Wow! Amazing video, thank you Dr bernardo, I have to say that when I was a young man I did dabble with magic mushrooms, what I found was that it enhanced my sense of reality tenfold, however, this affects your mood ,ie if you are happy then it's fabulous but if you are depressed then it's terrible, works both ways
Luckily, RUclips has executed your wish. Just click bottom right on the icon Subtitles and choose any language you want the text to be translated in. Enjoy.
I'm absolutely convinced by Barnardo's analytic idealism. I mean thoroughly. Many years ago I came to the conclusion that Schopenhauer was about as close to being correct in giving a metaphorical way of thinking about what existence is and what therefore it can't be. I have read most of Bernardo's books, but not his latest, I'm hoping when I do read it it will be very accessible as I want to pass it around to as many people as possible. 'The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name'
I am not informed or clever enough to know how to argue with any of these lectures, but they have me captivated and thinking of their implications all of the time, now. I've really enjoyed the advice to take them slow, and let them each sink in with a bit of time between. They've been a real joy to take in.
I have many objections, but one of them is that the decrease in brain activity but richer experience could be due to less activity of inhibitory neurons (80%) compared to excitatory neurons (20%) It it's also necessary to describe whether or not the experience is actually richer, or it is just a radically different experience which is novel but not necessarily richer or more complex. I would argue a fractal seems richer in detail but it is actually simpler (algorythmically) than let's say a Monett painting.
Good point, I had that thought too, but wouldn't that mean that we would then have to detect at least a relative increase in activity somewhere in the brain? A decrease in inhibitory activity would have to be accompanied by an increase in activity somewhere. Otherwise, from a physicalist perspective, why would nature waste energy and resources on a complex system of neuronal inhibition and excitation when all essential perceptual and cognitive functions could do just as well without them, and consequently with a fraction of the usual brain metabolism?
I feel so fortunate to be here in this time experiencing this transference of knowledge. It's true that every age has It's great thinkers and doers whom move humanity forward, but I would argue that at no point in this current age of humanity has it been so accessible to the majority. Thank you Mr Kastrup and thank you everyone involved in this.
Holy crap I had such a massive A-HA moment with the soccer match metaphor. It put spooky action into such an easily understood framework. gahh… I clcant wait to rewatch all these from beginning again. A true blessing. Thank you everyone for your work at the foundation and thank you Bernardo🎉🎉
This series literally destroyed my ideology of materialistic postmodernism that had a very strong pull to nihilism and replaced it with an ideology that is much more optimistic and gives me the feeling of meaning.
@@Tino_Tino_Tino Honestly I see the world differently but I don't think there is a practical difference. We treat the Dashbord as if it is real. BUT in a materialistic world there is almost no place for a soul. I believe that nihilism exacerbate the feeling of mortality and prone to depressive disorders. That you know is really different now. I developed an honest believe in some kind of immortal soul. Immortal of course in a materialstic sense. I think that gives a good ancer. How do you feel about this?
Thank you for the explanation of the fysicalist explanation in psychedelic research. I understand now that the effect of this socalled randomness or 'noise' in the brain is minimal.
I am awed and elated! It is so simple, so logical and provides a framework for explaining experiences that can't be explained otherwise. It is also a hopeful, positive framework to go through life with; much better than 'physicalism' that says we are blobs of matter and there is no meaning, just the daily mechanical grind...Thank you!
*26:43* *26:47* A psichedelic experience isn't random. *27:56* *if you look at the effect* *28:40* the comparisson is the level of randomess *29:14* but look at the bloody scale *29:55* I don't think it explain *31:23* ; *32:38* (we have decades of literature showing that under ordinary conditions experience correlates with an increase in brain activity, an increase in metabolism in the brain); *34:35* You can't have both ways *Summary* *35:11* *One paradigm here and a complete diferent paradigm here*. *35:19* the effect is to tiny to account for the fenomenology. *35:24* the phenomenology is not noisy *35:30* Structured experience with structured brain activity. *35:43* Sarcasm
This is a most fascinating concept. But I do have some questions. 1. How is information modelled inside analytical idealism? What is it exactly? And also what about its transfer limit speed (aka speed of light)? 2. How do we use the images on the screen of perception to influence the reality behind the screen? For instance, if psychedelics affect the dissociation, how are they able to do that? Since all they do is affect the images on the screen of perception. It's an image to image interaction using the dissociative boundary and not through it as you've explained previously.
