Let's see, if every other group which never agrees on anything, all agree that you're wrong, you're probably wrong. Bernardo is full of it and the only people who seem to think otherwise are philosophically naive and/or tech bros secretly in an AI cult.
It’s gobsmacking how much plausibility is given to multiverse theories and other materialist contortions and how much resistance there is to consciousness as the ontological primary
Agreed. Widespread knowledge that consciousness is fundamental is the biggest fear of the entities who pull the strings. Nothing would make it easier for the masses to take back our power.
As a long-time fan and follower of Bernardo's Analytic Idealism, I wish he would, in one of these interviews, flesh out with a little bit more detail the relationship between the brain and our conscious awareness. For instance, he proposes that "the brain is simply what our inner experience looks like from a third person perspective.” This seems to imply that the brain has no causative powers in and of itself and is simply an image of what is happening in some other mental process associated with our cognition. But what is that other process, and how does it work? And does it even make sense to ascribe to the brain the ontological standing to engage in causative activities, as our modern neuroscience maintains? More specifically, we often hear that most of our thinking is done by the brain without our conscious awareness. (This is, of course, Bernardo's distinction between “phenomenal consciousness” and “meta-consciousness.”) But if the brain is simply what our conscious awareness looks like, does it even make sense to speak of the brain as having any causative powers at all? I'm sure there is a clear answer to these questions, but for me the issue still seems a bit fuzzy at best.
The brain is an intermediary to Consciousness. In fact, every cell of the body is in constant contact with Consciousness. Consciousness is where experiences are realized, not in the brain. The signals in the brain that correspond to the five senses are not a construct of an experience. Watching the dial of a thermometer is not the heat or cold, but a "summary" or code that represents temperature. The signals in the brain are also not the sights, sounds, taste, touch, or smell of an experience, but a code that is useful for the rest of the body to take note of the conditions in and around the body. When the body "dies," Consciousness continues to have experiences without needing any of the signals of the body. If this were not so, then there would be no such experience as known by those who have died and came back to life with stories of another realm.
Well, perhaps it is interesting to simplify the matter. Who or what proves the existence of the brain? First there is the awareness of the brain, its fundamental perception by the subject (consciousness itself). From there, the infinity of logical relations between the object "brain" and any other object come to consciousness. All these relations (equations, movements of the intellect) are also an essential part of conscious perception. In the end, the common factor that is extracted from all these equations is the conscious fact. Apparently, no one needs what has been crossed out in the equation, but the equation is only a particular relation between objects, among the infinite particular relations that consciousness contains.
I think that there can be no disagreement that the conscious fact is the only thing that is absolutely certain, and that it does not need to be supported by any abstraction. Put this way, it seems to be bland and contributes nothing. But the truth is that there are no public spaces where this is shared.
The resulting chaos is so great that any attempt to undo it on the basis of the same mechanism (more equations, regardless of their conscious basis), enhances the chaos. The only thing to hope for is to go back to the origin, to add the "I am conscious of" to every statement of daily life. Not to look at a specific problem (my bad relationship with my mother) and say "I am going to be aware of it". That makes it worse, no doubt. But to go to the basis of all of them, to question whether those obscure problems have a particular hypothetical solution (talking to my mother, for example), and to open oneself to the possibility that the diversity of problems increases as the basis of awareness is increasingly left aside.
That is, the dissociative mechanism, which objectifies all experience - and thus hides the fundamental subjectivity - is what Krishnamurti called "thought" or "intellect," which is nothing more than consciousness hiding from itself. Such a mechanism has a basic characteristic: "attend to the particular, 'objective' problem, do not look for all things to solve themselves! So, by concentrating on the problem, apparently inexcusable and notorious, the dissociative mechanism is reinforced. Krishnamurti and many others call the action of not concentrating on anything "mindfulness". By objectifying -again- their stories, precisely what they were trying to convey was lost. One author conflicts with another, it is a gibberish of methods to be aware and blah, blah, blah.... And now, at this point -I was not prepared😄-, it is concluded that the only way for all the stories, equations, laws to converge and stop contradicting each other is to add, figuratively, "I am aware of" in every instant of our daily experience. Beware! There is no need to make an effort: this "phrase" is already there, it has just been forgotten or obviated.
Really terrific! Yet ... I would have loved you to relate to what seems an obvious question: we know thought to be the product of an active thinker. Is that the case with idealism? If so, is the "thinker" also a mental phenomenon? Does it have volition?
TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 2:25 - Chapter I - We investigate whether our ordinary intuitions about the nature of reality and the world at large can be true at all. Is the world really what it looks like on the screen of perception? 18:11 - Chapter II - We discuss why mainstream physicalism fails on all key post-enlightenment values, such as coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy. 39:57 - Chapter III - We investigate the insoluble problems of constitutive panpsychism, a fashionable metaphysics that postulates consciousness to be a fundamental property of matter. 1:26:22 - Chapter IV - We go in depth into Analytic Idealism itself, discussing how it makes sense of reality without requiring anything other than nature’s sole given: experience. 1:38:00 - Chapter V - We review empirical evidence from the fields of foundations of physics and neuroscience of consciousness, which seems to directly contradict mainstream physicalism and suggest the validity of analytic idealism 1:57:55 - Chapter VI - We discuss the important distinction between phenomenal consciousness and meta-consciousness, arguing that the so-called ‘unconscious’ reflects merely a lack of the latter, not the former. 2:08:20 - Chapter VII - We respond to the main objections raised against Analytic Idealism. This is the closing part of the course, so Bernardo leaves you with some personal reflections about Idealism and life. 2:26:42 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Great awareness and way of articulating. Very wise man who doesn't miss much, respectful, knowledgeable, insightful, respectful, and very cautious. That's what I've taken away from him, is to be aware we can fool ourselves, mind can be a joker and hide truths. Be cautious of the mind and what one thinks... Beautiful. And direct yet not a bully, and won't swallow pride or hold back; he's able to keep self in check completely. Much respect. Very philosophical, hints of Alan Watts appear to exist. Thinking he knows of Alan Watts, amongst others. It's time to appreciate good men, that's why I'm giving so much respect! It's time truth and good get Their attention and not the crazy humans who control it... Thank you Sir and mad respect.
Phenomenal video Dr. Tevin! Bernardo is just...amazing...like consciousness, there's no real word(s) to describe him! 😅 Please keep up the amazing work Tevin, we all need/rely on people like you out here getting the message out! 💙
You are more than welcome! 🙏 Dr. Naidu, videos like this helped saved me from my addiction and your interviews are some of the best, easiest and most enjoyable out there. It's truly therapeutic to listen to conversations like this!
So depending on the note his Mrs gives him (of course)!!!, I think Bernardo should be awarded smartest, kindest most balanced and diplomatic chap of the year... !!!
As outlined, given that Consciousness is fundamental, everything else is a thought of Consciousness and is therefor mental. What humans are consists of 1) an individuation of Consciousness which is eternal, and 2) a thought body which is temporary. Read "A Summary of Unified Science" at drive.google.com/file/d/13zKOs49yBWbMZ2wfGGx6tibFzFbOaJfp/view?usp=sharing. It is a layman's guide by a layman.
No. Matter is a manifestation of energy - transient patterns of energy. Likewise consciousness is a manifestion of patterns of energy in your brain (which itself is a manifestation of matter and hence also just patterns of energy). Therefore, consciousness or “mind” and mattern are both fundamentally interrelated by both being manifestions of energy patterns. You need to understand that your “brain” processes the world in terms of comparisons, resulting in a dualistic view of the world around us - good / bad, pretty / ugly, love / hate, black / white. That is the only knowledge you really have to make sense of the world. You just make stuff up from that to try to understand the world. There is no mind/body except your brain makes you think so.
@@thomassoliton1482: I cannot disagree with your Materialistic view. It works. But it doesn't explain consciousness and it has no idea what Life actually is. Who we really are has nothing to do with the body or the mind. There are several descriptions of the mind. In Buddhism, the mind is described as consisting of components like consciousness (vijñāna), perception (saṃjñā), sensations (vedanā), mental formations (saṅkhāra), and mindfulness (smṛti). These components are essential in understanding the nature of the mind according to Buddhist teachings. From that perspective, the mind is both an expression of the brain and an interface to the spirit, depending on which part of that description you focus on. Going deeper, every cell in our body has an energetic link to every other cell in our body. And when you look at the body from the view of an atom, all atoms are energy. Ergo, matter is energy. Even Einstein's equation shows that matter and energy are interchangeable, so that makes them the same, like two sides of a coin. How matter (energy) takes form is determined by the electromagnetic pattern involved. But matter is not fundamental in that equation, energy is. What is fundamental, from the Materialist view, has a source, and that is consciousness. But the Materialist view does not consider Consciousness to be any more real than the wispy thoughts of the mind. That's where Metaphysics and Spiritualism steps in. And that's where the insights of near-death experiencers, like me, have found confirmation that Consciousness is fundamental. So from one point of view, I agree that matter is an expression/manifestation of energy. From another point of view matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. From my personal experience, there is an aspect of mind/consciousness that exists without a material brain/body, and that means energy exists at a whole different level, and the 'matter' it takes form as is beyond what the physical world can imagine. This is not a complete explanation of reality, and that's because "reality" is beyond comprehension of the human mind. You have to get out of the body, literally, to get a glimpse of reality. You might want to invest some time in two areas: Near Death Experience (NDE), and Resonance Science.
I enjoy Bernardo. In the final analysis, acceptance of his explanation leaves me at peace with no need to sweat the small stuff. The real job of science is to discover the next thing we can't understand. There will always be a new thing that we strive to incorporate into our world view for exactly what reason I am unsure. Humanity appears to be quickly rising to our level of incompetence (the Peter Principal), with the most hopeful outcome being the returning to the stone age and not wiping ourselves out all together.
@30:00 When I read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I do not remember reading anything about how the imagination plays a role in experience-except to the extent that he went on and on about distinctions between a priori and a posteriori, which is about before and after questions. Anyway, even until now, every time I have thought about the difference between the thing-as-experienced and the thing-in-itself, my mind has always maintained a static conception of how these two interact. I would think of, say, a cup sitting in front of me and I would contemplate what it is-in itself-sitting right there before me., not as it is in terms of the flow of time. I have never thought of the way in which fantasy or imagination plays into this dynamic. When I think of the way I experience the cup in the future, then, clearly, in order to do that, I must call into use the faculty of imagination. In the case of science, each experiment begins as a hypothesis, a technical word designating really nothing more than imagination. Then, imagination, on the other hand, is basically an "experience" of the future based on experience(s) of the past. Strictly speaking, however, we cannot have an experience of the future right now, and our attempts to do so call forth the faculty of imagination, furnishing us with a set of integrated conceptions about the way things will be in the future, assuming we set up conditions in such and such a way. My question is whether this task of conceiving events as they will be under this or that condition in the future is precisely an example of gaining knowledge of what is meant by noumena. Arguably, imagination does not rely on direct perceptions, for arrangements of form and content constituting such experiences as are to take place in the future obviously cannot be based on things that are happening in the present-except by imaginal extension, or extrapolation. The future is basically another "world" that we do not occupy yet, but can potentially. The least we can say is that the present utilizes imagination but that the images so conceived in us are based on direct perceptions we are having in the present moment. Our conceptions of what will happen, on the other hand, depend on perceptions that we either have had in the past or are having in the present. Hypotheses are of this latter sort. A hypothesis is a technical word used to denote one's prediction-an internal image of a future state-about the way phenomena will behave under this or that condition. So could it be that we are getting to a knowledge of things-in-themselves whenever we imagine their possible changes, or different configurations, in the future? Indeed, is imagination our gateway into noumena? Or does it remain true nonetheless that even our conceptions about future states-absent direct perception-combine into such forms and contents as we have reason to believe will take place in the future, and yet these still continue to suffer imprisonment in what we call the phenomenal realm? If we are constrained to deny that even future "experiences"--i.e., educated fantasies-constitute example of accessing the noumenal realm, but we are still unable to deem such possible experiences as phenomenal (since they do not rely on direct perception), then I suppose the technical distinction and resultant dualism between things-as-experienced versus things-in-themselves would necessitate the addition of an entirely distinct and new realm: the imaginal. This of course would result in a triadic structure as opposed to the simple dualism between phenomena and noumena. And since we can never really pin down the instantaneous present, it would seem that most people-and that would include all scientists and philosophers-live just about the entirety of their lives in this imaginal realm. It could also be the case that there is no such thing as noumena, and there is only phenomena, and further that what we call phenomena isn't a "realm" at all but is rather just a word we use to denote experience. In other words, it is just mere synonym. Experience is experience-a tautology -whenever or wherever we have it, the reason we can't "get behind" phenomena is that it would call into play the same categories of the understanding that we of necessity rely on to construct any other experience. What we are asking to get to when we talk about noumena is to have an experience in the absence of those mental faculties by which we have experience at all. And that's why Kant said it was categorically impossible. Even if we could access noumena, for us they would yet have to be experienced as phenomena. However, I think the one exception to this is when we manage somehow to accurately predict the future, since we can be confident that the objects of future "perception" are not yet there-ie., they are not yet present as things-in-themselves-and yet we have somehow still managed to grasp that which would be there. And so I think these imaginal experiences might be examples of synthetic a priori phenomena. And I think all of this somehow ties into our strange predictions of particle behavior between two conscious subjects.
... modern-day, present-era disclosure is about laying out every card in the human condition deck, simultaneously. It's an all-in-one, fully-open go at sorting truth from fiction about EV'ER'Y-THING. When so many of us are already stressed out to the maximum traumatised people, and having been lied to and conditioned by false narative perspectives not very many are able to twig, sort and get it.
Great idea to have this structure for the conversation. All I can say is, I absolutely love Bernardo, he changed my life. Well, his explanations of reality, have enabled me to understand a bunch of concepts I was not going to arrive at by myself. As a result, I was able to understand the world in a way which is coherent, and makes sense to me. And as a result, I made significant changes in my life, which resulted in a much better existence. So, I’m indebted to him, but he doesn’t even know that. Thank you for tgat
@@drtevinnaidu thanks for taking the time to reply, your channel is fantastic. I have 4-5 conversation saved in “watch later” I’m eager to get to. I’m learning a lot from the way you frame questions for your guests
Excellent Explanation ❤...thanks again. Very similar to the essentia foundation analytic idealism course. Oh.. yes you did mention its a crash course.😅
Great! Very clear and understandable. Thank you for this. 46:30 A better illustration would be a wave and a ripple: Since the Higgs Boson becomes particles which wasn't it, the ripple changing size is inadequate. But take a huge wave out in an ocean and compare that to a minuscule ripple at a quiet seashore - and ask what on earth they have in common - but being part of the same element.
