People who are already aware the contradictory explanations proposed by mainstream thinkers in regards to the frankly paradigm destroying results of experiments on local realism and entanglement could be persuaded by a single short penetrating rebuttle by Bernardo. Notice I said tinkers not physicists, these results don't require solving the Schrodinger equation, but simply using empirical evidence. Rational, thought, parsimony and a clear explanation or theory; analytic idealism provides this.
Transpersonal processes are an expression of our codependence. We are ultimately empty (as in dependently originated) (see Nagarjuna or Keiji Nishitani)
Not just dmt, but a lot of experience with ou without drugs. Even if idealism isn't correct, i think there's some mensage in all these experiences around the world and history of mankind.
I think this is just like asking "why are the fundamental particles the way they are". It is simply like that. And even in some sense or at some level far beyond our capacities to understand there is a reason, there's no way for us to find out or understand it.
Yeah, the blind lady example is strange that you accept a physical check (the brain activity in the visual cortex) explaining a mental state. Please explain. Ah later on you explain. But it’s also the third person that looks at his or her “dashboard” to measure brain activity with the lady who subjectively experiences blindness. My Ggggg I believe I’m getting there!
Following this line of reasoning, DID patients, if given a psychedelic in either the host personality or any of the alters, should only be affected when the personality that took the drug is present and not in any of the others. Am I correct here? So, if I suffer from DID and I ingest a strong psychedelic like DMT while in the host personality state and my alter then emerges and has executive control of the body, my alter should not report the DMT experience, but rather should feel unaffected and report what a person would experience that had not taken DMT. If I am correct about this, then this would support analytic idealism for sure. If these types of experiments have been conducted (which might be hard for ethical reasons), then that would be a significant contribution to our understanding of the nature of reality.
I'm not so sure about that. Under analytic idealism, a person with DID taking a psychedelic would be similar to if the entire universe took a psychedelic, thus causing every dissossiation in the universe to feel the effects. So even under Bernardo's theory, all of the alters would still feel the effects of the substance. Oh man I hope I'm making sense
So then where is the real game happening ? If time/ space are illusions and matter does not exist, I don’t understand really but I think you speak with knowledge
Superficially it seems that the universe and us share matter as ingredient, but if we dive deeper it becomes more plausible that fundamentally the universe and us are mental in nature
Hello Barnardo, I love listening to you. And to Rupert. You lose me when you say that “we are the disassociated beings, we are like monkeys “ it is my understanding that what we truly are is the “intelligence/ consciousness” fundamentally underlying all of what appears on our dashboards.
The world is not material as a fundamental entity. So what is the "Essence" that is beyond our individual minds, (or all minds, and thought itself)? It's Pure Consciousness "In-Itself". However, Kastrup should not use the word "mental" as something fundamental. Pure Consciousness is experiential in a non-dual sense, but transcends the realm of mental. So, his statement that "everything is mental" is incorrect. The statement is "Everything is Pure Consciousness", and That Consciousness is directly experienced in the state of Samadhi or Satori.
If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, a product of a non-conscious, non-intentive evolutionary process, all of the philosophical / intellectual speculations about it may be understandable, but ultimately pretty foolish -- because we will have taken something that has no other choice but to be relatively simple, and blown it up to be something that simplicity cannot possibly account for. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I'm not convinced that consciousness is necessarily anything more than a particularly interesting type of engineering problem, and that the clues that suggest that are right in front of us, and inside our own heads. Science has shown us that the obvious answer is not always the right answer. So looking at "obvious" clues certainly doesn't guarantee an "obvious" answer. At the same time, adding a lot of possibly unnecessary and possibly unjustifiable spookiness to consciousness may actually be clouding the issue rather than defining it.