Wow, I feel soooo elated that what I always suspected is now gaining academic validation. No I dare actually say my opinions out loud haha! Also, only now that this is more broadly being recoginzed I am starting to get a sense of the huge implications this holds... Just think what this means! A complete reorienation to life is needed, and to the organisation of our society. Looking forward to dive into this matter more!
40:00 "causes us to regard ourselves as something bigger, larger than the alter, than our body, than our thoughts and emotions". I think I feel something like that whenever I sing (or perform an instrument like flute, classical guitar etc.) in harmony (and in a rhythm), especially in a finely tuned small group of musicians, especially during performance of meditative music like early music, Taize/Just Intonation/ancient music, even separate slow chords of Just Intonation (which are so original after all the 12-tone EDO (aka 12TET, 12ET) that we are all used to, and which therefore sound so unearthly), transitions of these chords, and so on. 51:27 Bernardo's publications in "Scientific American"
The football match / TV sets metaphor is surely inadequate to resolve the issue of observed correlations between measurements carried out on entangled particles, since nothing corresponds in the former to a measurement. For the analogy to work, an adjustment of one TV set would have to have an effect on [what is seen on] the other. Unless you want to say that the underlying reality (in this case, the football match itself) was somehow responsible not only for the images on the sets but on the kind of adjustment made to one of them (in which case we have a kind of superdeterminism) I don't see how positing an underlying reality helps here.
I have the same question. My thoughts about it are that we are watching the TV while simultaneously inside the stadium. So I can go kick the ball and then look at my screens and watch the ball move on each screen.
@@aitabefornes6237 No, you don't have access to the stadium. Let's use the words 'image' and 'thing in of itself' instead of 'TV' and 'stadium.' Under Kastrup's ontology, the particle is an image of a mental process, which is the thing in itself. All you have access to is the world of images, but you don't have access to the mental states that underlie the physical universe. (until you die)
You're missing the point lmo. It's not like you can mess with entangled particles like a football. The spooky action shows that the beaviour of one particle directly corresponds to behviour of another in an etangled pair. What I feel Bernardo is saying is that the particles are just like dials measuring the same mental activity, like two cameras in the same football match, that's my take on it anyway..
In my understanding of particle physics, which I am no expert on, entangled particles have a superposistion until either one is observed, when observed the one you are measuring has a particular spin and since it's entangled you can predict with a 100% certanty that the other particle of the entangled pair has the opposite spin.
Thank you for tying this back to the psychedelics states. I too had come across the claims that psychedelics increase brain entropy. I had no idea how insignificant those effects were, and it did seemingly contradict the findings from NDRs etc. Great lectures! Thank you for making them available on RUclips!
"Matter is not there until you look", but what about photos, video camera's, etc...is there a way to get an inkling of this being the case by using those vs. using your mind/senses directly observing things? Even the smallest minute hint that this is actually the case? I'm not sure if this video/course covers that or not (still watching), just asking...
I'll make a string of comments and would love any engagement with others who find Kastrup's work to be important and fascinating. Ooops, I missed part IV. I'll come back to this one later :)
Is it possible that the parts of the brain, in the absence of stimulus during a psychedelic experience, interpret the lack of stimulus incorrectly and misfire producing the rich experiences? I am not sure that enough evidence is provided to support the idea that the alter is reassociating... or perhaps I don't understand. Can you expand on that?