Brilliant discussion Dr Naidu - thank you! Analytical idealism is like a fresh breeze from Advaita vedanta thought. Brahma Satyam - Jagat Mithya- Jeevo Brahmaivanaparah is the fundamental assertion. We interpret it as - Consciousness is real - This universe is an illusion ( as it appears in our consciousness)- our little consciousness is one and the same with the one universal consciousness! This ancient wisdom is gaining popularity especially post Quantum mechanics interpretations and neuroscience. But question is - is that all? No. Truth is a Pathless land (JK) and theres another mode of awareness ( not method) by which one can associate with the consciousness while we are alive. That observer mode is non participative and can happen only by grace which is a bad word in science! I am writing a book expanding on this discovery or whatever one calls it based on my experience. A few teachers like Jiddu Krishnamurti & Sri Ramana Maharshi tried to point to the truth - we are like the blind men describing the elephant! Once again - thanks Bernardo/ Naidu ❤
Thanks for the video! I wonder if you even wanted to ask Bernardo about J. Krishnamurti. JKs philosophy was all about not letting "thought" distort the field of reality and letting the "Reality" speak for itself.
The bit about some physicalists having the unexamined assumption that their perceptual experiences exist in the world was interesting. It reminds me of when I asked a friend the question about the tree falling with no one around - does it make a sound? And he said yes, appealing to the fact that the air still wiggles. I tried to say that this isn’t the same as the experience of sound, but I don’t remember where the conversation went after
@@drtevinnaiduThe tree in the woods is a good thought experiment. Now apply that to all the known senses in addition to hearing: vision, smell, touch, taste. If there is no one observing the tree, what is there?
2:15:00 The notion that our internal subjective experience is the only thing we have a direct access to, is kind of a solipsistic starting point, even though, strictly speaking, it is not "Solipsism".
There is an interesting point in Kastrup's book "Science ideated. The fall of matter...", which I think sums up the intention of it. For example, when Kastrup refutes Graziano, who defends that consciousness does not exist, the basic motivation that is personified in this Princeton neuroscientist comes through: the totally objective approach to consciousness. Although it may include subjective judgments, these are also treated objectively, that is, generically, and not as examples of one's own true subjective experience. I think that the whole substance of the matter lies there, in objectification itself, a path that is the hallmark of materialism. By objectifying consciousness and treating it like any other object of study - with the person studying it being a mere neutral observer, that is, completely obfuscating the subjective experience that all this study already entails -, there is the possibility, that is (and using the words from Kastrup himself), it is plausible that one can approach or glimpse on the horizon that consciousness does not exist. That is the very essence of materialism: when the observer is separated from the observed, that observed, which will be an abstraction, will behave, curiously, like an abstraction disguised as a non-abstraction; That is to say, it could be absolutely anything before the blinded gaze of the observer who, systematically deceiving himself, will be a victim of the inherent mental nature - therefore, liquid, changing, totally free, like the mind that is - of his beloved apparent "no-abstraction". Graziano "gets" that consciousness does not exist in the same way that he might have announced that the Earth is flat or that the true number pi is not 3.1416. Hence the terrible, indiscriminate and recurring contradictions that materialists arrive at, and that Kastrup points out and dissects in the book. Everything exists - everything is possible - in the mind, and this is exactly what materialists confirm, without realizing it and in a comical way, in their "objective" studies of the world.
Another example. In chapter 10, when he argues against Frankish illusionism ("felt experience is just an illusion"), Frankish distills a clear separative approach to the "difficult problem of consciousness." I explain. Frankish maintains that "it seems to us that we live subjective, felt experiences, but these are only inaccurate representations of concrete brain - that is, physical - states." That is, in some way - which, at first glance, conveys something confusing - brain activity generates a hallucination or illusion, which we label as "experience" or "quality" (qualia). Then, Kastrup replies by pointing out that the mere fact of "appearing to live an experience, no matter how imprecise it may be, is already in and of itself a felt and immediate experience. Like that experience of seeming real to us that which is not, according to Frankish , must also be the inaccurate representation of a specific neuronal state, then we arrive at the conclusion that "it seems to us that something that is not seems real to us." As we see, this approach to illusionism never concludes, it is infinitely recursive. Why doesn't Frankish see this absurdity? Very easy. As I mentioned before, in the case of Graziano, the dialogue with Frankish is, in reality, a non-existent encounter: Frankish IS his own point of view, his own self-image, his own character, and from that completely conceptual position, pure consciousness does not "speak" through Frankish, but rather it is said consciousness that places him in the dialogue, as if it were a puppet. That is why Frankish never "catches with his hands" the threads of consciousness that articulate him; That is why Frankish never closes the circle and always tends to infinity in his arguments. This is how he works scientific materialism, that is, science as we know it today...
Tomorrow I have an interview with François Kammerer due for upload. He builds on Frankish's work quite a bit. Even if you disagree, you might find the conversation very enlightening!
@@drtevinnaidu Interesting! And a coincidence😄. I'm reading Kastrup's book, so I took advantage of the pages I was reading at the time to comment on my visions. Indeed, Kastrup's pulse does not tremble when it comes to questioning the mainstream. Although, while I'm at it, it is worth asking if the "stream" part -and its consequences- is dispensable. That is to say, we are so used to looking to the world out there, to the tumultuous stream of society, that we even come to conceive of a "non-dominant stream" as if it were inevitable to either confront the hegemonic, or to be carried along by an alternative stream. Although Kastrup does not hesitate to base the structure of his book on the reply and counter-reply to the statements of different representatives of the mainstream, I have the impression that the "difficult problem of consciousness", to a large extent, involves something radically different. As something that is beyond personal discussions. Anyway, these are impressions.😄 We shall see what the interview offers in this respect. Thank you!
@@drtevinnaidu By the way, in chapter 13 of the same book, when analytical idealism is explained, there is an important aspect that seems to me susceptible to being revised. This is when Kastrup states that "universal consciousness is not metacognitive, that is, it does not plan, it is not deliberate" (which he already makes clear in previous publications). Kastrup defines metacognition as the ability to be aware that one is aware, which is correct (it is, therefore, the same as self-reflection, a term he uses in previous books). He also points out that "metacognition ALLOWS deliberate action, planning, reasoning," which is also correct. Now, the fact that metacognition ALLOWS what we could summarize as "ego" does not imply that it IS the ego, in any case. Metacognition - consciousness seeing itself - is what Eastern wisdom has pointed out since ancient times. The ego - the separate self, identity, thought in Krishnamurtian terms, intellect, etc. - is nothing more than a symbol, an image of the self-reflection of universal consciousness. To understand it better, it is interesting to link analytical idealism with Jean Gebser's accurate vision of the structures of consciousness. They would be these, deployed in time: archaic, magical, mythical, mental and integral (from our days onwards). It is in the mental structure where the observer-observed separation is maximum - the ego is perfected - but self-reflection already begins to take shape much earlier, in the magical structure, surely. It is in the integral structure where self-reflection is completed, transcending the ego, and consciousness once again closes on itself, "after" having generated the illusion of space and time (which implies the temporal succession of structures itself, which If we look closely, it is the ego's own activity, the mental structural activity).
Thank you! I've been waiting for this one!... One suggestion: I usually listen to podcasts before bed, but the audio on this one made that really hard... The volume of the guest (Bernardo) didn't match the volume of the host (You). Your voice was much louder than Bernardo's. Just giving you a heads up. Your podcast is great btw!
Thanks so much! I usually tend to normalize and match the volumes - but I must have forgotten for some reason. Will definitely keep that in mind!! Glad you enjoyed it nonetheless!
2:12:30 "Under Idealism there is only one field of subjectivety" (MAL). Does that mean that under Analytical Idealism, MAL is an axiomatic fundamental principle that need no further justification?
@goran586 Hello. My understanding of how Kastrup gets to MAL is not axiomatic, but a logical argument of analogy/inference: There is one thing for which I do not rely on perception; that thing is myself. I have access to what it is like to be me via introspection. The outward appearance of what is like to be me is represented by/looks like molecules, cells, atoms, etc. I also observe others beyond me who resemble my appearance and are made up of cells, and I infer by analogy they have their own private mental experience like I do. Furthermore, via perception, I observe other “things” composed of atoms, molecules and I infer that they are also the outward appearance of subjectivity of a larger mind to which I do not have access to entirely; I am merely a localized component of that larger mind. Similar to how multiple dream characters can exist within my own dreams embedded within a dream world, but within the mind of a single dreamer. Why should we assume the cells, molecules, atoms, etc. that we observe via perception are not of the same nature as the representations of my own subjective experience?
Of course, Kastrup (as I understand him) argues it is inflationary to argue the cells, molecules, atoms I observe are of a different ontological category other than subjective experience; I should stick with what I know (i.e. I know I am an experiencing subject that has the appearance of cells, atom’s molecules, etc. and I infer what I observe as outside is also of that same ontological category)
We can barely control our fragmented state of consciousness as it is, and the universal mind knows that. A good reason for alters. As we our eternal battle rages on between ‘I want’ and ‘Thou shalt’.
Was stuck in my perspective and enjoyed the stimilution of the different perspectives. Was really getting annoyed with youtube talks of catchphrases and explinations that barely meet the amount of detail I'm looing for.
The “boundary” or dissociative state is consciousness. The dashboard or “instrument panel” is the information you are aware of provided by your brain’s neuronal circuitry that analyzes the sensory information from the external world. That is “all” you can know of the world outside and in fact inside your body. But another aspect of your dashboard is your memory - your “internal” or mental representation of the world, which your brain struggles constantly to synchronize with the external world. If you meet someone new, you need to modify your world model to incorporate them. Consciousness is the interface between those two mental worlds - you can’t be in two places at once (past and present) when you compare them, so your brain has made up a new place - “conscious-land”.
This is helpful because, and to the extent that it is a cogent and structured exposition of one man’s rumination. It is, however, rumination. And not deep or clear enough to be a system, theory, or even a serious proposal.
Specific Cyphometric formulas are a wonderful way to express and show the relationship between nothingness as represented by "0" and everything by "9"... within its numeric grid...
@@drtevinnaidu apart from that occasional thought experiments of say Einstein any information must originate in the lab experiments using various tools. Otherwise I can play gymnastics with my thoughts. I am amazed how there are hundreds of videos around with virtual nothing at all. I am however impressed by the talk skills.
Request to Bernardo. Please coralate Analytic Idealism to A. Watt's philosophy. I can see that you two (if you could have a beer chat) wouldn't disagree at all but it would be nice to hear your extended version upon it.
We could say that there is consciousness which is aware of ‘stuff’ which is consciousness that is vibrating. Consciousness is dividing itself into that which does not vibrate and that which does vibrate. Without vibration nothing would be manifest, there would just be Reality or God which does not vibrate except in manifestation. ‘Be still and know that I am God.’
How about the concept that the brain (and all other cells in the body) is like a transceiver that is simply communicating with Consciousness, and that the perceived experience occurs in Consciousness and not in the brain/body. How else would it be possible for someone who is brain dead for over 10 minutes and come back to life with rich stories of another realm? In other words, there might not be a way to recreate images, sounds, smell, touch, and taste just by capturing brain activity because it would have to register what is going on in Consciousness, which is not the body or the mind.
@@drtevinnaidu mate, I'm so impressed at the range and quality of speakers, not sure I have too much to contribute other than fandom at this point 🤣 ... each episode is like the top of a paradigm/rabbithole, love the mention of new concepts and names to explore. Searle was my entry point into all this, c. 15 years ago, it would be interesting to know his current take of the various philosophies, e.g. Idealism, Illusionism, Pan, etc. (if he's kept abreast of them)
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
All is 313-minds eye of sacrificed spectrum. Singular being is fundamental. It's consciousness with potential. It originally sacrifices it's state by breaking in half and choosing one side, ergo the first bit of information and everything that is computationally relevant to consciousness. You feel it.
I think there is a bit more to physicalism and how it arose than Bernardo says. It did not just arise as a political maneuver. It also arose gradually over the course of many centuries at the same time that mythological consciousness, which mediated authentic, vivid non-physical realities, gradually faded into abstract thought. Abstract thought experientially is such a faded thing that many people seem to be in doubt whether it is real at all and therefore they tend to think it can be reduced to the physical brain. That millennia-long process of non-physical awareness fading into abstract awareness led to the misunderstanding that the physical world is the primary reality. The cause of the misunderstanding was not just a political maneuver. Nor is Bernardo correct if he means that physicalism is nothing but an error and that the life work of scientists who built everything on it has been nothing but a wrong path. Physicalism was a phase that was key for the evolution of the individual able to distinguish himself clearly from everything else! It was part of the rise of true individual awareness from the collective awareness of humanity's ancient past. Recall how the early scientific revolution emerged out of an increasing insistence on a clear distinction between subject and object. Scientists and philosophers started accordingly to differentiate increasingly between what they called primary qualities and secondary qualities. The secondary qualities were put in the "merely" subjective category, and were not to be allowed to interfere with real science, which was to be concerned exclusively with objective realities untainted by subjective fantasy, superstition, feelings, desires, sensations, etc. They wanted to avoid confusing the physical with the non-physical, the way alchemists mixed them up together. And scientists' awareness of the non-physical had dwindled to abstractions. Eventually, so many qualities were put by scientists into the "subjective" category that all that was left as objective and really real was quantity. At the same time, humanity, especially in certain places, but spreading gradually everywhere, became ever more engaged in dealing with and mastering the physical world by means of pure abstractions. People naturally started to take it for granted that the physical world was all there is. The whole evolution of consciousness over the course of a few millennia brought this situation about, and it was part of the increasing discovery of individual awareness. Individual awareness was more or less absent from mythological consciousness and the nevertheless authentic, vivid non-physical realities mythological awareness mediated to the ancients. The next stage is to learn to become aware again of non-physical realities, but now as conscious free individuals, rather than as mere parts of a collective cyclically living a more or less unchanging myth. That the scientific revolution played a role in the deepening discovery of the individual might be the greatest achievement of the scientific revolution. Now science, not in the quantitative sense, but qualitatively, should be further developed toward a systematic, disciplined, collegial and cooperative research project into the non-physical world. It must be rediscovered now at a higher level than the ancients, in their collective, more or less pre-individual consciousness, could achieve.
It's rather cute, how scientists today discuss topics, which philosophers thousands of years ago have become closer to. It would be great fun to see philosophers and scientists from the previous five thousand years meet in a podcast to discuss consciousness and matter. And they would have to start by understanding the expansion of Brahma into Purusha and Prakriti.
Very good point. There have been - in the 1900' s - till now - some interesting synthesis of ancient Hindu thought (Purusha etc) and Sufi practice - in modern Raja Yoga theory and practice. So clear and far-reaching and effective - as spiritual Method and evocation of what is still possible for human experience.
Another great conversation. Is it possible to fix the sound? Bernardo's voice is too low so listening on headphones deafens me when the other guy speaks 😢
Sorry about this! Not sure why this occurred as I usually normalize and match the volumes.. Was this on the RUclips version or Spotify/other platforms?
I’m only half way through so far, but I see him listing issues with materialism/ohysicalism but I don’t see him making any compelling arguments why his idealism view is closer to reality… I may be misunderstanding, but I’m getting that both idealism and pansychism take subjective experience to be fundamental to reality… interesting alternative take on things, but why would I spend any time on it? What compelling arguments are there that this can explain reality?