You rely on the assumption IF consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. What does that even mean? Consciousness emerges out of brain activity? What like electricity does? 🤔 is consciousness physical like electricity? What are you talking about when you say consciousness emerges? What emerges? Can something non physical emerge out of physical activity? Do non physical things exist? Is consciousness 100% physical 🤔 what exactly emerges ? Does consciousness emerge like sweat from a gland or shit from a butt? Does consciousness emerge out of electrical activity if so as what is consciousness? You dismiss philosophy but don't realise by dismissing philosophy you just invent your own. :)
@@mrbwatson8081 WATSON: "You rely on the assumption IF consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. What does that even mean?" It means that consciousness is a product of evolution -- a non-conscious product. WATSON: "Consciousness emerges out of brain activity?: Do you have even a single example of consciousness existing outside of a very specific type of physical / material infrastructure (like a nervous system)? WATSON: "What like electricity does?" Electricity emerges out of brain activity? That's a new one on me. WATSON: is consciousness physical like electricity? I don't see enough of a similarity there to answer that question with a yes. Electricity and consciousness have different properties, characteristics. WATSON: "What are you talking about when you say consciousness emerges? What emerges? Can something non physical emerge out of physical activity?" In a materialistic worldview, consciousness would develop incrementally over time. Only gradually -- over a period of hundreds of thousands of years -- would we even become aware of it in the way we are now. WATSON: "Do non physical things exist?" I find the evidence pretty persuasive. Until someone can show me evidence just as persuasive that it's not, then I see no reason not to question that. WATSON: "Is consciousness 100% physical 🤔 what exactly emerges ? The ability to be aware of itself. WATSON: "Does consciousness emerge like sweat from a gland or shit from a butt?" Consciousness only seems to appear in a very specific type of material / physical infrastructure -- like a nervous system. Do you have any example of consciousness existing outside of that? WATSON: "Does consciousness emerge out of electrical activity if so as what is consciousness? You dismiss philosophy but don't realise by dismissing philosophy you just invent your own. :)" Consciousness is the ability to postulate, consider, and intend -- with awareness of its own continuity. This is entirely consistent with an evolutionary narrative / explanation. No, I'm not inventing my own philosophy. I'm looking at the variety of philosophies already out there, and choosing the one consistent with my own experience, the one that seems to most accurately describe what I experience and why I experience it.
@@dougsmith6793 so according to you, consciousness is a product of evolution like a thumb 👍🏾. But it’s not a physical product of evolution. Consciousness is the ability to postulate consider and intend. Consciousness developed over thousands of years . So for you consciousness is basically mental or cognitive capabilities. We as humans are conscious, dogs also, a fly? A bacteria? Consciousness from an evolutionary or even medical point of view… well again if you dismiss philosophy you will just practice your own. In philosophy conscious is simply the experience to be something. Is there something like to be a dog ? if so dog is conscious. Is there something like to be a bee? If so bee is conscious. Is there something like to be a bacteria a tree ? Your definition of consciousness is different from a philosophical definition. Yours is more practical pragmatic view nothing wrong with that just don’t compare it to the depths philosophy has to offer.