Hey, I find this course awesome, it really keeps me away from studying and doing what I am supposed to do. My comment regards what you say about physicalists trying to explain the "increase of subjective experience" due to psychedelics: Isn't their main argument for this the increase of connectivity between different brain regions rather than the argument you are dismissing here? Would love to hear your thoughts on this!
Gazillions of universes popping in and out of existence every infinitesimal fraction of a second… Here’s my wondering about that: in one interview, BK speaks about his understanding that nothing exists and nothing has ever existed. I think he writes about in one of his books (I don’t recall the name). He speaks of this from the view of “presence” - that all things happen and can only happen and have ever happened in the present moment, yet no matter how you divide time, you will never “find” the present moment. I wonder if “the universe being recreated in every moment” is just an image of the paradox of presence and “nothing has ever happened.” You will never be able to find evidence for either because we can’t access the place where evidence “exists”.
Love this, so resonates with me. Just wondered whether if, say an alter’s dissociation is reduced (and hence brain activity) while taking psychedelics, could someone in deep meditation/ satori also actually be experiencing highly reduced dissociation and getting closer to experiencing what reality is? Just wondering. Not, by any means, a scientist in this area.
There is one place where these presentation of an observer dependent reality can be strengthened. The idea when we look away, the object does not exist should be modified to explain that there is still something there, namely, the quantum field. So instead of removing the mountain completely when the onlooker turns away, the image of the mountain should be replaced, or reveal the underlying quantum field. This is actually a point that I think would draw in more people to take this concept more seriously. It is hard to imagine that something, even if it is a representative image exists and then doesn't exist entirely. Instead, we should explain that the underlying quantum field is always there, the image of the mountain scene is an overlay on top of the primary substance. Does that make sense to anyone?
Yes it does make sense, and (I’ve not finished this video yet) is there also the factor that there are numerous alters and does their observation also maintain the image for another whether they’re looking or not? (Although I guess we could never know…!) I’d thought before that BK’s theory pointed to the one consciousness being the observer and therefore there’s always ‘something’ observing - but then that doesn’t hold water with the double slit experiment…
@@helenamery Good point! I think your first suggestion does make sense. But there is an important distinction. The appearance of the mountain would exist only on the screen of perception of each individual alter. Remember, the image, and the physicality of the mountain do not exist independently and objectively. So, I may turn away, and the representative image will disappear, but if you continue looking at the mountain it does remain on your screen of perception. No matter how many alters, 0, 10, 100, gazillions, no image of the mountain exists objectively. Only the underlying substance and process of the quantum field exists eternally. As to your second point, I am not sure where BK sits. Your universal observer, reminds me of Spinoza's position of "god," being ultimate observer (although this point is complicated, and BK does a great job elucidating it in one of these lectures...I've lost track which one.) However, I don't think a universal observer can observe itself, in and of itself, or from outside itself as we do. We look at universal mind at large. But being universal mind, restricts it from seeing taking a perspective on itself. Just like we can not see inside the boundary of our own dissociated alter. Yikes, I'm feeling like I'm stretching the limit of my understanding. It would be nice for Bernardo to weight in on this.
@Jonathan Andrews Agreed, it is a great video in general. And the simplifications are useful, especially for people who are just encountering the ideas for the first time. But there seem to be points for improvement. Maybe the next video of this nature will include some of the changes we suggest with our comments and feedback.
@@S.G.Wallner yes that makes sense and aligns with nondual understandings that the world of form enables consciousness to experience itself which it could never otherwise do. The eye and the ‘I’ both need a mirror to see themselves.
@@helenamery Very interesting. In one sense I agree, if we take ourselves as dissociated alters to be a part of the universal mind at large, each alter can look upon it's "larger self." But I don't take this to mean universal mind at large sees itself through us because, dissociation implies a boundary and in a sense blindness. Ugh, such a tricky distinction. Dissociation is challenging to comprehend, and conceptualize with language because implies both a difference and sameness. Feel free to respond again, I don't believe I have it completely figured out or articulated well by any means.