Great question! The overall image is a Brain. Within the brain are 2 symbols combined. The first is is Phi - Φ (represents philosophy) and the second symbol is Psi - Ψ (represents psychology). Overall it represents a combination of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology - core themes in Mind-Body Solution! 😊
I don't know about his example of a cell, cells are compounded as well as they take their resources from the mother so that they can continue to divide. The resources taken from the mother are small molecules and proteins, whereas a robot is compounded As well from different pieces of the universe like silicon
@@NOCOMPLYE i still disagree, to obtain the status of zygote it is still compounded over time by smaller parts in which allows it to self construct. One entity merges with another, than attaches itself to the uterine wall, and creates a connection to supply the building materials so that it can construct itself. The eventual end to it is a separation from its supply of building materials and now its required to obtain its building materials through its own systems. Ultimately, the entire entity is constructed via smaller parts that are supplied by the host. Both a machine and a human body are composed of the same basic elements, well, what our "dashboard" perceives as the basic elements. "Energy" flows through both machine and body in specific repeatable ways. I dont see why a machine compounded of small bits cannot be the same as a body compounded by small bits. At this time our machines aren't close to what we perceive as the complexity of a human, but assuming he is right about his take on reality, this is a new theory he is building up, his implications based on his theory may be incorrect. I dont think any individuals massive theory like the one were discussing was 100% perfect from day 1, it evolved over decades and gained precision through experimentation. So for him to conclude that a zygote is not compounded from different parts like a machine just doesn't seem to fit, like he is attempting to say that only humans/life is capable of consciousness but nothing else? What we perceive are conscious agents as we would see them but a machine can't be? I am having difficulty getting past that point clearly lol
@MindBodySolution thst is the only acceptable answer in my opinion. I agree and I am curious. It is interesting to think about. Sometimes, we can get too wrapped up in such curiosities and lose our ability for any earthly good. In other words, if we are so in our head, we can't enjoy the dashboard that can provide us with so many wonder experiences. It can also be very disorienting.
Life is for enjoying the dashboard. Once our living body dies, then we may find a deeper connection to fundamental consciousness. As Jim Morrison said " no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn"
Maybe Bernardo is right in the end, but it seems to me that Michael Levin's approach to boundaries of the self seems more evidence based and productive. If cells in the body behave like individuals and if molecular networks can learn, as Levin claims, maybe the structure of representations reflect structure of the mind behind the representations. If anyone has the key to combination problem, it's Michael Levin and his co-workers. Don Hoffman is not a panpsychist, but his conscious agents also combine, so his theory also seems to provide solution to combination problem, even though it is not clear if boundaries between them are reflected by boundaries of representations.
Michael Levin is obviously an intelligent person, but I would submit to you he's conflating when he talks about the "self" in terms of his theory - because what he's arguing for isn't actually what anyone would rightly identify as the "self," but rather higher-order cognitive functioning and developmentary biology that happened in order for us to survive. These aren't the same things. What any one person rightly recognizes as the "self" is, at its core, almost stunningly simple - it's the "I am" within which all of one's thoughts, emotions, preferences, likes & dislikes, etc. come and go. None of the latter is static. They change like the ripples on a lake almost without pause, but the underlying subjectivity in which all of these happen, no matter whether you're 2 or 80 years old, remains perfectly undisturbed. Nothing so much as lays a hand on it.
But higher level of consciousness is exactly spiritual experience which is analytical idealism.Bernardo can't stop people to claim whatever they want regarding their experience and description,so if they see it like he does perceive,than how can he stop them?..
*Consciousness is the "LINK" between the human experience, and "LIFE The Real Self" which is The LIGHT seen during a so-called NDE !* *"LIFE The Real Self" is "AWARENESS", so Become SELF-AWARE...*
Hope you're enjoying the content. By last guest, which one are you referring to after this video? Ogi Ogas, Thomas Metzinger, Me (Tevin Naidu). Sorry Juan, I'm still confused😅
Hinduism and Buddhism have a sophisticated way to describe many explanations of consciousness, no other religion or language has that, the west physics needs to study Hinduism, Einstein did.😊
I still have no explanation for suffering or the meaning of life. I've suffered plenty and I have learned almost nothing from it, except that people can be very cruel.
I hope the cruelty of life gets better for you. Be very skeptical and wary of those who offer advice and explanations for suffering or the meaning of life (including this advice)! No two people have the same experience there I don't believe anyone can truly provide you with an explanation for your own existence.💙
It is not a coincidence that the word for matter comes from the Latin word for Mother. Experience arises out of the feminine soul (eros) and is shaped and organized by masculinity (logos). Every new experience is procreated by these two energies. The ancients had it more accurately than us.
Well i callled for rain in South Carolina and it rained in ohio instead of here lol no worries about the domain of Talorical currents in the mixes of consciousness is trucky thing to consider when you have a lot of vibrational currents that convergence is harder then one would think about it for atmosphere is shifting in the production of a Fue spacial waves right now regarding temperature and the votex of the energy that the States of vibrational is intentions
Beyond labels, which serve no purpose, metaphysical idealism, non-duality or David Bohm's vision of implicate order, for example, point to the same thing. Quantum theory and Krishnamurti's famous phrase, "the observer is the observed". Reality is an undivided, unlimited whole, and the objects that emerge into consciousness are nothing more than the self-conscious effect inherent in that totality. In all this, the human being plays a crucial role: is there any observer of the universe, any other "subject", which serves to confirm the very existence of the subject "human being"? If there is not (in the terms that the human being defines "to exist"), it is clearly demonstrated that the human being is only a construct sustained by convention. Thereafter, there is no longer any doubt that no separate form or object-subject exists beyond such an object-constructing mechanism, which we may call consciousness or thought. The endeavor to sustain the indubitable existence of the human being, with its history and its complex social (and sentimental) structures, reinforces the separation between the observer and the observed.
Maybe I don't quite understand what you mean, English is not my native language, but the following question occurred to me: There was a time when the cosmos contained no life, at that time there was no question of "the observer is the observed". Was there a cosmos at that time? Btw, I completely agree that labels serve no purpose.
@@nicknijman2500Don't worry, my language is Spanish or Catalan.😄 Cartesian logic says that before there was conscious life, and before there was life in general, the cosmos already existed. Therefore, it is concluded that there exist independently an objective reality (cosmos) and the domain of mind or consciousness (what is thought about the cosmos). Does this make sense? Is this not an artificial division? Are not "cosmos" and "what is thought about the cosmos" two images with the same origin? Can one be sure that there is the cosmos and its history beyond consciousness about it all? The convention is that time was created 13800 million years ago, i.e., time began at a particular moment within the timeline... which is absurd, for there was no time. History, the past, whatever it is, is generated by observation, i.e., it emerges within consciousness. Consciousness, as a whole, is an unlimited void.
@@jorgegarciapla6880 Hola, thanks for the reaction and reassuring 😊 In this case cartesian logic appeals to me, i don't see it as an artificial division. Will try to explain. As you noted, the fundamental consiousness is an unlimited void, the cosmos is not an unlimited void. The fundamental consiousness and the cosmos are opposites. Now comes the problem for many, this implies dualism, and that is correct. However, the fundamental consiousness itself is neither dual nor non-dual, the fundamental consiousness is. Just as (+) is neither dual nor nondual, just as (-) is neither dual nor nondual. (+) and (-) are dual, unless (+) and (-) are equivalent opposites and form a unity, then the (+) and (-) are nondual, like the (+) and (-) of a battery. Nondual cannot exist without dual. The fundamental consiousness and the cosmos are both a reality on it's own, even though the cosmos arises from the fundamental consiousness. In my opinion, nondual is being misinterpreted. But hey, who am I 😁
@@nicknijman2500 Hello, thanks to you. David Bohm explains quite well the coexistence of the dual and the non-dual, in the view of the implicate order and the explicate order. Indeed, the undivided or non-dual and the fragmented or dual cannot be mutually exclusive (clashing) opposites, but complementary opposites. Complementary opposites fit together, like a key and a lock, like a particle and its antiparticle; one without the other is meaningless, of course. The explained or unfolded order and the implicate order are two complementary opposite facets of totality; the undivided and unknowable background of the implicate order is indissoluble from the observable universe, from the manifest, from space-time, the domain of the objects of consciousness, the explained order. From the fragmentation of the explained order, causality is natural, so that things exist independently and orderly in time and space. "Before man, the cosmos was already there." But the implied order is revealed in the question "who or what establishes that the cosmos exists, or the human brain?".
@@jorgegarciapla6880 Very interesting, i am not familiar with David Bohm's implicate and explicate order, the vision about dual and non-dual comes from myself. "who or what establishes that the cosmos exists, or the human brain?" Because i'm not scientifically substantiated this seems like a trick question, although i have come to understand where the question comes from. Since we are talking about dual and non-dual, i can appropriately answer the following on the question "who or what establishes that the cosmos exists, or the human brain?": Before that question could be asked, the fundamental consciousness and the cosmos were dual. Since that question can be asked, the fundamental consciousness and the cosmos are non-dual.
At 1:22 Kastrup states that there is no personal self and that the idea of personal self is an illusion. The problem I have with this statement is that Kastrup seems to contradict himself. Although he says that “ is the qualities of experience” he unambiguously states that there is no personal self which endures after that. And this somewhat because Kastrup stated several times that he ‘has not died yet and come back’ so he does not know what exactly expects us beyond dissociation. So how can he be sure that our personal self, like our love, our memories, do not stay with us beyond biological life? And he also stated that he ‘sympathises’ with people who had NDE although he did not have one himself and that he finds the work of respected scientists on NDE highly credible. Everyone knows that people who claimed to have had NDE had a sense of self enough to recognise dead relatives ‘there’. By definition if one did that, one must have had a sense of self albeit free of transfers and projections. I again would love to hear more about the meaning of being in consciousness but devoid of the sense of self. As promised by our host we will hear from Professor Faggin soon and I hope this question will be asked so we can understand in detail how Faggin’s and Mauro D’Ariano ’s theory allows for the possibility of a sense of self beyond biological life. Professor Faggin had several spontaneous OOB experiences himself, therefore, his approach of understanding the possibility of maintaining a sense of self out of body is probably different from Kastrup’s.
Yes thank you. One, what is exactly the sense of self that we will not have beyond dissociation? ( definition). Two, what does Bernardo think of Faggin’s theory of classical information attached to quantum information beyond biological life. Thank you sincerely
I would love to ask Professor Faggin to explain in more details his theory of ‘seity’. He defines seity as an entity with consciousness that exists even without a body. What sense of self does the seity have? Also, do all seities tend to attach themselves to other seities and is that similar to the entanglement theory in quantum? Thank you !
Got it! You remind me of Sam Vatkin!! Absolutely sound similar, and both high IQ, Sam's around 180|90,and you can't be far off on either side ? Both awesome...
Alice is projected to the adam and adam doesn't know it was a psychological effects or a true image of mindfulness too convinced that state of mind to adam the adaptionality of thinking about how deep she is doing the projected thinking. Maybe only coincidental subconsciously
illusion of color yet human eye can discern billions of colours, hues and surface textures. I am ok with this illusion and it is also comforting to see green, blue...
@@drtevinnaidu yes indeed. The labels we use for a colour are just a convenience collective term for example we label blue on a whole spectrum of blue hues and intensities. I haven't counted them though but have come across details of photocopiers talking about billions. Remember the possibilities of mixing primary colours is almost infinite and the eye can see the difference if checked side by side.
Consciousness cannot split up into seperate units of perception since each unit can see theoretically in all directions at once like the inside of a sphere. Since two units trying to perceive as one will be forced to superimpose their individual perceptions upon each other this will become a mess. That is why I believe that a single cosmic or universal consciousness is not possible.
The consciousness perceives but it does not create or choose what it perceives. That is done outside of space and time where the conscious mind cannot go.@@drtevinnaidu
Federici Faggin would agree with you. He differentiates between classical and quantum physics and the units, in order to differentiate, will have attached some classical information. He says, that the classical information attached to each monad will be, as classical information usually is, non private. Therefore the differentiation will be in the classical, ‘overt’, info evident in every unit. Hopefully one day we will have an interview with both Kastrup and Faggin.
There have been cases of Christ consciousness, which is being one with the intelligence in creation, or cosmic consciousness. The difference between that and a ‘trip’ is that with a ‘trip’ there is no transformation. A religious experience of comic consciousness is transforming and the transformation lasts. A ‘trip’ is just a ‘trip’ although it may help to some extent the overly programmed. There have been generations who have been programmed with Darwinism, materialism etc. and a ‘trip’ breaks that programming down, which is a good thing.
Why can't Bernardo accept that the ripples in the lake are a reality in themselves? No, they are not the fundamental reality, which is the water of the lake. Nevertheless, the ripples are a fact with its own properties, in other words there are different realities with their own rules and laws that arise from a fundamental reality with its own rules and laws. What we perceive with our senses Bernardo calls the dashboard, what Bernardo ignores is that we are part of the dashboard and therefore the dashboard is as real to us as real can be. In fact, all we can perceive is the dashboard, the dashboard is a reality with its own rules and laws that we must recognize and accept. If you do not accept, acknowledge and understand the reality of the dashboard then it is impossible to understand the fundamental reality.
My understanding is that, for example, when a child is born, he or she learns to use the dashboard. The child’s consciousness learns to inhabit the body. The body as well as the rest of the things in nature are symbols for something else. One example that Kastrup proposes are our tears which are symbols of our suffering. When we die we do away with the body and do not need the dash board anymore. The dashboard makes it possible for consciousness to operate in time space body in the world.
Hi @@VittBiancoeNero-hx1jy Bernardo uses the dashboard as an analogy for what we perceive with our senses, as the sky, trees, etc.. The point i wanted to make; the dashboard is the only reality we can perceive with our senses and we are also part of the dashboard, therefore the dashboard is as real to us as real can be. Although the dashboard represents the fundamental reality, the dashboard is nevertheless a reality in itself. Therefore it must be taken seriously and recognized as a reality in itself. Bernardo doesn't do that, that's a huge mistake in my opinion. Bernardo does not recognize the dashboard as an independent reality for a reason i suspect. If you recognize the dashboard as an independent reality then there is duality and Bernardo tries to avoid that, bernardo sees the whole as non-dual. In my opinion non-dual is misinterpreted, but that's another story. (Btw, i agree with the gist of your comment)
Maybe a way to look at it is that we use the dashboard as an interface and that the only reality is, in fact, beyond the dashboard. Therefore we, as consciousness, are not part of the dashboard/ interface, but use the interface to live a biological life; a life within time and space. Federico Faggin called his new book “Irreducible” meaning that the only thing irreducible is consciousness, everything else derives from something else. So we should consider the dashboard as an interface which by definition is reducible. The difference between Faggin and Kastrup is that Faggin stresses the individuality of the ‘monad’ and its irreducible status, while Kastrup stresses the ripple on the water idea. I hope one day we can get both Kastrup and Faggin in the same interview so that we can understand better what they believe happens when we do away with the body and the dashboard.
