what correct beliefs should he hold in their place. And what is the justification for these beliefs?
Sam Harris is an academic desperate to ‘get it.’ Tim Freke is another, turning inside out to try to understand but giving the argument to the Ego. Guys - just feel it. Rupert Spira has been infinitely patient with both.
That would be a great debate. Hopefully it will take place.
Sam would get slaughtered, but I would certainly enjoy watching/listening to it.
@@martingarreis Oh, I'm pretty certain of that. Sam doesn't understand the very basics of the topic, he would definitely be destroyed.
@@martingarreis He would. Sam would look bad
Bernardo would hand Sam his a**
To all the comments saying Bernardo was showing weakness or saying he was being disrespectful to Sam Harris. Sam identified as one of the four horsman of the new atheists. Him and the others where extremely disrespectful to anyone without their opinion. Summed up by Richard Dawkins announcing to a large crowd that" everyone needs to stop being so damn respectful"😅😅😅
Would it be possible for you or Bernardo to make an animation describing of how reality really is or how Idealism is the true way. I logically understand it but if there was an animation it would be amazing.
The animation is what you always see and experience
Whatever the base reality is would be outside of space and time so you couldn't even animate it.
I agree but it's hard. One way to do it is to close your eyes and only imagine a state of being.
Here is an attempt at an animated view of Bernardo’s position: ruclips.net/video/xb7R6dLQeoY/видео.htmlsi=yvFGoGgN6B_zwchx
Does anyone know what Annaka Kastrup conversation was like?
I respect Sam Harris. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I consider him a very intelligent, articulate, and clear thinker who has his heart in the right place. With that said, however, he does tend to make straw mans out of ideas that he is critical of such as religion, idealism, God, reincarnation, etc. I would very much love to see a debate between Harris and Kastrup on the subject of physicalism vs. idealism.
Well said. I agree.
It would be great to see Sam Harris debate Bernardo or Donald Hoffman.
Bernardo and Hoffman have had several discussions together, I have watched them on utube, they are very familiar with each other and agree on a lot however their focus is on different things.
I like Bernardo a lot.
And even though Im all for simulation theory, Im not so big on Hoffman
Hoffman was on the Sam Harris podcast, being co-interviewed by himself and his wife Annika. It was a fascinating conversation.
yes it's a great pity that this channel click baits so much, it's almost like the people they mention in the title want nothing to do with them. or the channel is a big fraud.
Sam harris can't stand in presence of kastrup
I have been waiting for this a lot.
I couldnt stand Sam Harris since he became more public/famous and I started listening to his speeches/debates/ideas. Being someone who’s experienced many mystical experiences, I can’t listen too long to someone who’s so convinced of the materialist reductionism. Reassuring to hear Bernardo feeling similar about him.
In the first 2 minutes all I hear is arrogance and defensiveness.
Not at all, I've heard Sam harris talk about idealism, everything Bernardo and and the host said is 100% true.
@@timh7882 If he's so sure about himself why the need for such arrogance
And Sam H is not arrogant? Sometimes you have to be willing to counter arrogance with arrogance.
Sam himSELF cannot come since his SELF IS AN ILLUSION
its only the fixed permanent separate self that is an illusion
You do realize Sam Harris waking up app is practically dedicated to non dual perspectives and meditation? Sam invites people to investigate non duality as a matter of their own experience. At the end of the day, that's all we CAN know. Everything else is a series of beliefs, claims and theories, for the time being anyway. I'm a huge fan of Bernardo and idealism, but I think the criticism is a little unfair. I would like to see a conversation between these two.
A practical view on meditation is not the same thing as his metaphysics. It is his metaphysics that Bernardo criticizes. Metaphysically, Harris is a materialist with property dualist leanings. I would also like to see a conversation between these two.