The rather simple concept of rendering(metaphorical or not) can also make sense of Quantum weirdness. Though I get why he refrains from digital physics. No set of Ideas resonates with me more than BK's. They can even encompass other such models. IMO, you can just grant mind at large some intentionality & loose the fine tuning problem as well.
I agree with Bernardo's attacks upon physicalism. However, I am not persuaded that the examples he cites, while valid against physicalism, are "evidence" of the validity of analytic idealism. An attack on physicalism is not evidence that his analytic idealism is true. For instance, if the studies cited on psychedelic's actually showed that the brain DID light up, then those studies would be just as consistent with his theory as they would be if the brain DID NOT light up. In other words, in the former case he could advance the thesis that the increased activity in the brain were simply "what the brain looks like when psychedelics were ingested." Bernardo correctly argues that the physicalists can't have it both ways. But neither can he.
For the lack of a better term ill refer to that one great outside consciousness as the One. Could it be that the One is trying to forge a very tight closed-off connection with the physical world? And uses the process of evolution through time to build that connection to this physical world. Why else would the process of evolution and our innate fear of death be so persistent? Does the One use this physical world to organize its knowledge and thoughts?
The only thing I would add to the stadium analogy is that we are inside the stadium, but can only watch the game through the screens. This means that we can interact with the game, and then observe “spooky action at a distance” on our view panels.
Maybe I didn't get it, but the difference between the soccer game and the mentioned experiment seems to be that the two cameras are pointing at the same match, whereas the correlating observations supposedly happen in totally different parts of the universe. For the analogy to be correct, the cameras should point at different parts of the stadium, and then it doesn't work anymore does it?
No, what we call the two particles are different perspectives of the same underlying reality - when you measure them it is like opening up the TV on one of the broadcasters - when Alice measures her particle she sees broadcaster 1, while Bob, when he measures his particle, sees broadcaster 2.
Thank you Bernardo and Essentia Foundation team for free sharing this lesson and course. It’s amazing how a change of a philosophical and empiric perspective from the old paradigm can be so enlightening and simple to see and give new logic meaning to reality. Sure we need a new epistomology. Mainstream science can’t and don’t want to see the subjectivy and interiors (the mind) because only see exteriors (material objects as the brain). After watching this episode I got the following doubt: is the ego or, as Ken Wilber calls it, the self-system an alter? Thank you for the extense list of scientific links and studies.
I’m not sure about the contradiction between the use of scientific standards to discount physicalism in episode 1, but to then dismiss the scientific standard of statistical significance in this episode. Maybe it’s highlighting the more fundamental flaw of science that it removed experience from its calculations and this highlights the need for experience to be included.
I wouldn’t count on that. Both SAM and Annika would be very afraid of this guy if they knew what they were taking on. SAM does not want to be labeled a panpsychist and that’s what Bernardo would do. BK would make mincemeat of both of them at the same time.
They’ve had Don Hoffman on interviewed by both Sam & Annika and it was edgy and fascinating. I guess BK takes it to another level of challenging their stance though. Or at least Annika’s stance.
BK is an engineer expert ni AI with an implacable speach and an incredible logic, even if English is his thrd language. He will win in any debates. He also has a phd in philosophy. Very soon he wil be a very well known “voice” all over the world.
I was a bit disappointed that Meditation was taken into so little account... reducing mental activity ( an the correlate manifestation of "brain metabolism") is precisely the aim of meditation, as the famous Patanjali's sutra says: "Yoga Chitta Vritti Nirodha". Why look for drugs and brain damage, when anyone can achieve much better and stable results just by patient and carefull training? And leaving aside the fact that meditation dramatically improves all the rest of your life..