@@VittBiancoeNero-hx1jy The dashboard equals matter. Therefore, at least our body is part of the dashboard. Yes, the dashboard is reducible, to the smallest particle. If the only reality is beyond the dashboard, our body, our life, nature, the universe, this discussion, are not real. That is not correct, of course they are not the fundamental reality but why only accept one reality, precisely the reality which we cannot perceive? There are three realities who are inextricably linked but nevertheless have their own rules and laws: 1) the reality of the fundamental potential / the omnipresent. 2) the fundamental reality of activated potential / the micro-cosmos. 3) the reality of activated potential / the macro-cosmos. If you accept the first reality as the only reality you get stuck. As an analogy: the first reality is the painter, the second reality is the canvas and paint, the third reality is what the painting depicts. All three realities are relevant, the painter and what the painting depicts are the most relevant. So, the fundamental reality of the dashboard (micro-cosmos) is less relevant than what the dashboard depicts (macro-cosmos). The real fundamental reality is the reality of the omnipresent but that reality is imperceptible and can only be reasoned, that's why there are so many ideas. I'm obviously not trying to force anything on you, but these topics are a passion of mine, my apologies ☺
2:25 "Investigating (...) is the world really what it looks like, on the screen on perception". 1. So you call you qualia (colours, sounds, tastes ...) perception? Why? How do you get to classify them as "perception", because perception comes with the presupposition, that they are a re-presentation of something else. If you claim that your qualia are representations, you have to argue how you get to that and not just take it for granted by using a word with an inherent meaning of it. 2. And you imply that your "screen" shows you a "world". How did you get to that ? what is your argument. Again you are presupposing things, without clarification. If you say it is on the screen of perception, but a perception implies an external realm, then you are conflating where those aspects are when you talk about them. Apparently "the world" is both in your perception and implied beyond your perception. These are ESSENTIAL questions that needs good answers, answers that BK does not address, but he just, like you, presupposes !
1. Has he done some epistemology and arrived at a definition of knowledge? 2. Has he done some ethics and arrived at a moral principle? 3. Is government based on a monopoly on violence?
I worked with vacuum tube's in the remote past of my father's radio repair shop and I was able to access the guts of the tube's for repair and the very fact the anode an cathode has a plasma ions that open up and close in coils parallel with a plasma ions it amplified the waves to produce a vibrational transition to understand that the coils parallel to the senders of energy is a very similar thing in the brains working out a problem with many billions of cell that actually has a potential to make a resonances like televisions in a singularity way and then to the conclusion of the processing of mindfulness in the production center a course of four parts of tha skull is brain Pinellas and the heart of subsequent attacks to the beating of the muscle in heart beating a skipped beating against the thoughts back to the brain muscles left point the response to right side and the Pinellas in the center is imaging an image signature it sees thing's that the brain cannot use as it the hearts singularity with the Pinellas the magnetism in the heart plasmass memories and all of the energy is through out the brain and a conclusion is formed. A vacuum tube is a similar manner act reactive response cycrnisized two sides then balancing a concept and the consequences of your replying to the question or explaination to tumg and lung to talking about the answers 😊
2:16:56 "An objective idealist would say, no no there really is an external world out there" ... why ? What is the argument ? It is not good enough to just say "there is" - you have to ARGUE how you get to it ... otherwise any claim can just be made without any justification of any kind. BK has yet to present any kind of argument - other than "it must be there" or "you cannot argue against it". If he cannot present a coherent argument, he needs to state it as an axiom that HE is working from, exactly because HE cannot ARGUE for it. That people uncritically just let this pass is a sign of either ignorance of good argumentation or willfull ignorance for a need for some "kind of way" to argue for an external safespace of their own ! And no, don't throw the idea that because i write this text, I must be out there beyond the text. That is stupid. ... But just because you are not solipsist, does not mean that you all of a sudden have proven that there is an outside. A rejection of solipsism in itself is not an argument - but if anything an inability to function accordingly - but it does not mean you then have proven an external world, that should be an obviously ridiculous line of argumentation. But if BK has a watertight argument, let me have it, off course expecting it to be based on an aspect of his screen of perception (colours, sounds, tastes, touch & smells) that necessitates that there must be something beyond his perception
I don’t quite understand. Are you saying that because solipsism is unfalsifiable that we should reject any other theory that posits an outside world? This is nonsense. Let reason be your guide. No serious philosopher would reject the notion of an outside world independent of your own mind. Bernardo’s Idealism posits an outside world because we experience it and reasons from there. If we take the ontological primitive as Consciousness, or Mind at Large, or Universal Consciousness, we can reason that Universal Consciousness has become disassociated from itself, forming us (biology). The world, as we experience it, is the image of mental processes across our dissociative boundary. I exist, you exist, but we are both just ripples of an underlying field of subjectivity. It’s pretty simple actually. Now, you might say that this isn’t an argument. But this is as strong as a physicalist interpretation of the outside world. They reason: hey, physical things exist (we don’t have any proof of this outside Consciousness but hey let’s ignore that) and they are fundamental. I leave my house and when I return, everything is still there, my dog is still there, etc. I can observe them with a microscope, I can poke you and you feel it, etc etc. physical things are fundamental and our subjectivity arises from these physical things after millions of years of evolution. So… outside world exists, surely! Provide me any definition or argument for the existence of an outside world and I could simply say: well, it could still be that it exists only in my mind, you CANT disprove that! Gotcha! Well, that isn’t a serious argument. I can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Does that mean I should use it to counter your theory? Obviously not. There is no evidence for solipsism, there is tons of evidence for an outside world, so just because I can’t falsify solipsism doesn’t mean I should take it seriously. And like Bernardo said, a serious solipsist wouldn’t get into any debates… it’s just a figment of their imagination anyway. Because you are clearly an intelligent person, I believe your problem with BK is more a personal one my friend, rooted in something else. Cheers.
For a hammer, everything is a nail, because that is the only thing a hammer does, nail things. If the only way we can know reality is through our perception and experience, reality is then made of perceptions and experiences? This is the one thing I don't understand about Bernardo, that reality must be mental because for us as investigators of reality, the only way to know it is through perception and experience and therefore everything out there is made of the same thing, our experiencing and perception, which are mental stuff. And he proposes and sells this as an easy and cheap solution to the presently hardest problems of Physicalism ... the hard problem of consciousness and the problems of quantum mechanics (mainly non-locality). And the solution is, Bernardo is a reductionist and he reduces everything to mental (mind stuff) and because it's at the bottom level of reality, it's non reducible, so you can't really explain it, it's what it is and what reality is made of, it explains the physical world by just being there at the bottom, and also explains mind appearing at the top level where we are, because there was mind all along in the fabric of reality. Basically sweeping the two hardest questions under the rug and throwing the broom out the window. At the end of the day you have explained away nothing and with mind at the bottom of reality, you wouldn't be able to explain anything away anyways. Excitations and neural activity doesn't cause consciousness and experience, but the experiences of the mind manifest through neural activity and excitations? Why is it then when we stimulate brain regions we can alter the experience or perceptions, if the neural activity is the projection of a mental state to begin with? There are many flaws I see in his argumentation and a lot of these come to light in some of his other talks, one in particular with John Vervaeke on the "theories of everything" channel. To try and be a bit more constructive though, thank you for hosting this Tevin , great talk and I really like the material on your channel. You got such a variety of very interesting people that add a lot to one of the most exciting questions of our time! Can't wait to go through and watch a bunch more ... thank you!
Whether you're a physicalist or idealist, you're at least implicitly proposing a reduction base that just is and cannot be reduced further (i.e. a miracle of sorts). I know for sure my mind exists (unless you're an illusionist, which is another topic), so why not go with the ontological primitive for which I have more epistemic certainty? If you read Kastrup's books, the argument continues into much more depth as to why the universe being mental makes the most sense and has greater explanatory power over physicalism. He also has a dissertation you can read for free online. Finally, he addresses common criticisms, such as the one you raised about stimulating the brain.
@@ChrisL-hc5gz just a quick note, illusionist doesn't say that your mind doesn't exist, just that experience and phenomenology is not that we classically think they are. Puting that aside, you uncovered the issue with the ontological primitive with the most epistemic certainty ... my experience in perceptions are fallible, there are such things as illusions of the brain or the senses. This is why we use instruments in science when probing the world. Yes, sure, ultimately your mind is what you can be the one thing you're sure exists, I have no problem with that. Where I gave problem is to put this as an ontological primitive, and with that getting a jail free card of having to explain it away, because now I've placed it at the bottom level of the reduction ladder of reality? Doesn't that sound dishonest to you? Sorry, I haven't read his books, and maybe I should, maybe I'll find the argument there that will convince me, but I have a very strong suspicion it won't. What I understand from his videos so far doesn't satisfy me
@@NOCOMPLYE yes, of course, one's own mind is not everything there is. I think Kastrup has been pretty vocal about not being a solipsist, as are many people he's debated or talked to. There are very good arguments against solipsism. What he argues for is mind at large, or a cosmic mind, of which we, individual minds represent mere dissociations of. We are part of this cosmic mind as cells are part of a body, only in this case the body is the whole universe and this cosmic mind has nothing outside of itself to reference or relate to, so it is lacking in a lot of aspects of mind that the dissociated smaller minds do posses. These I find are some of the gotcha points to his approach to explaining away consciousness. The way he solves how minds like ours arose from mere matter, thus "solving" the hard problem of consciousness, is by saying that consciousness was there all along in the fabric of reality, it just found itself at some point through the emergence of life and then evolution inside living organisms, through which it can now express itself and act on it's experiences and perceptions. I don't see how you can get from that universal mind, to the mind of individual organisms and having all these other aspects of mind that itself doesn't have to appear in evolved organisms because of evolution. Then you don't need it. Evolution alone is enough to account for all the mentation in the organisms. There might be more to be said about this, and I guess I haven't thought about this as long as he did, but this is my understanding and what makes sense to me, so I'll just leave it at that
You can’t see the space between atoms despite 99% of matter is space. You know this. But you believe that seeing is believing? When the proverbial tree falls, the “sound” is only waves until an ear hears it. You dont have sonar like a bat but you believe that sounds cannot be seen? Is a bats reality less correct? Your perception is arbitrary and you assign meaning to it. Both your perception and their meanings are only in your mind.
So we don't see colours but we get illusion of colour. What else do we have to expect; a map of photons? The eye gets the image which is then processed and relayed to consciousness as colour perception tied up with a bundle of data stored in memory. I don't see how to design the perception otherwise. Don't make it hard for God.
@@drtevinnaidu it is catch22. photons themselves are seen by scientists indirectly based on our interface to the world. My point is that evolution has done well in designing our interface. If I am asked to design it I wouldn't have done any better
It is just another way of seeing color, through a machine that breaks them into waves on a screen or a graph. So we see color 2 different ways, why would one be more real than another? This is the physicalist notion, that the physical map of reality is the real one, I doubt it is more real, according to an idealist the waves are just as illusionary as the colors (or as real) there is no need to separate the 2 views as one being the better version.
Consciousness *IS* the fundamental reality. There are 144 levels of consciousness available to "humans". Most of these lost beings are below the 48th level. In order to graduate from this Reality Simulator we call a planet, we *MUST* first reach the 96th level at which point we become Christed beings. In other words we have attained Christ consciousness. From then on we go out into the world being an example others can follow per their own gree will. Neither force nor deception is used to so-called convert anyone. As we approach the 144th level through self transcendence, Ascension will be the final phase... There's a whole lot more for "humans" to remember and learn, if / when they choose to do so.
@@kakhaval It seems you skipped reading comprehension class. I said there are 144 levels available to humans. How did God get mixed up in this? You have hereby demonstrated your ignorance about a subject that should be known to all so-called humans. Unfortunately that is not the case, hence the reason this planet is in such a mess. Humans think they know all that needs to be known but in reality don't know diddly squat, so you all keep doing the same things over and over and over and over and over like a broken record, while expecting different results. This is why I refuse to pay to attend comedy shows. There's more than enough comedy observing human beings.
Evolution dont made that surviving Dashboard, because in that process all beings died in short period of time, that Dashboard was created to navegate in this sistem
You know your philosophy is on to something when it incites the fury of materialists, religious fundamentalists, and skeptics alike!
Let's see, if every other group which never agrees on anything, all agree that you're wrong, you're probably wrong. Bernardo is full of it and the only people who seem to think otherwise are philosophically naive and/or tech bros secretly in an AI cult.
Perhaps! But the burden is on those groups to demonstrate their philosophical superiority, which has yet to be done, in my opinion.
You know whats cool is his analytic idealism dovetails perfectly with my religion: shamanic animism
They hold on to limited sense perception measurements like it's a religion.
@@colet1096
... Hi there, Colet. May i ask, who is your benefactor -? ...
Bernardo’s explanation of the biogenesis of a unitary entity and his rejection of panpsychism is genius. Kastrup is King 👑
It’s gobsmacking how much plausibility is given to multiverse theories and other materialist contortions and how much resistance there is to consciousness as the ontological primary
Agreed. Widespread knowledge that consciousness is fundamental is the biggest fear of the entities who pull the strings. Nothing would make it easier for the masses to take back our power.
Wow Bernado, bravo. So eloquently explained in a plain language that is the outcome of experience of its own. Thank you
Glad you liked it!
As a long-time fan and follower of Bernardo's Analytic Idealism, I wish he would, in one of these interviews, flesh out with a little bit more detail the relationship between the brain and our conscious awareness.
For instance, he proposes that "the brain is simply what our inner experience looks like from a third person perspective.” This seems to imply that the brain has no causative powers in and of itself and is simply an image of what is happening in some other mental process associated with our cognition. But what is that other process, and how does it work? And does it even make sense to ascribe to the brain the ontological standing to engage in causative activities, as our modern neuroscience maintains?
More specifically, we often hear that most of our thinking is done by the brain without our conscious awareness. (This is, of course, Bernardo's distinction between “phenomenal consciousness” and “meta-consciousness.”) But if the brain is simply what our conscious awareness looks like, does it even make sense to speak of the brain as having any causative powers at all? I'm sure there is a clear answer to these questions, but for me the issue still seems a bit fuzzy at best.
The brain is an intermediary to Consciousness. In fact, every cell of the body is in constant contact with Consciousness. Consciousness is where experiences are realized, not in the brain. The signals in the brain that correspond to the five senses are not a construct of an experience. Watching the dial of a thermometer is not the heat or cold, but a "summary" or code that represents temperature. The signals in the brain are also not the sights, sounds, taste, touch, or smell of an experience, but a code that is useful for the rest of the body to take note of the conditions in and around the body. When the body "dies," Consciousness continues to have experiences without needing any of the signals of the body. If this were not so, then there would be no such experience as known by those who have died and came back to life with stories of another realm.
Well, perhaps it is interesting to simplify the matter. Who or what proves the existence of the brain? First there is the awareness of the brain, its fundamental perception by the subject (consciousness itself). From there, the infinity of logical relations between the object "brain" and any other object come to consciousness. All these relations (equations, movements of the intellect) are also an essential part of conscious perception. In the end, the common factor that is extracted from all these equations is the conscious fact. Apparently, no one needs what has been crossed out in the equation, but the equation is only a particular relation between objects, among the infinite particular relations that consciousness contains.
I think that there can be no disagreement that the conscious fact is the only thing that is absolutely certain, and that it does not need to be supported by any abstraction. Put this way, it seems to be bland and contributes nothing. But the truth is that there are no public spaces where this is shared.
The resulting chaos is so great that any attempt to undo it on the basis of the same mechanism (more equations, regardless of their conscious basis), enhances the chaos.
The only thing to hope for is to go back to the origin, to add the "I am conscious of" to every statement of daily life. Not to look at a specific problem (my bad relationship with my mother) and say "I am going to be aware of it". That makes it worse, no doubt. But to go to the basis of all of them, to question whether those obscure problems have a particular hypothetical solution (talking to my mother, for example), and to open oneself to the possibility that the diversity of problems increases as the basis of awareness is increasingly left aside.