Well? I think you might be mischaracterizing both his point of view on meditation and his metaphysics. To me, a practical view on meditation would be breathing for relaxation, or measurable health benefits, or promoting a kind of practical non-reactivity, and would not involve discussion of non-duality, Dzogchen or psychedelics or enlightenment. How many materialists have gone to Tibet to receive non-dual teachings directly from Buddhist Dzogchen masters?I heard him suggest the other day on the app that the brain could be a receiver not the generator of consciousness. I think he's open to some kind of transpersonal theory as a possibility, but as a neuroscientist, I think he feels he has to be careful when it comes to metaphysical beliefs. People in the spiritual/meditation/new age community have all kinds of exotic metaphysical beliefs, and so his carefulness if warranted not to get lumped in with those folks. I also think Sam is quick to point out that even if the brain turns out to be the generator of consciousness, I think he at least would agree with Bernardo that our reality is an illusion of our senses, and the self/ego is also an illusory construct, at least in the way normal people think about these things, and those insights by themselves are profound. But I can't imagine Richard Dawkins having a meditation app with non-dual teachings on it, getting people to recognize their "true nature" or taking psychedelics. A true materialist would reject all of it as ridiculous, and any spiritual path as a waste of time, because there is no spirit and no path by definition. I suggest you download his app and listen for a month, and I think you will discover a very different' Sam than the one portrayed on Twitter. @@MonisticIdealism
I have no idea who is right or wrong in this topic ,but so offputting and arrogant the way Bernado speaks about Sam Harris, if he think Sam Harris is wrong, just say so,why the need to belittle someone else opinions and views ,regardless if one think they are wrong.
Aww poor Sam Harris constantly getting “straw manned” for claiming that “torture may be an ethical necessity”!! Sam Harris constantly belittles people and constantly uses intellectually dishonest buzz words, history revisionism and memes to demonise his political opponents. Grow up and stop whining and just simply provide a scrap of evidence that a strictly reductive materialism or philosophical naturalism is a complete theory of reality? Ill wait! Debates get heated. Iron sharpens iron!!
Doesn’t leave one with a good feeling.
I thought Sam would be sympathetic or at least very understanding of your take on idealism given his view of consciousness. He’s said many times, consciousness is the only thing that can’t be an illusion and the only thing truly matters.
I feel the same way. I knew he was a materialist but I thought he would at least be able to appreciate the monism of idealism, but misunderstandings got in the way.
@@MonisticIdealism 2:06 well guess what...
@@notexactlyrocketscience what?
@@MonisticIdealism well, there have been discussions about that point. i get the feeling that was what bernardo was alluding to
It looks to me that Sam Harris doesn't like to be proven wrong, the position he took on covid-19 and Donald Trump are destroying his credibility, despite this, he doubles down.
What about debating David Chalmers?
That would be awesome. What would they debate Chalmers seems to be sympathetic to idealism these days.
@@MonisticIdealism TBH I'm not really informed what Chalmers latest theory is. Last I checked he seemd to subscribe to some form of dualism that still had a materialist grounding. And I am not sold to Kastrup either. All metaphysics that seem to provide a loophole out of death are suspicious to me because thats how you bait people.
@@GreyZone7 I'm not entirely sure what his position is these days either, but he cited this quote in a recent paper: "One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist".
I don't think I can link to it here, but Ars Technica just posted an interview with him a few days ago - article is titled 'Exploring mind-bending questions about reality and virtual worlds via The Matrix'.
Or Joscha Bach, that would be a great debate.
He debated Sam Harris’s wife lol?
Where’s the vid?
I like Kastrup's ideas and even though Harris can be closed-minded at times, it is not wise for Kastrup to talk in this manner. He is setting himself up. And he really looked like a baby that time he walked off that debate with Tim Maudlin.
Calm down bro. 😂
I hold Sam in high regard and hope and believe he would be open for this. Bernardo would do.well to make this less about his ego and 'regard' for Sam.
It would be great for Sam to fix the southern border.
Next time just say you disagree with him. This “he’s too afraid too debate me” “hopefully he opens his mind” “he has a degree from Stanford yet is somehow a big dummy know-it-all” “he wont debate me because he cares too much about his image and I will obviously obliterate it because I’m such a genius” shit is infantile. Should be beneath Kastrup and the host. It actually is possible to politely disagree and even to politely say you think someone is very wrong about a topic. Would go a long way, and maybe people would be more willing to debate you if you were mature and thus you could get your ideas out to a larger audience. I’ve never heard of Kastrup till just now and it’s probably because the way he talks about people he disagrees with keeps him from getting a conversation with them.
Completely agree. Bernardo is acting like a child.
Listening to Sam Harris is what first introduced me to the concept of mindfulness and actually changed my life for the better. Kastrup just seems obsessed with his own ego and winning debates, but isn't actually interested in providing any practical or actionable insights that can be applied to people's lives. One thing I've noticed is that what people accuse others of is typically true of themselves. In this case, Kastrup says that Sam Harris is obsessed with his own ego and image, but if you listen to both of them it's pretty obvious that Kastrup is the egocentric one. He doesn't actually try to help people improve their lives in any practical sense, he just tries to win arguments.
it would be nice
so, no sean carroll in the sean carroll episode and no sam harris in this. how to build a reputation.