@@mrbwatson8081 WATSON: "so according to you, consciousness is a product of evolution like a thumb 👍🏾." I don't see any proof that that can't happen. WATSON: "But it’s not a physical product of evolution." Well, yeah, it is ultimately physical. You know, like software is ultimately physical, but has some properties that can be interpreted as non-physical, depending on how you want to look at it. WATSON: "Consciousness is the ability to postulate consider and intend. Consciousness developed over thousands of years . So for you consciousness is basically mental or cognitive capabilities." It's information processing. In computers, we have hardware and software. In evolution, it's a biological computer, not a silicon computer. It's an analog computer, not a digital one. And, instead of a single cache where information is processed sequentially in 64-bit chunks, the nervous system is massively parallel, tens of thousands of "bits" processed simultaneously. If you understand what an analog computer is, you'll realize that analog computers are found pretty much everywhere we look in nature. So an analog computer as a basis for a biological computer is not necessarily a fundamentally different characteristic in nature, but a variation / extension of processes that are already part of nature itself. WATSON: We as humans are conscious, dogs also, a fly? A bacteria? Consciousness from an evolutionary or even medical point of view… Consciousness as a product of evolution implies -- even demands -- that consciousness is a gradient. Otherwise, it could not "emerge" through incremental steps. So, yes, other living organisms have infrastructure that supports "cognitive" behavior. But the very gradient nature of consciousness means that full-on human consciousness is NOT required for a wide variety of organisms to benefit from information processing to help them survive long enough to reproduce. The basic functions are: collect information about the environment, categorize that information in degrees of "safe" or "not safe", and this would be the basis for "intention" to approach or avoid objects in the environment based on that categorization. Roaches would "think" on a very reactive level. They probably don't have discussions about the meaning of life -- but that level of cognitive function is also not necessary for them to perform those three functions -- and help them survive long enough to reproduce. Information processing on even that level really only occurs in biological organisms that are mobile. Bacteria don't really need much information processing to do what they do. WATSON: "well again if you dismiss philosophy you will just practice your own." None of us dismisses philosophy. For pretty much most of us, the various ways to explain our own origins and nature have already been thought of. So I'm not inventing anything new here. I'm simply looking at all the various ways philosophy has explained our origins and nature, and picking the one that's most consistent with my own observations, education, and experience. WATSON: "In philosophy conscious is simply the experience to be something." That's not inconsistent with the materialist description of conscious processes -- especially in the context of a nervous system, which is how we literally "feel" everything to begin with. WATSON: "Is there something like to be a dog ? if so dog is conscious. Is there something like to be a bee? If so bee is conscious. Is there something like to be a bacteria a tree ? Your definition of consciousness is different from a philosophical definition. Yours is more practical pragmatic view nothing wrong with that just don’t compare it to the depths philosophy has to offer." Since I've approached this subject philosophically all my life, I'm not convinced that philosophy is the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. If it was, there would be no disagreement among philosophers -- they'd all eventually arrive at exactly the same truth. But they don't. I use philosophy to generate ideas and possibilities. But without some methodology for testing philosophical possibilities, it's impossible to distinguish between imagination and imagination. For all those who regard science as a flawed or insufficient methodology for coaxing some truth out of existence, not a single one of them has proposed a better way. I very much doubt that your experience of consciousness is fundamentally different than my own. So, in analyzing this, I'm not convinced that you have information about this that I don't also have. We're just interpreting the same information through each of our own life's experiences. I'm doing my best to be as truthful and honest and educated as I can be about that, just as you are. Hey -- I prefer the notion that consciousness can NOT be explained materialistically. So I'm really arguing against myself here, not you. But there's also an inconvenient fact -- there is no example or evidence of consciousness outside of a very specific type of physical / material structure. The implications of that single inconvenient fact need to be explained. And there needs to be a convincing explanation why we shouldn't accept the obvious answer there, and tests that show that the obvious answer cannot possibly be the correct one. Simply provide that -- scientifically valid evidence / example of consciousness outside of a very specific type of physical / material infrastructure -- and I'll switch my position in an instant.
@@mrbwatson8081 Mr. Watson: There are two ways that the word "emerge" is used in this context. One is the incremental process of evolution, where the physical infrastructure that eventually permitted full-on human consciousness gradually "emerged" out of the conditions favorable to its expression. In evolution, this "emergence" would be incremental, small steps over tens of thousands or millions of years. This was by no means inevitable, but certainly not impossible through selective pressure. The other is the way certain properties "emerge" out of infrastructure itself. For example, the ability of a computer to process information "emerges" from the interconnection of its component parts -- including the electricity that it takes to power the process. Once all the supporting infrastructure is in place -- memory, data transfer busses, the microprocessor itself, a clock to drive it -- the ability to process that information "emerges" out of the infrastructure itself, and cannot emerge if that infrastructure is not there. This is a much more spontaneous or instantaneous "emergence". Turn the power on, and the ability to process information almost instantaneously "emerges" from the component parts. It's just as accurate to say that the ability of the computer to process information is a product of the "synergy" of its component parts, or that those component parts "create" or "produce" the ability to process information. So "emerge" is not an expression of magic -- just a way to describe how stuff interacts with itself.