That is, the dissociative mechanism, which objectifies all experience - and thus hides the fundamental subjectivity - is what Krishnamurti called "thought" or "intellect," which is nothing more than consciousness hiding from itself.
Such a mechanism has a basic characteristic: "attend to the particular, 'objective' problem, do not look for all things to solve themselves! So, by concentrating on the problem, apparently inexcusable and notorious, the dissociative mechanism is reinforced.
Krishnamurti and many others call the action of not concentrating on anything "mindfulness". By objectifying -again- their stories, precisely what they were trying to convey was lost. One author conflicts with another, it is a gibberish of methods to be aware and blah, blah, blah....
And now, at this point -I was not prepared😄-, it is concluded that the only way for all the stories, equations, laws to converge and stop contradicting each other is to add, figuratively, "I am aware of" in every instant of our daily experience. Beware! There is no need to make an effort: this "phrase" is already there, it has just been forgotten or obviated.
Really terrific! Yet ... I would have loved you to relate to what seems an obvious question: we know thought to be the product of an active thinker. Is that the case with idealism? If so, is the "thinker" also a mental phenomenon? Does it have volition?
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
2:25 - Chapter I - We investigate whether our ordinary intuitions about the nature of reality and the world at large can be true at all. Is the world really what it looks like on the screen of perception?
18:11 - Chapter II - We discuss why mainstream physicalism fails on all key post-enlightenment values, such as coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy.
39:57 - Chapter III - We investigate the insoluble problems of constitutive panpsychism, a fashionable metaphysics that postulates consciousness to be a fundamental property of matter.
1:26:22 - Chapter IV - We go in depth into Analytic Idealism itself, discussing how it makes sense of reality without requiring anything other than nature’s sole given: experience.
1:38:00 - Chapter V - We review empirical evidence from the fields of foundations of physics and neuroscience of consciousness, which seems to directly contradict mainstream physicalism and suggest the validity of analytic idealism
1:57:55 - Chapter VI - We discuss the important distinction between phenomenal consciousness and meta-consciousness, arguing that the so-called ‘unconscious’ reflects merely a lack of the latter, not the former.
2:08:20 - Chapter VII - We respond to the main objections raised against Analytic Idealism. This is the closing part of the course, so Bernardo leaves you with some personal reflections about Idealism and life.
2:26:42 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Bernardo is awesome. Good thing there is someone who knows what he is talking about to push back against all the nonsensical assumptions.
Great awareness and way of articulating. Very wise man who doesn't miss much, respectful, knowledgeable, insightful, respectful, and very cautious. That's what I've taken away from him, is to be aware we can fool ourselves, mind can be a joker and hide truths. Be cautious of the mind and what one thinks... Beautiful. And direct yet not a bully, and won't swallow pride or hold back; he's able to keep self in check completely. Much respect. Very philosophical, hints of Alan Watts appear to exist. Thinking he knows of Alan Watts, amongst others. It's time to appreciate good men, that's why I'm giving so much respect! It's time truth and good get Their attention and not the crazy humans who control it... Thank you Sir and mad respect.
Thanks for the kind comment!
Phenomenal video Dr. Tevin! Bernardo is just...amazing...like consciousness, there's no real word(s) to describe him! 😅 Please keep up the amazing work Tevin, we all need/rely on people like you out here getting the message out! 💙
Thank you so much!🙏🏽🙏🏽
You are more than welcome! 🙏 Dr. Naidu, videos like this helped saved me from my addiction and your interviews are some of the best, easiest and most enjoyable out there. It's truly therapeutic to listen to conversations like this!
This made my day. Thank you so much and I'm glad they're having such an incredibly positive impact on you! 🙏🏽
@@drtevinnaidu 🙏💙
So depending on the note his Mrs gives him (of course)!!!, I think Bernardo should be awarded smartest, kindest most balanced and diplomatic chap of the year... !!!
That's quite an achievement 😉
1) Consciousness is fundamental. 2) "Matter" is energy. 3) "Energy" is an expression of Consciousness. 4) Experience is mental.
How are experience and mental related to energy and consciousness?
@@drtevinnaiduINFORMATION
As outlined, given that Consciousness is fundamental, everything else is a thought of Consciousness and is therefor mental. What humans are consists of 1) an individuation of Consciousness which is eternal, and 2) a thought body which is temporary. Read "A Summary of Unified Science" at drive.google.com/file/d/13zKOs49yBWbMZ2wfGGx6tibFzFbOaJfp/view?usp=sharing. It is a layman's guide by a layman.
No. Matter is a manifestation of energy - transient patterns of energy. Likewise consciousness is a manifestion of patterns of energy in your brain (which itself is a manifestation of matter and hence also just patterns of energy). Therefore, consciousness or “mind” and mattern are both fundamentally interrelated by both being manifestions of energy patterns. You need to understand that your “brain” processes the world in terms of comparisons, resulting in a dualistic view of the world around us - good / bad, pretty / ugly, love / hate, black / white. That is the only knowledge you really have to make sense of the world. You just make stuff up from that to try to understand the world. There is no mind/body except your brain makes you think so.
@@thomassoliton1482: I cannot disagree with your Materialistic view. It works. But it doesn't explain consciousness and it has no idea what Life actually is. Who we really are has nothing to do with the body or the mind. There are several descriptions of the mind. In Buddhism, the mind is described as consisting of components like consciousness (vijñāna), perception (saṃjñā), sensations (vedanā), mental formations (saṅkhāra), and mindfulness (smṛti). These components are essential in understanding the nature of the mind according to Buddhist teachings.
From that perspective, the mind is both an expression of the brain and an interface to the spirit, depending on which part of that description you focus on.
Going deeper, every cell in our body has an energetic link to every other cell in our body. And when you look at the body from the view of an atom, all atoms are energy. Ergo, matter is energy. Even Einstein's equation shows that matter and energy are interchangeable, so that makes them the same, like two sides of a coin. How matter (energy) takes form is determined by the electromagnetic pattern involved. But matter is not fundamental in that equation, energy is. What is fundamental, from the Materialist view, has a source, and that is consciousness. But the Materialist view does not consider Consciousness to be any more real than the wispy thoughts of the mind. That's where Metaphysics and Spiritualism steps in. And that's where the insights of near-death experiencers, like me, have found confirmation that Consciousness is fundamental.
So from one point of view, I agree that matter is an expression/manifestation of energy. From another point of view matter and energy are two sides of the same coin.
From my personal experience, there is an aspect of mind/consciousness that exists without a material brain/body, and that means energy exists at a whole different level, and the 'matter' it takes form as is beyond what the physical world can imagine.
This is not a complete explanation of reality, and that's because "reality" is beyond comprehension of the human mind. You have to get out of the body, literally, to get a glimpse of reality.
You might want to invest some time in two areas: Near Death Experience (NDE), and Resonance Science.
I enjoy Bernardo. In the final analysis, acceptance of his explanation leaves me at peace with no need to sweat the small stuff. The real job of science is to discover the next thing we can't understand. There will always be a new thing that we strive to incorporate into our world view for exactly what reason I am unsure. Humanity appears to be quickly rising to our level of incompetence (the Peter Principal), with the most hopeful outcome being the returning to the stone age and not wiping ourselves out all together.
🙏🏽🙌🏽
@30:00 When I read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I do not remember reading anything about how the imagination plays a role in experience-except to the extent that he went on and on about distinctions between a priori and a posteriori, which is about before and after questions. Anyway, even until now, every time I have thought about the difference between the thing-as-experienced and the thing-in-itself, my mind has always maintained a static conception of how these two interact. I would think of, say, a cup sitting in front of me and I would contemplate what it is-in itself-sitting right there before me., not as it is in terms of the flow of time. I have never thought of the way in which fantasy or imagination plays into this dynamic. When I think of the way I experience the cup in the future, then, clearly, in order to do that, I must call into use the faculty of imagination.
In the case of science, each experiment begins as a hypothesis, a technical word designating really nothing more than imagination. Then, imagination, on the other hand, is basically an "experience" of the future based on experience(s) of the past. Strictly speaking, however, we cannot have an experience of the future right now, and our attempts to do so call forth the faculty of imagination, furnishing us with a set of integrated conceptions about the way things will be in the future, assuming we set up conditions in such and such a way. My question is whether this task of conceiving events as they will be under this or that condition in the future is precisely an example of gaining knowledge of what is meant by noumena.
Arguably, imagination does not rely on direct perceptions, for arrangements of form and content constituting such experiences as are to take place in the future obviously cannot be based on things that are happening in the present-except by imaginal extension, or extrapolation. The future is basically another "world" that we do not occupy yet, but can potentially. The least we can say is that the present utilizes imagination but that the images so conceived in us are based on direct perceptions we are having in the present moment. Our conceptions of what will happen, on the other hand, depend on perceptions that we either have had in the past or are having in the present.
Hypotheses are of this latter sort. A hypothesis is a technical word used to denote one's prediction-an internal image of a future state-about the way phenomena will behave under this or that condition. So could it be that we are getting to a knowledge of things-in-themselves whenever we imagine their possible changes, or different configurations, in the future? Indeed, is imagination our gateway into noumena? Or does it remain true nonetheless that even our conceptions about future states-absent direct perception-combine into such forms and contents as we have reason to believe will take place in the future, and yet these still continue to suffer imprisonment in what we call the phenomenal realm? If we are constrained to deny that even future "experiences"--i.e., educated fantasies-constitute example of accessing the noumenal realm, but we are still unable to deem such possible experiences as phenomenal (since they do not rely on direct perception), then I suppose the technical distinction and resultant dualism between things-as-experienced versus things-in-themselves would necessitate the addition of an entirely distinct and new realm: the imaginal. This of course would result in a triadic structure as opposed to the simple dualism between phenomena and noumena. And since we can never really pin down the instantaneous present, it would seem that most people-and that would include all scientists and philosophers-live just about the entirety of their lives in this imaginal realm.
It could also be the case that there is no such thing as noumena, and there is only phenomena, and further that what we call phenomena isn't a "realm" at all but is rather just a word we use to denote experience. In other words, it is just mere synonym. Experience is experience-a tautology -whenever or wherever we have it, the reason we can't "get behind" phenomena is that it would call into play the same categories of the understanding that we of necessity rely on to construct any other experience. What we are asking to get to when we talk about noumena is to have an experience in the absence of those mental faculties by which we have experience at all. And that's why Kant said it was categorically impossible. Even if we could access noumena, for us they would yet have to be experienced as phenomena. However, I think the one exception to this is when we manage somehow to accurately predict the future, since we can be confident that the objects of future "perception" are not yet there-ie., they are not yet present as things-in-themselves-and yet we have somehow still managed to grasp that which would be there. And so I think these imaginal experiences might be examples of synthetic a priori phenomena. And I think all of this somehow ties into our strange predictions of particle behavior between two conscious subjects.
Thanks for the comment!
Enjoyed this conversation top to bottom. Thanks!
💙
I teach Vedanta. Bernardo has put the birth and death cycle so well in his so appropriate a terminology. I can't agree better.
Bernardo really hits the nail on the head ! 👏🏻 such wisdom!
Thank you! Which part in particular? :)🔨
... modern-day, present-era disclosure is about laying out every card in the human condition deck, simultaneously.
It's an all-in-one, fully-open go at sorting truth from fiction about EV'ER'Y-THING.
When so many of us are already stressed out to the maximum traumatised people, and having been lied to and conditioned by false narative perspectives not very many are able to twig, sort and get it.
He’s a damn fool
Great idea to have this structure for the conversation.
All I can say is, I absolutely love Bernardo, he changed my life. Well, his explanations of reality, have enabled me to understand a bunch of concepts I was not going to arrive at by myself.
As a result, I was able to understand the world in a way which is coherent, and makes sense to me.
And as a result, I made significant changes in my life, which resulted in a much better existence.
So, I’m indebted to him, but he doesn’t even know that.
Thank you for tgat
Really glad he impacted your life in this way. Thank you so much for such a wonderful comment!
@@drtevinnaidu thanks for taking the time to reply, your channel is fantastic. I have 4-5 conversation saved in “watch later” I’m eager to get to.
I’m learning a lot from the way you frame questions for your guests
I'm so grateful! Thanks so much for watching. I hope you enjoy the rest of the content.😃
Excellent Explanation ❤...thanks again.
Very similar to the essentia foundation analytic idealism course.
Oh.. yes you did mention its a crash course.😅
Glad you enjoyed it! Thankfully we went on several tangents that allowed it to be similar but also nice and different as well.😁🙏🏽
Great! Very clear and understandable. Thank you for this.
46:30 A better illustration would be a wave and a ripple:
Since the Higgs Boson becomes particles which wasn't it, the ripple changing size is inadequate. But take a huge wave out in an ocean and compare that to a minuscule ripple at a quiet seashore - and ask what on earth they have in common - but being part of the same element.
💙
Brilliant discussion Dr Naidu - thank you!
Analytical idealism is like a fresh breeze from Advaita vedanta thought. Brahma Satyam - Jagat Mithya- Jeevo Brahmaivanaparah is the fundamental assertion. We interpret it as - Consciousness is real - This universe is an illusion ( as it appears in our consciousness)- our little consciousness is one and the same with the one universal consciousness!
This ancient wisdom is gaining popularity especially post Quantum mechanics interpretations and neuroscience.
But question is - is that all?
No. Truth is a Pathless land (JK) and theres another mode of awareness ( not method) by which one can associate with the consciousness while we are alive. That observer mode is non participative and can happen only by grace which is a bad word in science! I am writing a book expanding on this discovery or whatever one calls it based on my experience. A few teachers like Jiddu Krishnamurti & Sri Ramana Maharshi tried to point to the truth - we are like the blind men describing the elephant!
Once again - thanks Bernardo/ Naidu ❤
Thank you!
Thanks for the video! I wonder if you even wanted to ask Bernardo about J. Krishnamurti.
JKs philosophy was all about not letting "thought" distort the field of reality and letting the "Reality" speak for itself.
Will keep this in mind the next time we chat! 👌🏽🙌🏽
@@drtevinnaidu Wow! Love you man!
💙
fantastic times to be alive!
The bit about some physicalists having the unexamined assumption that their perceptual experiences exist in the world was interesting. It reminds me of when I asked a friend the question about the tree falling with no one around - does it make a sound? And he said yes, appealing to the fact that the air still wiggles.
I tried to say that this isn’t the same as the experience of sound, but I don’t remember where the conversation went after
Great time to start that conversation again!
@@drtevinnaiduThe tree in the woods is a good thought experiment. Now apply that to all the known senses in addition to hearing: vision, smell, touch, taste. If there is no one observing the tree, what is there?
2:15:00 The notion that our internal subjective experience is the only thing we have a direct access to, is kind of a solipsistic starting point, even though, strictly speaking, it is not "Solipsism".
There is an interesting point in Kastrup's book "Science ideated. The fall of matter...", which I think sums up the intention of it. For example, when Kastrup refutes Graziano, who defends that consciousness does not exist, the basic motivation that is personified in this Princeton neuroscientist comes through: the totally objective approach to consciousness. Although it may include subjective judgments, these are also treated objectively, that is, generically, and not as examples of one's own true subjective experience.