Bernardo mentions at one point that local non-realism implies either Idealism is true or that new universes are created every picosecond (or so.) I take this to mean that he thinks Many Worlds and Idealism are the only ways to reconcile local non-realism. I assume he got there inductively but I would note that this is a consequence of Godel's Ontological Argument (GOA). I am just going to assert the interchangeability of primitives implies that GOA implies either 1) there is only one material universe and it could not be any other way than it is, 2) there *is* a multiplicity of possible material universes and they are not only all equally real but in some sense co-existent with & inextricable from our universe, (hence the use of *is*) 3) there is no material universe. Now, I don't think we have, as of yet ruled out (1), but it is fascinating that the scientific evidence is absolutely pointing against it in an almost blatant way. Not only is it difficult to explain quantum mechanics but it's not clear thermodynamics retains its coherence under (1) and it becomes very difficult to explain why it is that we cannot remember the future. Not to mention one must accept that the age of the universe is finite AND could not have possibly have been different. This is a really hard pill to swallow. It's not even clear what that is supposed to mean because it implies there is a necessitation that is both causally disconnected from us AND unique (remember there are no other universes). Indeed, that starts to sound very deistic. As for (2) I think Bernardo's criticism of it as lacking empirical evidence is a bit (maybe a lot) unfair. We ought not have direct evidence for it and the indirect evidence is that Everettianism is just quantum mechanics. That having been said, I don't think people grapple strongly enough with the fundamental implication of Everetianism that "reality" in any meaningful sense of the word is defined by consciousness. That is the conditions under which consciousness cleaves a branch out of the superposition is the defining principle of realness. Since, consciousness clearly does not cleave all possible branches -- else we would not observe wave-like interference -- there is a serious pickle here. More over it is a metaphysical pickle that situates consciousness as "meaningfully" primary. Yes, there is a material world but it's a single superposition of all possible worlds which is kind of like no world at all. Indeed, very much so since our cosmology suggests that matter is the result of random quantum fluctuations, and such fluctuations are "canceled out" in the superposition. The only way a material world can be said to exist at all is as a degeneration of the universal wave function precipitated by branching. But, branching -- that is cleaving branches from the superposition -- is a thing that consciousness does. The wave function itself -- and hence the underlying physics of all material stuff -- is unaffected by the cleavage in any way. It's purely a consciousness/oberver phenomenon. This is physicalism in name only. Though its not clear what sort of Idealism exactly its equivalent to. The most obvious is solipsism but we typically just discard that and its not clear what the next most plausible equivalence would be.
Once again, I have to watch this more than once. Some parts I was shaking my head about because I couldn't grok the connections being made. But overall, I agree with the premise that what we call the "physical" world is not "material." It is a "force," as in a collection of electromagnetic and atomic forces "appearing as." And I say that all things do "exist" in form and function even when "we" are not looking at them because the universe is observing itself. Science knows that "matter" pops into existence out of seemingly "nothingness" only to get annihilated by anti-matter. Maybe this is the "noise" we see as the so-called microwave background declared to be the evidence of the Big Bang. And maybe the Big Bang is still happening - right now - everywhere - at once! And as the universe expands, the void it is creating is allowing for this "noise" to coalesce into "matter" for the next "cycle" of creation.
@@resurrectingand You ask such easy questions. For which there is no way to answer in terms that are familiar to you. You must first develop an awareness of self to then experience the Oneness of everything.
This has been great, love these videos so far! One question though. It seems like psychedelics thin the dissociative barrier of the alter, I understand how this will allow experience of the actual reality/substance but why does this not influence the physical body as well? I mean if the physical body is part of the barrier where true reality is impinging in on the alter, wouldn't the body then be modified in some way by these types of substances?... I think I might be missing something?
1. From the external point of view, the thinning of the barrier of the alter is seen in the decrease of the brain activity. 2. Assume the brain activity goes down to zero, meaning you die. Your dissociative barrier breaks down and there is no alter anymore. In the perception of other alters, they experience a dead body in the same way as they experience the external unconscious world (that happens in the Universal Consciousness). Dead body corresponds to the death of an alter. So: Increase of intensity of experience corresponds to the reduction of brain activity (experienced from outside). This is how the physical body gets influenced. I hope it answers the question.
"...due to impairment of brain function"--seems a clunky way to gain the goal. Perhaps you can suggest more direct methods of increasing the permeability of the screen of perception. Or perhaps you do as the video(s) continue(s).