The main, and perhaps only, problem with Bernardo's model is that he hasn't fixed the duality problem. While he is correct to say that materialism is not the correct model (the "exterior" physical realm is not fundamental reality), it is also incorrect to say that "mind" is not fundamental reality. What he has done is to shift the perspective of duality problem to the non-physical "mind" aspect of the ego. My triune "Fundamental Model Of Reality" fixes this subtle problem. - 0 + particle OBSERVER wave function future PRESENCE past yin TAO yang holyghost GOD (FATHER) son mind SPIRIT body nonthing(thought) POTENTIAL things This model also fixes the starkly dualistic "thing"/"nothing" conventional model presented by the English language So fundamental Reality is Self/God that is not the "nothing" of a lack or non-existence, but rather "Nothing THAT CAN BE/IS DESCRIBED" BEING To realize such one must shift attention away from thoughts and sensations and onto the "Mauna"/stillness of thought free Awareness. ruclips.net/video/wvLKIv0uaQ4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/V5gV9Z4xrA8/видео.html 🙏
People who are already aware the contradictory explanations proposed by mainstream thinkers in regards to the frankly paradigm destroying results of experiments on local realism and entanglement could be persuaded by a single short penetrating rebuttle by Bernardo. Notice I said tinkers not physicists, these results don't require solving the Schrodinger equation, but simply using empirical evidence. Rational, thought, parsimony and a clear explanation or theory; analytic idealism provides this.
Love your ideas, approach and intelligence
The world is within consciousness as its own perception of itself. Exclusively a consciousness vs consciousness event.
The world as a will and representation.
*13:43* *14:06*
In this context, what would be the meaning of transpersonal processes?
Transpersonal processes are an expression of our codependence. We are ultimately empty (as in dependently originated) (see Nagarjuna or Keiji Nishitani)
Well this would explain why DMT feels like experiencing the entire universe.
Not just dmt, but a lot of experience with ou without drugs. Even if idealism isn't correct, i think there's some mensage in all these experiences around the world and history of mankind.
Yep. It breaks down the false barriers of perceptions and finite measurements that separates..
still phenomena
@@nicolasaybar5318 what is it in your experience that is aware of this phenomena? That is what you are.
The Universe is a construct of human consciousness. Space & Time. DMT is a different realm of consciousness
Why did the universal consciousness split into fragments of dissociative personalities? What for?
I think there's no answer for that, but i guess that is something natural.
to have some FUN, experience "other" ...
I think this is just like asking "why are the fundamental particles the way they are". It is simply like that. And even in some sense or at some level far beyond our capacities to understand there is a reason, there's no way for us to find out or understand it.
To experience itself in an infinite number of ways.
Maybe the universe has had it's own trauma 😭🤷🏾♂️🤣
Yeah, the blind lady example is strange that you accept a physical check (the brain activity in the visual cortex) explaining a mental state. Please explain. Ah later on you explain. But it’s also the third person that looks at his or her “dashboard” to measure brain activity with the lady who subjectively experiences blindness. My Ggggg I believe I’m getting there!
Following this line of reasoning, DID patients, if given a psychedelic in either the host personality or any of the alters, should only be affected when the personality that took the drug is present and not in any of the others. Am I correct here? So, if I suffer from DID and I ingest a strong psychedelic like DMT while in the host personality state and my alter then emerges and has executive control of the body, my alter should not report the DMT experience, but rather should feel unaffected and report what a person would experience that had not taken DMT. If I am correct about this, then this would support analytic idealism for sure. If these types of experiments have been conducted (which might be hard for ethical reasons), then that would be a significant contribution to our understanding of the nature of reality.