I think that the whole substance of the matter lies there, in objectification itself, a path that is the hallmark of materialism. By objectifying consciousness and treating it like any other object of study - with the person studying it being a mere neutral observer, that is, completely obfuscating the subjective experience that all this study already entails -, there is the possibility, that is (and using the words from Kastrup himself), it is plausible that one can approach or glimpse on the horizon that consciousness does not exist. That is the very essence of materialism: when the observer is separated from the observed, that observed, which will be an abstraction, will behave, curiously, like an abstraction disguised as a non-abstraction; That is to say, it could be absolutely anything before the blinded gaze of the observer who, systematically deceiving himself, will be a victim of the inherent mental nature - therefore, liquid, changing, totally free, like the mind that is - of his beloved apparent "no-abstraction".
Graziano "gets" that consciousness does not exist in the same way that he might have announced that the Earth is flat or that the true number pi is not 3.1416. Hence the terrible, indiscriminate and recurring contradictions that materialists arrive at, and that Kastrup points out and dissects in the book. Everything exists - everything is possible - in the mind, and this is exactly what materialists confirm, without realizing it and in a comical way, in their "objective" studies of the world.
Another example. In chapter 10, when he argues against Frankish illusionism ("felt experience is just an illusion"), Frankish distills a clear separative approach to the "difficult problem of consciousness."
I explain. Frankish maintains that "it seems to us that we live subjective, felt experiences, but these are only inaccurate representations of concrete brain - that is, physical - states." That is, in some way - which, at first glance, conveys something confusing - brain activity generates a hallucination or illusion, which we label as "experience" or "quality" (qualia). Then, Kastrup replies by pointing out that the mere fact of "appearing to live an experience, no matter how imprecise it may be, is already in and of itself a felt and immediate experience. Like that experience of seeming real to us that which is not, according to Frankish , must also be the inaccurate representation of a specific neuronal state, then we arrive at the conclusion that "it seems to us that something that is not seems real to us." As we see, this approach to illusionism never concludes, it is infinitely recursive.
Why doesn't Frankish see this absurdity? Very easy. As I mentioned before, in the case of Graziano, the dialogue with Frankish is, in reality, a non-existent encounter: Frankish IS his own point of view, his own self-image, his own character, and from that completely conceptual position, pure consciousness does not "speak" through Frankish, but rather it is said consciousness that places him in the dialogue, as if it were a puppet. That is why Frankish never "catches with his hands" the threads of consciousness that articulate him; That is why Frankish never closes the circle and always tends to infinity in his arguments. This is how he works scientific materialism, that is, science as we know it today...
Tomorrow I have an interview with François Kammerer due for upload. He builds on Frankish's work quite a bit. Even if you disagree, you might find the conversation very enlightening!
@@drtevinnaidu Interesting! And a coincidence😄. I'm reading Kastrup's book, so I took advantage of the pages I was reading at the time to comment on my visions. Indeed, Kastrup's pulse does not tremble when it comes to questioning the mainstream. Although, while I'm at it, it is worth asking if the "stream" part -and its consequences- is dispensable. That is to say, we are so used to looking to the world out there, to the tumultuous stream of society, that we even come to conceive of a "non-dominant stream" as if it were inevitable to either confront the hegemonic, or to be carried along by an alternative stream.
Although Kastrup does not hesitate to base the structure of his book on the reply and counter-reply to the statements of different representatives of the mainstream, I have the impression that the "difficult problem of consciousness", to a large extent, involves something radically different. As something that is beyond personal discussions. Anyway, these are impressions.😄
We shall see what the interview offers in this respect. Thank you!
@@drtevinnaidu By the way, in chapter 13 of the same book, when analytical idealism is explained, there is an important aspect that seems to me susceptible to being revised. This is when Kastrup states that "universal consciousness is not metacognitive, that is, it does not plan, it is not deliberate" (which he already makes clear in previous publications). Kastrup defines metacognition as the ability to be aware that one is aware, which is correct (it is, therefore, the same as self-reflection, a term he uses in previous books). He also points out that "metacognition ALLOWS deliberate action, planning, reasoning," which is also correct. Now, the fact that metacognition ALLOWS what we could summarize as "ego" does not imply that it IS the ego, in any case.
Metacognition - consciousness seeing itself - is what Eastern wisdom has pointed out since ancient times. The ego - the separate self, identity, thought in Krishnamurtian terms, intellect, etc. - is nothing more than a symbol, an image of the self-reflection of universal consciousness.
To understand it better, it is interesting to link analytical idealism with Jean Gebser's accurate vision of the structures of consciousness. They would be these, deployed in time: archaic, magical, mythical, mental and integral (from our days onwards). It is in the mental structure where the observer-observed separation is maximum - the ego is perfected - but self-reflection already begins to take shape much earlier, in the magical structure, surely. It is in the integral structure where self-reflection is completed, transcending the ego, and consciousness once again closes on itself, "after" having generated the illusion of space and time (which implies the temporal succession of structures itself, which If we look closely, it is the ego's own activity, the mental structural activity).
Thank you! I've been waiting for this one!... One suggestion:
I usually listen to podcasts before bed, but the audio on this one made that really hard... The volume of the guest (Bernardo) didn't match the volume of the host (You). Your voice was much louder than Bernardo's. Just giving you a heads up. Your podcast is great btw!
Thanks so much! I usually tend to normalize and match the volumes - but I must have forgotten for some reason. Will definitely keep that in mind!! Glad you enjoyed it nonetheless!
2:12:30 "Under Idealism there is only one field of subjectivety" (MAL).
Does that mean that under Analytical Idealism, MAL is an axiomatic fundamental principle that need no further justification?
@goran586 Hello. My understanding of how Kastrup gets to MAL is not axiomatic, but a logical argument of analogy/inference:
There is one thing for which I do not rely on perception; that thing is myself. I have access to what it is like to be me via introspection. The outward appearance of what is like to be me is represented by/looks like molecules, cells, atoms, etc. I also observe others beyond me who resemble my appearance and are made up of cells, and I infer by analogy they have their own private mental experience like I do. Furthermore, via perception, I observe other “things” composed of atoms, molecules and I infer that they are also the outward appearance of subjectivity of a larger mind to which I do not have access to entirely; I am merely a localized component of that larger mind. Similar to how multiple dream characters can exist within my own dreams embedded within a dream world, but within the mind of a single dreamer. Why should we assume the cells, molecules, atoms, etc. that we observe via perception are not of the same nature as the representations of my own subjective experience?
Of course, Kastrup (as I understand him) argues it is inflationary to argue the cells, molecules, atoms I observe are of a different ontological category other than subjective experience; I should stick with what I know (i.e. I know I am an experiencing subject that has the appearance of cells, atom’s molecules, etc. and I infer what I observe as outside is also of that same ontological category)
We can barely control our fragmented state of consciousness as it is, and the universal mind knows that. A good reason for alters. As we our eternal battle rages on between ‘I want’ and ‘Thou shalt’.
Was stuck in my perspective and enjoyed the stimilution of the different perspectives. Was really getting annoyed with youtube talks of catchphrases and explinations that barely meet the amount of detail I'm looing for.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The “boundary” or dissociative state is consciousness. The dashboard or “instrument panel” is the information you are aware of provided by your brain’s neuronal circuitry that analyzes the sensory information from the external world. That is “all” you can know of the world outside and in fact inside your body. But another aspect of your dashboard is your memory - your “internal” or mental representation of the world, which your brain struggles constantly to synchronize with the external world. If you meet someone new, you need to modify your world model to incorporate them. Consciousness is the interface between those two mental worlds - you can’t be in two places at once (past and present) when you compare them, so your brain has made up a new place - “conscious-land”.
This is helpful because, and to the extent that it is a cogent and structured exposition of one man’s rumination.
It is, however, rumination. And not deep or clear enough to be a system, theory, or even a serious proposal.
Glad you found it helpful 😊🙏🏽
oh good i can listen and concentrate - finally no music
Specific Cyphometric formulas are a wonderful way to express and show the relationship between nothingness as represented by "0" and everything by "9"... within its numeric grid...
Bernardo is fantastic ....thank you
Always a pleasure 🙏🏽
I agree cyphometry is well utilized here
Couldn't have put it better myself.
This is an entertaining revisit to state the obvious.
Tell me more
@@drtevinnaidu apart from that occasional thought experiments of say Einstein any information must originate in the lab experiments using various tools. Otherwise I can play gymnastics with my thoughts. I am amazed how there are hundreds of videos around with virtual nothing at all. I am however impressed by the talk skills.
Request to Bernardo.
Please coralate Analytic Idealism to A. Watt's philosophy.
I can see that you two (if you could have a beer chat) wouldn't disagree at all but it would be nice to hear your extended version upon it.
Love it!
We could say that there is consciousness which is aware of ‘stuff’ which is consciousness that is vibrating. Consciousness is dividing itself into that which does not vibrate and that which does vibrate. Without vibration nothing would be manifest, there would just be Reality or God which does not vibrate except in manifestation. ‘Be still and know that I am God.’
If there is no self and it is non duality how could there be multiple conciousnesses
Good question.
How about the concept that the brain (and all other cells in the body) is like a transceiver that is simply communicating with Consciousness, and that the perceived experience occurs in Consciousness and not in the brain/body. How else would it be possible for someone who is brain dead for over 10 minutes and come back to life with rich stories of another realm? In other words, there might not be a way to recreate images, sounds, smell, touch, and taste just by capturing brain activity because it would have to register what is going on in Consciousness, which is not the body or the mind.
Colin McGinn, not Galen Strawson, is probably the foremost current proponent of Mysterianism.
The analogy of dashboard is likely equivalent of our senses. We sense the world, our senses are not the world.
Great little crash course, nicely done
Any authors, scientists, philosophers (etc) you'd like me to interview one day? Feel free to let me know and I'll try make it happen!🙌🏽
@@drtevinnaidu mate, I'm so impressed at the range and quality of speakers, not sure I have too much to contribute other than fandom at this point 🤣 ... each episode is like the top of a paradigm/rabbithole, love the mention of new concepts and names to explore. Searle was my entry point into all this, c. 15 years ago, it would be interesting to know his current take of the various philosophies, e.g. Idealism, Illusionism, Pan, etc. (if he's kept abreast of them)
I should check his availability. Last time I check, I think he stopped engaging with these concepts. Hopefully he still does!
@@drtevinnaidu 🍀🤞
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
And interesting we shall make it!
All is 313-minds eye of sacrificed spectrum.
Singular being is fundamental. It's consciousness with potential. It originally sacrifices it's state by breaking in half and choosing one side, ergo the first bit of information and everything that is computationally relevant to consciousness.
You feel it.
I think there is a bit more to physicalism and how it arose than Bernardo says. It did not just arise as a political maneuver. It also arose gradually over the course of many centuries at the same time that mythological consciousness, which mediated authentic, vivid non-physical realities, gradually faded into abstract thought. Abstract thought experientially is such a faded thing that many people seem to be in doubt whether it is real at all and therefore they tend to think it can be reduced to the physical brain.
That millennia-long process of non-physical awareness fading into abstract awareness led to the misunderstanding that the physical world is the primary reality. The cause of the misunderstanding was not just a political maneuver. Nor is Bernardo correct if he means that physicalism is nothing but an error and that the life work of scientists who built everything on it has been nothing but a wrong path. Physicalism was a phase that was key for the evolution of the individual able to distinguish himself clearly from everything else! It was part of the rise of true individual awareness from the collective awareness of humanity's ancient past.
Recall how the early scientific revolution emerged out of an increasing insistence on a clear distinction between subject and object. Scientists and philosophers started accordingly to differentiate increasingly between what they called primary qualities and secondary qualities. The secondary qualities were put in the "merely" subjective category, and were not to be allowed to interfere with real science, which was to be concerned exclusively with objective realities untainted by subjective fantasy, superstition, feelings, desires, sensations, etc. They wanted to avoid confusing the physical with the non-physical, the way alchemists mixed them up together. And scientists' awareness of the non-physical had dwindled to abstractions.
Eventually, so many qualities were put by scientists into the "subjective" category that all that was left as objective and really real was quantity. At the same time, humanity, especially in certain places, but spreading gradually everywhere, became ever more engaged in dealing with and mastering the physical world by means of pure abstractions. People naturally started to take it for granted that the physical world was all there is. The whole evolution of consciousness over the course of a few millennia brought this situation about, and it was part of the increasing discovery of individual awareness. Individual awareness was more or less absent from mythological consciousness and the nevertheless authentic, vivid non-physical realities mythological awareness mediated to the ancients.
The next stage is to learn to become aware again of non-physical realities, but now as conscious free individuals, rather than as mere parts of a collective cyclically living a more or less unchanging myth. That the scientific revolution played a role in the deepening discovery of the individual might be the greatest achievement of the scientific revolution. Now science, not in the quantitative sense, but qualitatively, should be further developed toward a systematic, disciplined, collegial and cooperative research project into the non-physical world. It must be rediscovered now at a higher level than the ancients, in their collective, more or less pre-individual consciousness, could achieve.
:) :) 💙
It's rather cute, how scientists today discuss topics, which philosophers thousands of years ago have become closer to. It would be great fun to see philosophers and scientists from the previous five thousand years meet in a podcast to discuss consciousness and matter. And they would have to start by understanding the expansion of Brahma into Purusha and Prakriti.
Agreed!
Very good point. There have been - in the 1900' s - till now - some interesting synthesis of ancient Hindu thought (Purusha etc) and Sufi practice - in modern Raja Yoga theory and practice. So clear and far-reaching and effective - as spiritual Method and evocation of what is still possible for human experience.
Another great conversation. Is it possible to fix the sound? Bernardo's voice is too low so listening on headphones deafens me when the other guy speaks 😢
Had the same issue. I agree. Would be great to get a fixed version.
Sorry about this! Not sure why this occurred as I usually normalize and match the volumes.. Was this on the RUclips version or Spotify/other platforms?
Thank you for your video
Thank you for watching!
Great talk 👍
Thank you
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it😊
I’m only half way through so far, but I see him listing issues with materialism/ohysicalism but I don’t see him making any compelling arguments why his idealism view is closer to reality… I may be misunderstanding, but I’m getting that both idealism and pansychism take subjective experience to be fundamental to reality… interesting alternative take on things, but why would I spend any time on it? What compelling arguments are there that this can explain reality?
Check the timestamps. We broke the discussion up into sections to help illuminate that aspect in a separate chapter. :)
Awesome thanks
Thanks for watching!🙏🏽
bernardo is a lite version of alan wallace
Mind-Body Solution. What does the "O" icon brain looking symbol mean? What do the U and O looking symbols mean?
Great question! The overall image is a Brain. Within the brain are 2 symbols combined. The first is is Phi - Φ (represents philosophy) and the second symbol is Psi - Ψ (represents psychology). Overall it represents a combination of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology - core themes in Mind-Body Solution! 😊
Very nice❤thank you
💙🙏🏽
I don't know about his example of a cell, cells are compounded as well as they take their resources from the mother so that they can continue to divide. The resources taken from the mother are small molecules and proteins, whereas a robot is compounded As well from different pieces of the universe like silicon
@@NOCOMPLYE i still disagree, to obtain the status of zygote it is still compounded over time by smaller parts in which allows it to self construct. One entity merges with another, than attaches itself to the uterine wall, and creates a connection to supply the building materials so that it can construct itself. The eventual end to it is a separation from its supply of building materials and now its required to obtain its building materials through its own systems. Ultimately, the entire entity is constructed via smaller parts that are supplied by the host.