Read Upanishads.
Take a tumor that changes a person's whole personality which is real and has happened! Materialism explains that very well and also allows us to treat it through surgery that treats the tumor and allows the person's personality to return to normal !
This seems like clear evidence that materialism is correct and beneficial and is why every respectable college in the world adheres to it
How does any of these consciousness as fundamental approaches actually help in this situation described above?
that thumbnail is absurd
Thank you.
Can anyone share a link where Sam Harris expresses the views that they're discussing here?
Yeah, the link is in the video description but I can link it here too: ruclips.net/video/7u1_26QTdh0/видео.html
It’s impossible to debate idealists, unless they agree not to first presume physical reality, only to try and disprove it. It’s not logical. So, once they agree not to presume physical reality, how do you even make an appointment to debate them?! We need to agree on the matter, the time and the space. Kastrup’s a pseud.
“Kastrups a pseud”
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! And look up [Ad hominem Fallacy].
That’s very ironic coming from someone who defends a person like Sam Harris who actually bragged…
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
According to the human rights lawyer Lutz Oette….
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
It actually gets a lot worse because according to Sam Harris…
“The only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own ” (Sam Harris).
Imagine the size of Sam Harris’s ego!! He even recently admitted that he would mischaracterise and lie about someone if he personally deemed them an “existential threat”. He’s clearly an ideologue and would be an enormous threat to democracy if he ever got into power!!
Remember the good old days when thoughtful materialists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments for a strictly reductive materialism or philosophical naturalism???
NEITHER DO I!!
Just remember that if you are going to defend Sam Harris don’t forget to defend torture and nuclear strikes against men, women and children for “collateral” reasons?
I rest my case!!
Jezus Bernardo you really seem to not know who Sam is.
Kastrup’s invitation is hardly an invitation. “I want to debate him so I can expose him on all his bullshit.” No one is going to accept an invitation from someone who wants to eat your face. Sam Harris is really sharp and is an even better debater, I don’t think Kastrup knows what he is asking for. This is coming from someone who thinks very highly of Kastrup as well.
Well to be fair Sam Harris showed ignorance and that would be offensive to someone who’s a professional in this field, it’s like all the scientists get offended and start calling "pseudoscience" to things like ghost box
@@G_Singh222 Showed ignorance he bleeds it. To quote David Bentley Hart "Sam Harris is an orphan form a boys school who got lucky and wrote a best seller but, he's really just an undergraduate and he writes like one."
@@Autobotmatt428 Bentley is wrong from the jump. Sam has MULTIPLE best sellers that changed many humans lives. Nobody knows who the fuck Bentley is to be fair. They live in two completely different strata.
@Tracchofyre you didn’t listen, did you? Bernardo said a debate for Harris is “too large a risk with nothing to gain and much to lose”.
@Tracchofyre troglodyte…words have meaning even if you don’t understand them.
There is no challege. Kastrup’s position is just systemised infantilism.
Look up Ad hominem fallacy and straw man fallacy!! It’s interesting that Sam Harris has recently been caught out as a liar and got so cock sure of himself that he admitted he would lie to interfere with the democratic process. He’s lost all credibility now.
What about conversing with Nick Chater (The Mind is Flat).
I'm not familiar with them. Do they have criticisms of idealism?
@@MonisticIdealism Not so much.
He's professor of behavioral science; says our ideas, values and thoughts occur in the moment . . . thinking is not rooted in the depths of a personal unconscious within us. In discussing his reappraisal of how the mind works with Bernardo, some interesting ideas and observations may arise.
Me thinks the title is verging on click-bait.
Perhaps. Though the title is attention grabbing, it is still accurate.
I would like to say where the idea came from when nothing exist there is place for idea ,and how so many ideas are same ans how ideas converted into reality 😅😅😅
Wow the arrogance...is that part of idealism?
The only things that anyone could loose from debating you Mr. Kastrup is useful time.
Lame and CRINGE materialism in full effect!!
It is is easy to just put words and denigrate someone I suppose
will never ever happen
Your and Bernando's assessment of Harris is harsh, and I'm not sure it's totally justified; he had a good conversation with Swami Sarvapriyananda and, while he stuck to his materialist position, he did seem to engage with Advaita Vedanta at its own level and wasn't arguing against strawmen. Maybe he's also changed in this regard in the past couple years.