I'm not so sure about that. Under analytic idealism, a person with DID taking a psychedelic would be similar to if the entire universe took a psychedelic, thus causing every dissossiation in the universe to feel the effects. So even under Bernardo's theory, all of the alters would still feel the effects of the substance.
Oh man I hope I'm making sense
So then where is the real game happening ?
If time/ space are illusions and matter does not exist, I don’t understand really
but I think you speak with knowledge
Superficially it seems that the universe and us share matter as ingredient, but if we dive deeper it becomes more plausible that fundamentally the universe and us are mental in nature
Hello Barnardo, I love listening to you. And to Rupert. You lose me when you say that “we are the disassociated beings, we are like monkeys “ it is my understanding that what we truly are is the “intelligence/ consciousness” fundamentally underlying all of what appears on our dashboards.
We are it as well as a dissociation of it experiencing itself (both as person and the world)
You are both right now
The world is not material as a fundamental entity. So what is the "Essence" that is beyond our individual minds, (or all minds, and thought itself)? It's Pure Consciousness "In-Itself". However, Kastrup should not use the word "mental" as something fundamental. Pure Consciousness is experiential in a non-dual sense, but transcends the realm of mental. So, his statement that "everything is mental" is incorrect. The statement is "Everything is Pure Consciousness", and That Consciousness is directly experienced in the state of Samadhi or Satori.
it is not it without the glasses🤓
If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, a product of a non-conscious, non-intentive evolutionary process, all of the philosophical / intellectual speculations about it may be understandable, but ultimately pretty foolish -- because we will have taken something that has no other choice but to be relatively simple, and blown it up to be something that simplicity cannot possibly account for.
As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I'm not convinced that consciousness is necessarily anything more than a particularly interesting type of engineering problem, and that the clues that suggest that are right in front of us, and inside our own heads.
Science has shown us that the obvious answer is not always the right answer. So looking at "obvious" clues certainly doesn't guarantee an "obvious" answer.
At the same time, adding a lot of possibly unnecessary and possibly unjustifiable spookiness to consciousness may actually be clouding the issue rather than defining it.
You rely on the assumption IF consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. What does that even mean? Consciousness emerges out of brain activity? What like electricity does? 🤔 is consciousness physical like electricity? What are you talking about when you say consciousness emerges? What emerges? Can something non physical emerge out of physical activity? Do non physical things exist? Is consciousness 100% physical 🤔 what exactly emerges ? Does consciousness emerge like sweat from a gland or shit from a butt? Does consciousness emerge out of electrical activity if so as what is consciousness? You dismiss philosophy but don't realise by dismissing philosophy you just invent your own. :)
@@mrbwatson8081
WATSON: "You rely on the assumption IF consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. What does that even mean?"
It means that consciousness is a product of evolution -- a non-conscious product.
WATSON: "Consciousness emerges out of brain activity?:
Do you have even a single example of consciousness existing outside of a very specific type of physical / material infrastructure (like a nervous system)?
WATSON: "What like electricity does?"
Electricity emerges out of brain activity? That's a new one on me.
WATSON: is consciousness physical like electricity?
I don't see enough of a similarity there to answer that question with a yes. Electricity and consciousness have different properties, characteristics.
WATSON: "What are you talking about when you say consciousness emerges? What emerges? Can something non physical emerge out of physical activity?"
In a materialistic worldview, consciousness would develop incrementally over time. Only gradually -- over a period of hundreds of thousands of years -- would we even become aware of it in the way we are now.
WATSON: "Do non physical things exist?"
I find the evidence pretty persuasive. Until someone can show me evidence just as persuasive that it's not, then I see no reason not to question that.
WATSON: "Is consciousness 100% physical 🤔 what exactly emerges ?
The ability to be aware of itself.
WATSON: "Does consciousness emerge like sweat from a gland or shit from a butt?"