Both a machine and a human body are composed of the same basic elements, well, what our "dashboard" perceives as the basic elements. "Energy" flows through both machine and body in specific repeatable ways. I dont see why a machine compounded of small bits cannot be the same as a body compounded by small bits.
At this time our machines aren't close to what we perceive as the complexity of a human, but assuming he is right about his take on reality, this is a new theory he is building up, his implications based on his theory may be incorrect.
I dont think any individuals massive theory like the one were discussing was 100% perfect from day 1, it evolved over decades and gained precision through experimentation.
So for him to conclude that a zygote is not compounded from different parts like a machine just doesn't seem to fit, like he is attempting to say that only humans/life is capable of consciousness but nothing else? What we perceive are conscious agents as we would see them but a machine can't be?
I am having difficulty getting past that point clearly lol
@@NOCOMPLYE uh huh, that's it eh? No real rebuttal? Alright take care.
📍1:38:00
If we can't and I agree we can't know true reality; what is the point of thinking about anything outside the dashboard?
Curiosity!
@MindBodySolution thst is the only acceptable answer in my opinion.
I agree and I am curious. It is interesting to think about. Sometimes, we can get too wrapped up in such curiosities and lose our ability for any earthly good. In other words, if we are so in our head, we can't enjoy the dashboard that can provide us with so many wonder experiences.
It can also be very disorienting.
👌🏽🙌🏽
Radharisnan in his An Idealist View of Life holds- spirit or matter is only a matter of perspective
1:40:54
Life is for enjoying the dashboard. Once our living body dies, then we may find a deeper connection to fundamental consciousness.
As Jim Morrison said " no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn"
Or,
the dashboard is to enjoy life and not wasting the dawn might give you eternal reward.
Maybe Bernardo is right in the end, but it seems to me that Michael Levin's approach to boundaries of the self seems more evidence based and productive. If cells in the body behave like individuals and if molecular networks can learn, as Levin claims, maybe the structure of representations reflect structure of the mind behind the representations. If anyone has the key to combination problem, it's Michael Levin and his co-workers. Don Hoffman is not a panpsychist, but his conscious agents also combine, so his theory also seems to provide solution to combination problem, even though it is not clear if boundaries between them are reflected by boundaries of representations.
Chatting to Mike again soon. Looking forward to diving deeper into his work. Groundbreaking stuff!!!
Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting ideas as well, regarding the mind being analogous to an electromagnetic field
Exchanged emails with Rupert. Hope to one day have him on MBS as well!
@@drtevinnaidu Cool! That should make for an interesting discussion, I look forward to it.
Michael Levin is obviously an intelligent person, but I would submit to you he's conflating when he talks about the "self" in terms of his theory - because what he's arguing for isn't actually what anyone would rightly identify as the "self," but rather higher-order cognitive functioning and developmentary biology that happened in order for us to survive. These aren't the same things.
What any one person rightly recognizes as the "self" is, at its core, almost stunningly simple - it's the "I am" within which all of one's thoughts, emotions, preferences, likes & dislikes, etc. come and go. None of the latter is static. They change like the ripples on a lake almost without pause, but the underlying subjectivity in which all of these happen, no matter whether you're 2 or 80 years old, remains perfectly undisturbed. Nothing so much as lays a hand on it.
Can someone explain to me like i am 8 years old what does it mean upper bound entropy and stuff?..Thank you
But higher level of consciousness is exactly spiritual experience which is analytical idealism.Bernardo can't stop people to claim whatever they want regarding their experience and description,so if they see it like he does perceive,than how can he stop them?..
Get Jude currivan on and Andrew Harvey... Thanks team.
Jude Currivan has been on the show, check out her episode on the channel. Will look into Andrew Harvey.🙂👍🏽
*Consciousness is the "LINK" between the human experience, and "LIFE The Real Self" which is The LIGHT seen during a so-called NDE !*
*"LIFE The Real Self" is "AWARENESS", so Become SELF-AWARE...*
💙
ok our representation mirrors the stuff of the external world ? makes sense
After watching Mr Naidu’s video. Do you tend to agree more with him or with Mr Kastrup?
You didn’t answer my question
Who are you asking? I am "Mr Naidu".
@@drtevinnaidu apologies, I’m new i the channel. I meant if you tend to think more like Bernardo or more like the last guest.
Hope you're enjoying the content. By last guest, which one are you referring to after this video? Ogi Ogas, Thomas Metzinger, Me (Tevin Naidu). Sorry Juan, I'm still confused😅
@@drtevinnaidu thank you for your patience! I mean Dr. Metzinger vs. Dr. Kastrup theories
Hinduism and Buddhism have a sophisticated way to describe many explanations of consciousness, no other religion or language has that, the west physics needs to study Hinduism, Einstein did.😊
I still have no explanation for suffering or the meaning of life. I've suffered plenty and I have learned almost nothing from it, except that people can be very cruel.
I hope the cruelty of life gets better for you. Be very skeptical and wary of those who offer advice and explanations for suffering or the meaning of life (including this advice)! No two people have the same experience there I don't believe anyone can truly provide you with an explanation for your own existence.💙
Thank you for your kind words. @@drtevinnaidu
It is not a coincidence that the word for matter comes from the Latin word for Mother. Experience arises out of the feminine soul (eros) and is shaped and organized by masculinity (logos). Every new experience is procreated by these two energies. The ancients had it more accurately than us.
Well i callled for rain in South Carolina and it rained in ohio instead of here lol no worries about the domain of Talorical currents in the mixes of consciousness is trucky thing to consider when you have a lot of vibrational currents that convergence is harder then one would think about it for atmosphere is shifting in the production of a Fue spacial waves right now regarding temperature and the votex of the energy that the States of vibrational is intentions
Beyond labels, which serve no purpose, metaphysical idealism, non-duality or David Bohm's vision of implicate order, for example, point to the same thing. Quantum theory and Krishnamurti's famous phrase, "the observer is the observed".
Reality is an undivided, unlimited whole, and the objects that emerge into consciousness are nothing more than the self-conscious effect inherent in that totality. In all this, the human being plays a crucial role: is there any observer of the universe, any other "subject", which serves to confirm the very existence of the subject "human being"? If there is not (in the terms that the human being defines "to exist"), it is clearly demonstrated that the human being is only a construct sustained by convention. Thereafter, there is no longer any doubt that no separate form or object-subject exists beyond such an object-constructing mechanism, which we may call consciousness or thought. The endeavor to sustain the indubitable existence of the human being, with its history and its complex social (and sentimental) structures, reinforces the separation between the observer and the observed.
Maybe I don't quite understand what you mean, English is not my native language, but the following question occurred to me: There was a time when the cosmos contained no life, at that time there was no question of "the observer is the observed". Was there a cosmos at that time?
Btw, I completely agree that labels serve no purpose.
@@nicknijman2500Don't worry, my language is Spanish or Catalan.😄
Cartesian logic says that before there was conscious life, and before there was life in general, the cosmos already existed. Therefore, it is concluded that there exist independently an objective reality (cosmos) and the domain of mind or consciousness (what is thought about the cosmos). Does this make sense? Is this not an artificial division? Are not "cosmos" and "what is thought about the cosmos" two images with the same origin? Can one be sure that there is the cosmos and its history beyond consciousness about it all?
The convention is that time was created 13800 million years ago, i.e., time began at a particular moment within the timeline... which is absurd, for there was no time. History, the past, whatever it is, is generated by observation, i.e., it emerges within consciousness. Consciousness, as a whole, is an unlimited void.
@@jorgegarciapla6880 Hola, thanks for the reaction and reassuring 😊
In this case cartesian logic appeals to me, i don't see it as an artificial division. Will try to explain. As you noted, the fundamental consiousness is an unlimited void, the cosmos is not an unlimited void. The fundamental consiousness and the cosmos are opposites. Now comes the problem for many, this implies dualism, and that is correct. However, the fundamental consiousness itself is neither dual nor non-dual, the fundamental consiousness is. Just as (+) is neither dual nor nondual, just as (-) is neither dual nor nondual.
(+) and (-) are dual, unless (+) and (-) are equivalent opposites and form a unity, then the (+) and (-) are nondual, like the (+) and (-) of a battery. Nondual cannot exist without dual. The fundamental consiousness and the cosmos are both a reality on it's own, even though the cosmos arises from the fundamental consiousness. In my opinion, nondual is being misinterpreted. But hey, who am I 😁
@@nicknijman2500 Hello, thanks to you. David Bohm explains quite well the coexistence of the dual and the non-dual, in the view of the implicate order and the explicate order. Indeed, the undivided or non-dual and the fragmented or dual cannot be mutually exclusive (clashing) opposites, but complementary opposites. Complementary opposites fit together, like a key and a lock, like a particle and its antiparticle; one without the other is meaningless, of course. The explained or unfolded order and the implicate order are two complementary opposite facets of totality; the undivided and unknowable background of the implicate order is indissoluble from the observable universe, from the manifest, from space-time, the domain of the objects of consciousness, the explained order.
From the fragmentation of the explained order, causality is natural, so that things exist independently and orderly in time and space. "Before man, the cosmos was already there." But the implied order is revealed in the question "who or what establishes that the cosmos exists, or the human brain?".
@@jorgegarciapla6880 Very interesting, i am not familiar with David Bohm's implicate and explicate order, the vision about dual and non-dual comes from myself.
"who or what establishes that the cosmos exists, or the human brain?"
Because i'm not scientifically substantiated this seems like a trick question, although i have come to understand where the question comes from.
Since we are talking about dual and non-dual, i can appropriately answer the following on the question "who or what establishes that the cosmos exists, or the human brain?": Before that question could be asked, the fundamental consciousness and the cosmos were dual. Since that question can be asked, the fundamental consciousness and the cosmos are non-dual.
At 1:22 Kastrup states that there is no personal self and that the idea of personal self is an illusion. The problem I have with this statement is that Kastrup seems to contradict himself. Although he says that “ is the qualities of experience” he unambiguously states that there is no personal self which endures after that. And this somewhat because Kastrup stated several times that he ‘has not died yet and come back’ so he does not know what exactly expects us beyond dissociation. So how can he be sure that our personal self, like our love, our memories, do not stay with us beyond biological life? And he also stated that he ‘sympathises’ with people who had NDE although he did not have one himself and that he finds the work of respected scientists on NDE highly credible. Everyone knows that people who claimed to have had NDE had a sense of self enough to recognise dead relatives ‘there’. By definition if one did that, one must have had a sense of self albeit free of transfers and projections.
I again would love to hear more about the meaning of being in consciousness but devoid of the sense of self. As promised by our host we will hear from Professor Faggin soon and I hope this question will be asked so we can understand in detail how Faggin’s and Mauro D’Ariano ’s theory allows for the possibility of a sense of self beyond biological life. Professor Faggin had several spontaneous OOB experiences himself, therefore, his approach of understanding the possibility of maintaining a sense of self out of body is probably different from Kastrup’s.
Chatting to Bernardo again very soon. Any questions for him?
Yes thank you. One, what is exactly the sense of self that we will not have beyond dissociation? ( definition).
Two, what does Bernardo think of Faggin’s theory of classical information attached to quantum information beyond biological life.
Thank you sincerely
Chatting to Faggin soon. Any questions for him?
I would love to ask Professor Faggin to explain in more details his theory of ‘seity’. He defines seity as an entity with consciousness that exists even without a body. What sense of self does the seity have?
Also, do all seities tend to attach themselves to other seities and is that similar to the entanglement theory in quantum?
Thank you !
@VittBiancoeNero-hx1jy 💙
Got it! You remind me of Sam Vatkin!! Absolutely sound similar, and both high IQ, Sam's around 180|90,and you can't be far off on either side ? Both awesome...
Twinning.
it is not that the colors are there - it is just imagination
Alice is projected to the adam and adam doesn't know it was a psychological effects or a true image of mindfulness too convinced that state of mind to adam the adaptionality of thinking about how deep she is doing the projected thinking. Maybe only coincidental subconsciously
Big question is can language explain physics?
You may get lost in terminology. Terminology is we use is confusing us to get our thout or idea across.
Repeat viewing helps for this. Spaced Repetition and active recall are the best methods of learning complex ideas.🙂
illusion of color yet human eye can discern billions of colours, hues and surface textures. I am ok with this illusion and it is also comforting to see green, blue...
Can we really discern billions of colours though?
@@drtevinnaidu yes indeed. The labels we use for a colour are just a convenience collective term for example we label blue on a whole spectrum of blue hues and intensities. I haven't counted them though but have come across details of photocopiers talking about billions. Remember the possibilities of mixing primary colours is almost infinite and the eye can see the difference if checked side by side.
Consciousness cannot split up into seperate units of perception since each unit can see theoretically in all directions at once like the inside of a sphere. Since two units trying to perceive as one will be forced to superimpose their individual perceptions upon each other this will become a mess. That is why I believe that a single cosmic or universal consciousness is not possible.
What is your alternative? :)
Perhaps there are countless units of consciousness each with their own unique perspective of the universe ?@@drtevinnaidu
I see, and how would you address the "combination problem" in this case?
The consciousness perceives but it does not create or choose what it perceives. That is done outside of space and time where the conscious mind cannot go.@@drtevinnaidu
Federici Faggin would agree with you. He differentiates between classical and quantum physics and the units, in order to differentiate, will have attached some classical information. He says, that the classical information attached to each monad will be, as classical information usually is, non private. Therefore the differentiation will be in the classical, ‘overt’, info evident in every unit. Hopefully one day we will have an interview with both Kastrup and Faggin.
There have been cases of Christ consciousness, which is being one with the intelligence in creation, or cosmic consciousness. The difference between that and a ‘trip’ is that with a ‘trip’ there is no transformation. A religious experience of comic consciousness is transforming and the transformation lasts. A ‘trip’ is just a ‘trip’ although it may help to some extent the overly programmed. There have been generations who have been programmed with Darwinism, materialism etc. and a ‘trip’ breaks that programming down, which is a good thing.
All I.S. Realistic Illusions ~ 010
Why can't Bernardo accept that the ripples in the lake are a reality in themselves? No, they are not the fundamental reality, which is the water of the lake. Nevertheless, the ripples are a fact with its own properties, in other words there are different realities with their own rules and laws that arise from a fundamental reality with its own rules and laws. What we perceive with our senses Bernardo calls the dashboard, what Bernardo ignores is that we are part of the dashboard and therefore the dashboard is as real to us as real can be. In fact, all we can perceive is the dashboard, the dashboard is a reality with its own rules and laws that we must recognize and accept. If you do not accept, acknowledge and understand the reality of the dashboard then it is impossible to understand the fundamental reality.
My understanding is that, for example, when a child is born, he or she learns to use the dashboard. The child’s consciousness learns to inhabit the body. The body as well as the rest of the things in nature are symbols for something else. One example that Kastrup proposes are our tears which are symbols of our suffering. When we die we do away with the body and do not need the dash board anymore. The dashboard makes it possible for consciousness to operate in time space body in the world.