I've read all of Harris's books and he was instrumental in changing my life as well as millions of other people. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett were catalysts that transformed lives by leading them away from bs faith based religions and other superstitions. Having said all that I believe Harris's opinion on idealism is 10 years old and he has said a few times that I know of that it was incomplete and even I believe somewhat infantile. Unprofessional isn't something I can comment on but one I do know....Kastrup is OBVIOUSLY doing a very basic bitch troll job to garner attention. I like Kastrup but this is sad to see. He's not getting his debate with Harris because as I said Harris doesn't have the same opinions about idealism and has said they were wrong. Kastrup meanwhile is embarrassing himself and is obviously emotional which is weak.
But doesn't Dennett deny even the existence of consciousness? If anything is certain it's consciousness
“Garner attention”. Are you actually familiar with Kastrup’s full body of work? The last thing he needs to do is take a swipe at Harris for a modicum of attention. Kastrup has his opinions - mostly evidence based and the sound bytes in the above video are part of a much larger piece needing context. You judging him as weak and emotional is way off. That’s not at all what he is demonstrating. Passionate yes. Infantile, no. Oh, and it’s not weak to show emotion, perhaps just human.
W/ all respect, Scott, take a deep breath and chill out. One can find Kastrup's comments a bit distasteful, but it's not as if he spit in his face or anything. Relax.
Kastrup was referring to what Same said in 2021 not 10 years ago.
Materialism and idealism are both equally incoherent... one insists on saying consciousness can be described by 3rd person properties like position and momenum... the other insists that objective non-conscious reality that gives us our regularity of experience is actually conscious without giving any reason to believe so.
There is consciousness... there is also a non-conscious reality which gives us all the regularity and commonality we experience. The hardheaded insistence that these two are somehow the same thing is the problem.
Substance dualism FTW.
Wow.. too much Bravo Sierra.
From Sam Harris, yes.
@@MonisticIdealism Didn't hear him, only you.
@@peterolsen269 Sam Harris failed to understand what idealism even is, and he should be called out when he makes a mistake.
@@MonisticIdealism You don't like him, I understand that. This country is becoming more hostile. I hope to be in Asia soon. Please don't ever come there.
@@peterolsen269 You're making this personal, all were saying is that Harris is wrong and if he's convinced otherwise he should back it up in a debate.
🤣🤣🤣
Whole video you just spit out your frustrations to arguments against your belief. But you didn't tell what is Idealism?
Click bait. I thought I’d hear Sam on this
Why did it take you a month to come out with a video that is only 4 minutes? And this video is pretty pointless. Kastrup did not challenge Harris on Idealism. You brought it up and instigated it and he downplayed it by saying Harris would never debate him. Someone boldly saying someone else would never debate him is legit NOT challenging someone. Kastup even insulted him by saying Harris doesn't even know what Idealism is. Even said he couldnt forgive Harris.
I told my subscribers the other day in my community tab that I'm working on a longer video that's not ready yet. In the mean time I've posted a clip from my very long discussion with Bernardo, which has been asked of me by a few people to do. Also, Bernardo is saying that he's open to debating Harris here, he just believes Harris will not accept. If you read the many tweets Bernardo has to say about Harris it's even more clear clear he's challenging him and calling him out publicly. Here's an example tweet, which is just one of many: twitter.com/BernardoKastrup/status/1406333064431771650?t=ClpPiSPhuI9xLiFISK6Oew&s=19
@@MonisticIdealism
Well, looking at this comment section, you certainly failed thus far to spark a debate on Idealism.😆
And Harris is likely never going to see his unless someone brings it to his attention, and even then he might not bother to look at it.
@@Dhorpatan I think harris is well aware of Bernardo kastrup
@@G_Singh222
Did I say otherwise?
@@Dhorpatan
Then he just proved kastrups point
Sam is wrong about so much...including TRUMP
You have 1K subscribers and he has 20k...why would Sam burn his time on attention seekers...
Do you think I'm Bernardo Kastrup or something? It's Bernardo that is challenging Sam, and Bernardo has a much bigger following than me.
Sam Harris is Woke
If the materialists are woke, then the idealists are the dreamers.
Sam is not woke, he's always bashing woke people, read more
@@yoganandavalle He doesn't realize he's Woke because he also suffers from acute TDS.
I would like to say where the idea came from when nothing exist there is place for idea ,and how so many ideas are same ans how ideas converted into reality 😅😅😅
I would like to say where the idea came from when nothing exist there is place for idea ,and how so many ideas are same ans how ideas converted into reality 😅😅😅