Consciousness only seems to appear in a very specific type of material / physical infrastructure -- like a nervous system.
Do you have any example of consciousness existing outside of that?
WATSON: "Does consciousness emerge out of electrical activity if so as what is consciousness? You dismiss philosophy but don't realise by dismissing philosophy you just invent your own. :)"
Consciousness is the ability to postulate, consider, and intend -- with awareness of its own continuity. This is entirely consistent with an evolutionary narrative / explanation.
No, I'm not inventing my own philosophy. I'm looking at the variety of philosophies already out there, and choosing the one consistent with my own experience, the one that seems to most accurately describe what I experience and why I experience it.
@@dougsmith6793 so according to you, consciousness is a product of evolution like a thumb 👍🏾. But it’s not a physical product of evolution. Consciousness is the ability to postulate consider and intend. Consciousness developed over thousands of years . So for you consciousness is basically mental or cognitive capabilities. We as humans are conscious, dogs also, a fly? A bacteria? Consciousness from an evolutionary or even medical point of view… well again if you dismiss philosophy you will just practice your own. In philosophy conscious is simply the experience to be something. Is there something like to be a dog ? if so dog is conscious. Is there something like to be a bee? If so bee is conscious. Is there something like to be a bacteria a tree ? Your definition of consciousness is different from a philosophical definition. Yours is more practical pragmatic view nothing wrong with that just don’t compare it to the depths philosophy has to offer.
@@mrbwatson8081
WATSON: "so according to you, consciousness is a product of evolution like a thumb 👍🏾."
I don't see any proof that that can't happen.
WATSON: "But it’s not a physical product of evolution."
Well, yeah, it is ultimately physical. You know, like software is ultimately physical, but has some properties that can be interpreted as non-physical, depending on how you want to look at it.
WATSON: "Consciousness is the ability to postulate consider and intend. Consciousness developed over thousands of years . So for you consciousness is basically mental or cognitive capabilities."
It's information processing. In computers, we have hardware and software. In evolution, it's a biological computer, not a silicon computer. It's an analog computer, not a digital one. And, instead of a single cache where information is processed sequentially in 64-bit chunks, the nervous system is massively parallel, tens of thousands of "bits" processed simultaneously.
If you understand what an analog computer is, you'll realize that analog computers are found pretty much everywhere we look in nature. So an analog computer as a basis for a biological computer is not necessarily a fundamentally different characteristic in nature, but a variation / extension of processes that are already part of nature itself.
WATSON: We as humans are conscious, dogs also, a fly? A bacteria? Consciousness from an evolutionary or even medical point of view…
Consciousness as a product of evolution implies -- even demands -- that consciousness is a gradient. Otherwise, it could not "emerge" through incremental steps. So, yes, other living organisms have infrastructure that supports "cognitive" behavior. But the very gradient nature of consciousness means that full-on human consciousness is NOT required for a wide variety of organisms to benefit from information processing to help them survive long enough to reproduce.
The basic functions are: collect information about the environment, categorize that information in degrees of "safe" or "not safe", and this would be the basis for "intention" to approach or avoid objects in the environment based on that categorization.
Roaches would "think" on a very reactive level. They probably don't have discussions about the meaning of life -- but that level of cognitive function is also not necessary for them to perform those three functions -- and help them survive long enough to reproduce.
Information processing on even that level really only occurs in biological organisms that are mobile. Bacteria don't really need much information processing to do what they do.
WATSON: "well again if you dismiss philosophy you will just practice your own."
None of us dismisses philosophy. For pretty much most of us, the various ways to explain our own origins and nature have already been thought of. So I'm not inventing anything new here. I'm simply looking at all the various ways philosophy has explained our origins and nature, and picking the one that's most consistent with my own observations, education, and experience.
WATSON: "In philosophy conscious is simply the experience to be something."
That's not inconsistent with the materialist description of conscious processes -- especially in the context of a nervous system, which is how we literally "feel" everything to begin with.