Hi @@VittBiancoeNero-hx1jy Bernardo uses the dashboard as an analogy for what we perceive with our senses, as the sky, trees, etc.. The point i wanted to make; the dashboard is the only reality we can perceive with our senses and we are also part of the dashboard, therefore the dashboard is as real to us as real can be. Although the dashboard represents the fundamental reality, the dashboard is nevertheless a reality in itself. Therefore it must be taken seriously and recognized as a reality in itself. Bernardo doesn't do that, that's a huge mistake in my opinion. Bernardo does not recognize the dashboard as an independent reality for a reason i suspect. If you recognize the dashboard as an independent reality then there is duality and Bernardo tries to avoid that, bernardo sees the whole as non-dual. In my opinion non-dual is misinterpreted, but that's another story.
(Btw, i agree with the gist of your comment)
Maybe a way to look at it is that we use the dashboard as an interface and that the only reality is, in fact, beyond the dashboard. Therefore we, as consciousness, are not part of the dashboard/ interface, but use the interface to live a biological life; a life within time and space. Federico Faggin called his new book “Irreducible” meaning that the only thing irreducible is consciousness, everything else derives from something else. So we should consider the dashboard as an interface which by definition is reducible. The difference between Faggin and Kastrup is that Faggin stresses the individuality of the ‘monad’ and its irreducible status, while Kastrup stresses the ripple on the water idea. I hope one day we can get both Kastrup and Faggin in the same interview so that we can understand better what they believe happens when we do away with the body and the dashboard.
@@VittBiancoeNero-hx1jy The dashboard equals matter. Therefore, at least our body is part of the dashboard. Yes, the dashboard is reducible, to the smallest particle. If the only reality is beyond the dashboard, our body, our life, nature, the universe, this discussion, are not real. That is not correct, of course they are not the fundamental reality but why only accept one reality, precisely the reality which we cannot perceive? There are three realities who are inextricably linked but nevertheless have their own rules and laws: 1) the reality of the fundamental potential / the omnipresent. 2) the fundamental reality of activated potential / the micro-cosmos. 3) the reality of activated potential / the macro-cosmos. If you accept the first reality as the only reality you get stuck. As an analogy: the first reality is the painter, the second reality is the canvas and paint, the third reality is what the painting depicts. All three realities are relevant, the painter and what the painting depicts are the most relevant. So, the fundamental reality of the dashboard (micro-cosmos) is less relevant than what the dashboard depicts (macro-cosmos). The real fundamental reality is the reality of the omnipresent but that reality is imperceptible and can only be reasoned, that's why there are so many ideas.
I'm obviously not trying to force anything on you, but these topics are a passion of mine, my apologies ☺
2:25 "Investigating (...) is the world really what it looks like, on the screen on perception".
1. So you call you qualia (colours, sounds, tastes ...) perception? Why? How do you get to classify them as "perception", because perception comes with the presupposition, that they are a re-presentation of something else. If you claim that your qualia are representations, you have to argue how you get to that and not just take it for granted by using a word with an inherent meaning of it.
2. And you imply that your "screen" shows you a "world". How did you get to that ? what is your argument. Again you are presupposing things, without clarification. If you say it is on the screen of perception, but a perception implies an external realm, then you are conflating where those aspects are when you talk about them. Apparently "the world" is both in your perception and implied beyond your perception.
These are ESSENTIAL questions that needs good answers, answers that BK does not address, but he just, like you, presupposes !
I'll attempt to address these very soon when we have our Round 3
@@drtevinnaidu Sounds good
Any other questions for Bernardo? ✒️📃
I'll give it a think .. thanks for asking :-) @@drtevinnaidu
1. Has he done some epistemology and arrived at a definition of knowledge?
2. Has he done some ethics and arrived at a moral principle?
3. Is government based on a monopoly on violence?
Correction: Cosmic Consciousness not ‘comic’.
I worked with vacuum tube's in the remote past of my father's radio repair shop and I was able to access the guts of the tube's for repair and the very fact the anode an cathode has a plasma ions that open up and close in coils parallel with a plasma ions it amplified the waves to produce a vibrational transition to understand that the coils parallel to the senders of energy is a very similar thing in the brains working out a problem with many billions of cell that actually has a potential to make a resonances like televisions in a singularity way and then to the conclusion of the processing of mindfulness in the production center a course of four parts of tha skull is brain Pinellas and the heart of subsequent attacks to the beating of the muscle in heart beating a skipped beating against the thoughts back to the brain muscles left point the response to right side and the Pinellas in the center is imaging an image signature it sees thing's that the brain cannot use as it the hearts singularity with the Pinellas the magnetism in the heart plasmass memories and all of the energy is through out the brain and a conclusion is formed. A vacuum tube is a similar manner act reactive response cycrnisized two sides then balancing a concept and the consequences of your replying to the question or explaination to tumg and lung to talking about the answers 😊
💙
53:31 After 10 minutes of refuting particles as existence - then start talking about "culture" as if it is something that exists
2:16:56 "An objective idealist would say, no no there really is an external world out there" ... why ? What is the argument ? It is not good enough to just say "there is" - you have to ARGUE how you get to it ... otherwise any claim can just be made without any justification of any kind. BK has yet to present any kind of argument - other than "it must be there" or "you cannot argue against it". If he cannot present a coherent argument, he needs to state it as an axiom that HE is working from, exactly because HE cannot ARGUE for it. That people uncritically just let this pass is a sign of either ignorance of good argumentation or willfull ignorance for a need for some "kind of way" to argue for an external safespace of their own ! And no, don't throw the idea that because i write this text, I must be out there beyond the text. That is stupid. ... But just because you are not solipsist, does not mean that you all of a sudden have proven that there is an outside. A rejection of solipsism in itself is not an argument - but if anything an inability to function accordingly - but it does not mean you then have proven an external world, that should be an obviously ridiculous line of argumentation. But if BK has a watertight argument, let me have it, off course expecting it to be based on an aspect of his screen of perception (colours, sounds, tastes, touch & smells) that necessitates that there must be something beyond his perception
All you can do is reject solipsism. You can’t definitely prove that there is an outside world, you just have to accept that this is the best answer
I don’t quite understand. Are you saying that because solipsism is unfalsifiable that we should reject any other theory that posits an outside world? This is nonsense. Let reason be your guide. No serious philosopher would reject the notion of an outside world independent of your own mind. Bernardo’s Idealism posits an outside world because we experience it and reasons from there. If we take the ontological primitive as Consciousness, or Mind at Large, or Universal Consciousness, we can reason that Universal Consciousness has become disassociated from itself, forming us (biology). The world, as we experience it, is the image of mental processes across our dissociative boundary. I exist, you exist, but we are both just ripples of an underlying field of subjectivity. It’s pretty simple actually.
Now, you might say that this isn’t an argument. But this is as strong as a physicalist interpretation of the outside world. They reason: hey, physical things exist (we don’t have any proof of this outside Consciousness but hey let’s ignore that) and they are fundamental. I leave my house and when I return, everything is still there, my dog is still there, etc. I can observe them with a microscope, I can poke you and you feel it, etc etc. physical things are fundamental and our subjectivity arises from these physical things after millions of years of evolution. So… outside world exists, surely!
Provide me any definition or argument for the existence of an outside world and I could simply say: well, it could still be that it exists only in my mind, you CANT disprove that! Gotcha!
Well, that isn’t a serious argument. I can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Does that mean I should use it to counter your theory? Obviously not. There is no evidence for solipsism, there is tons of evidence for an outside world, so just because I can’t falsify solipsism doesn’t mean I should take it seriously. And like Bernardo said, a serious solipsist wouldn’t get into any debates… it’s just a figment of their imagination anyway.
Because you are clearly an intelligent person, I believe your problem with BK is more a personal one my friend, rooted in something else. Cheers.
💯👌
💙
That's what Buddha said
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Incredibly failed to mention Spinoza.
Why?
It is exclusively a consciousness activity.
What is?
Perceiving itself into an illusory physical existence.
For a hammer, everything is a nail, because that is the only thing a hammer does, nail things. If the only way we can know reality is through our perception and experience, reality is then made of perceptions and experiences? This is the one thing I don't understand about Bernardo, that reality must be mental because for us as investigators of reality, the only way to know it is through perception and experience and therefore everything out there is made of the same thing, our experiencing and perception, which are mental stuff. And he proposes and sells this as an easy and cheap solution to the presently hardest problems of Physicalism ... the hard problem of consciousness and the problems of quantum mechanics (mainly non-locality). And the solution is, Bernardo is a reductionist and he reduces everything to mental (mind stuff) and because it's at the bottom level of reality, it's non reducible, so you can't really explain it, it's what it is and what reality is made of, it explains the physical world by just being there at the bottom, and also explains mind appearing at the top level where we are, because there was mind all along in the fabric of reality. Basically sweeping the two hardest questions under the rug and throwing the broom out the window. At the end of the day you have explained away nothing and with mind at the bottom of reality, you wouldn't be able to explain anything away anyways. Excitations and neural activity doesn't cause consciousness and experience, but the experiences of the mind manifest through neural activity and excitations? Why is it then when we stimulate brain regions we can alter the experience or perceptions, if the neural activity is the projection of a mental state to begin with? There are many flaws I see in his argumentation and a lot of these come to light in some of his other talks, one in particular with John Vervaeke on the "theories of everything" channel. To try and be a bit more constructive though, thank you for hosting this Tevin , great talk and I really like the material on your channel. You got such a variety of very interesting people that add a lot to one of the most exciting questions of our time! Can't wait to go through and watch a bunch more ... thank you!
Thank you so much for the wonderful comment. I'm glad you're enjoying the content! 🙏🏽 Lots more to come!🙌🏽
Whether you're a physicalist or idealist, you're at least implicitly proposing a reduction base that just is and cannot be reduced further (i.e. a miracle of sorts). I know for sure my mind exists (unless you're an illusionist, which is another topic), so why not go with the ontological primitive for which I have more epistemic certainty? If you read Kastrup's books, the argument continues into much more depth as to why the universe being mental makes the most sense and has greater explanatory power over physicalism. He also has a dissertation you can read for free online. Finally, he addresses common criticisms, such as the one you raised about stimulating the brain.
@@ChrisL-hc5gz just a quick note, illusionist doesn't say that your mind doesn't exist, just that experience and phenomenology is not that we classically think they are. Puting that aside, you uncovered the issue with the ontological primitive with the most epistemic certainty ... my experience in perceptions are fallible, there are such things as illusions of the brain or the senses. This is why we use instruments in science when probing the world. Yes, sure, ultimately your mind is what you can be the one thing you're sure exists, I have no problem with that. Where I gave problem is to put this as an ontological primitive, and with that getting a jail free card of having to explain it away, because now I've placed it at the bottom level of the reduction ladder of reality? Doesn't that sound dishonest to you? Sorry, I haven't read his books, and maybe I should, maybe I'll find the argument there that will convince me, but I have a very strong suspicion it won't. What I understand from his videos so far doesn't satisfy me
@@NOCOMPLYE yes, of course, one's own mind is not everything there is. I think Kastrup has been pretty vocal about not being a solipsist, as are many people he's debated or talked to. There are very good arguments against solipsism. What he argues for is mind at large, or a cosmic mind, of which we, individual minds represent mere dissociations of. We are part of this cosmic mind as cells are part of a body, only in this case the body is the whole universe and this cosmic mind has nothing outside of itself to reference or relate to, so it is lacking in a lot of aspects of mind that the dissociated smaller minds do posses. These I find are some of the gotcha points to his approach to explaining away consciousness. The way he solves how minds like ours arose from mere matter, thus "solving" the hard problem of consciousness, is by saying that consciousness was there all along in the fabric of reality, it just found itself at some point through the emergence of life and then evolution inside living organisms, through which it can now express itself and act on it's experiences and perceptions. I don't see how you can get from that universal mind, to the mind of individual organisms and having all these other aspects of mind that itself doesn't have to appear in evolved organisms because of evolution. Then you don't need it. Evolution alone is enough to account for all the mentation in the organisms. There might be more to be said about this, and I guess I haven't thought about this as long as he did, but this is my understanding and what makes sense to me, so I'll just leave it at that
You can’t see the space between atoms despite 99% of matter is space. You know this. But you believe that seeing is believing? When the proverbial tree falls, the “sound” is only waves until an ear hears it. You dont have sonar like a bat but you believe that sounds cannot be seen? Is a bats reality less correct? Your perception is arbitrary and you assign meaning to it. Both your perception and their meanings are only in your mind.
So we don't see colours but we get illusion of colour. What else do we have to expect; a map of photons? The eye gets the image which is then processed and relayed to consciousness as colour perception tied up with a bundle of data stored in memory. I don't see how to design the perception otherwise. Don't make it hard for God.
How hard would it have been to provide us with useful photon maps? That actually could work...
@@drtevinnaidu it is catch22. photons themselves are seen by scientists indirectly based on our interface to the world. My point is that evolution has done well in designing our interface. If I am asked to design it I wouldn't have done any better
It is just another way of seeing color, through a machine that breaks them into waves on a screen or a graph. So we see color 2 different ways, why would one be more real than another? This is the physicalist notion, that the physical map of reality is the real one, I doubt it is more real, according to an idealist the waves are just as illusionary as the colors (or as real) there is no need to separate the 2 views as one being the better version.
No, we are not.
Consciousness *IS* the fundamental reality. There are 144 levels of consciousness available to "humans". Most of these lost beings are below the 48th level.
In order to graduate from this Reality Simulator we call a planet, we *MUST* first reach the 96th level at which point we become Christed beings. In other words we have attained Christ consciousness. From then on we go out into the world being an example others can follow per their own gree will. Neither force nor deception is used to so-called convert anyone.
As we approach the 144th level through self transcendence, Ascension will be the final phase...
There's a whole lot more for "humans" to remember and learn, if / when they choose to do so.
Curious to know more about these levels. Tell me more! 🤔
is the 144 levels in decimal system or hexadecimal or another base. Do you think God has ten fingers?
@@kakhaval It seems you skipped reading comprehension class.
I said there are 144 levels available to humans. How did God get mixed up in this?
You have hereby demonstrated your ignorance about a subject that should be known to all so-called humans. Unfortunately that is not the case, hence the reason this planet is in such a mess.
Humans think they know all that needs to be known but in reality don't know diddly squat, so you all keep doing the same things over and over and over and over and over like a broken record, while expecting different results.
This is why I refuse to pay to attend comedy shows. There's more than enough comedy observing human beings.
Yes. The universe is absolutely mental. Like my wife.
Evolution dont made that surviving Dashboard, because in that process all beings died in short period of time, that Dashboard was created to navegate in this sistem
Tevin. Do you believe in God and a day of judgement?
I'm ontologically agnostic regarding the topic. It would depend on how one defines God, I guess.😁🤷🏻♂️
@@drtevinnaidu Do you believe in Fyghok ?
No idea what that is...
@@drtevinnaidu OK, but yo did not say "No idea what that is" when someone said "God" - why is that ?
Because I do have some idea of what I think God is, whether my idea is correct or not.😊👍🏽