WATSON: "Is there something like to be a dog ? if so dog is conscious. Is there something like to be a bee? If so bee is conscious. Is there something like to be a bacteria a tree ? Your definition of consciousness is different from a philosophical definition. Yours is more practical pragmatic view nothing wrong with that just don’t compare it to the depths philosophy has to offer."
Since I've approached this subject philosophically all my life, I'm not convinced that philosophy is the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. If it was, there would be no disagreement among philosophers -- they'd all eventually arrive at exactly the same truth.
But they don't. I use philosophy to generate ideas and possibilities. But without some methodology for testing philosophical possibilities, it's impossible to distinguish between imagination and imagination.
For all those who regard science as a flawed or insufficient methodology for coaxing some truth out of existence, not a single one of them has proposed a better way.
I very much doubt that your experience of consciousness is fundamentally different than my own. So, in analyzing this, I'm not convinced that you have information about this that I don't also have. We're just interpreting the same information through each of our own life's experiences.
I'm doing my best to be as truthful and honest and educated as I can be about that, just as you are.
Hey -- I prefer the notion that consciousness can NOT be explained materialistically. So I'm really arguing against myself here, not you. But there's also an inconvenient fact -- there is no example or evidence of consciousness outside of a very specific type of physical / material structure.
The implications of that single inconvenient fact need to be explained. And there needs to be a convincing explanation why we shouldn't accept the obvious answer there, and tests that show that the obvious answer cannot possibly be the correct one.
Simply provide that -- scientifically valid evidence / example of consciousness outside of a very specific type of physical / material infrastructure -- and I'll switch my position in an instant.
@@mrbwatson8081
Mr. Watson:
There are two ways that the word "emerge" is used in this context.
One is the incremental process of evolution, where the physical infrastructure that eventually permitted full-on human consciousness gradually "emerged" out of the conditions favorable to its expression.
In evolution, this "emergence" would be incremental, small steps over tens of thousands or millions of years.
This was by no means inevitable, but certainly not impossible through selective pressure.
The other is the way certain properties "emerge" out of infrastructure itself.
For example, the ability of a computer to process information "emerges" from the interconnection of its component parts -- including the electricity that it takes to power the process.
Once all the supporting infrastructure is in place -- memory, data transfer busses, the microprocessor itself, a clock to drive it -- the ability to process that information "emerges" out of the infrastructure itself, and cannot emerge if that infrastructure is not there.
This is a much more spontaneous or instantaneous "emergence". Turn the power on, and the ability to process information almost instantaneously "emerges" from the component parts.
It's just as accurate to say that the ability of the computer to process information is a product of the "synergy" of its component parts, or that those component parts "create" or "produce" the ability to process information.
So "emerge" is not an expression of magic -- just a way to describe how stuff interacts with itself.
The main, and perhaps only, problem with Bernardo's model is that he hasn't fixed the duality problem. While he is correct to say that materialism is not the correct model (the "exterior" physical realm is not fundamental reality), it is also incorrect to say that "mind" is not fundamental reality. What he has done is to shift the perspective of duality problem to the non-physical "mind" aspect of the ego.
My triune "Fundamental Model Of Reality" fixes this subtle problem.
- 0 +
particle OBSERVER wave function
future PRESENCE past
yin TAO yang
holyghost GOD (FATHER) son
mind SPIRIT body
nonthing(thought) POTENTIAL things
This model also fixes the starkly dualistic "thing"/"nothing" conventional model presented by the English language
So fundamental Reality is Self/God that is not the "nothing" of a lack or non-existence, but rather "Nothing THAT CAN BE/IS DESCRIBED"
BEING
To realize such one must shift attention away from thoughts and sensations and onto the "Mauna"/stillness of thought free Awareness.
ruclips.net/video/wvLKIv0uaQ4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/V5gV9Z4xrA8/видео.html
🙏