Another problem with this approach is that is suggests then we see localised images of a wider reality. This means that it is always bound to a perspective. However does the footballstadion in the example given exist without any perspective. So how can is have an existence. You might say universal consiousness looks at it, however is that really possible. Universal consiousness is without perspective and has no sensory apparatus. If things only exists only when observed, who observes the reality in ittself. Does it exist then or not? Is it a mental abstraction of the footballstadium? Does the mental abstraction then exist? Does the footballstadium even has any content? If universal consiousness oberves it, how it that possibe then? Where in experience can this be validated? So how about your own body then, does it exist before being observed? But if it exists only after being observed, how is observation then even possible? Can a mental abstraction of a body observe anything? How then does a localisation of consiousness start. Does it start with an observation of it, or is there a localised body first? Chicken and egg problem. That is why it is so important that good philosophy is number one and science is secondary, otherwise these issues are easily overlooked.
"So how about your own body then, does it exist before being observed? But if it exists only after being observed, how is observation then even possible?" What evidence do you have that your body exists before an observation of it? The point is not that it exists prior to or only after being observed. You cannot say what exists prior to your observation by way of the gauges and dials on your dashboard. "The body" is a mental construct. All you have is your observables. From your observables you construct a story of me, world, matter, etc. No, a mental abstraction cannot observe anything. So there is the question to ask yourself, what is observing your dashboard? Put your other thinking aside.
@@4991544 exactly, so why pose an universal consiousness as it is only there in connection to the mental construct of the body. The universal consiousness, how could it be there without the mental construct? It is a mental construct in the first place that poses an existence of universal consiousness.
@@Marco-wq7nn Absolutely not. Come out of this box. Mind is not there in between thoughts. Mind is not there in dreamless sleep. Mind is nothing but the flow of mental activity, thinking and perceiving. It is this root activity of mind movement that is the core illusion or hangup. What must be there to see mind activity, to see it start and stop? A thought does not recognize itself. What knows? In what does thinking arise?
@@4991544 not at all. Your notion is false that when there is no thinking there is no thought. The space which is a mental category still remains. The noticing of sensory perceptions without naming them is still there, but known as sensory. The notion that mind is just a flowing stream is boeddhistic inspired, but the sense of beingness is still there when you are awake, thinking or not. But beingness is a thought that is constantly there on the background. Even when asleep there is a sense of not being there as a thought but without content, as you know that you have slept.
@@Marco-wq7nn "Your notion is false that when there is no thinking there is no thought." This is not even sensical. "The space which is a mental category still remains." The "space" is a mental category" "But beingness is a thought..." ????????????? There is a lot of confusion in your words. If you are comfortable with your understanding, so be it. I don't believe you are, but you are apparently not ready to move beyond your sticking point. Keeping seeking to learn, though. It's self knowledge you are trying to work out.
The problem i have with analytic idealism is that it starts from science and makes philosophical claims on reality. This approach makes that science stands above philosophy. This is however the wrong follow up. Science should be able to illustrate good philosophy, not the other way around. This means start for example with nagarjuna and reason from there. The current method has the danger that the transcendent is viewed in terms of the immanent, and not the other way around. This also can easily makes philosophical mistakes as trying to reduce phenomena to consiousness. This is problematic as consiousness is then two things at the same time, the lake and the ripple. However can a lake really exist without a ripple. What is mirror without any reflection. So did consiousness start at some point. Is this possible? If nobody knows then what is the status of everything being in consiousness? Is is really correct? These questions needs to be adressed and science cannot go there. Analytic idealism is succesfull in undermining the idea of materialism, but as a metaphysics theory she needs more.
The fact that psychedelics decrease brain metabolism doesn’t refute the notion that experience is generated by the brain. To give a chess analogy, a slow CPU running an AlphaZero will beat a fast CPU running a more primitive chess engine.
Uhmm... What? That analogy does not apply, because what is observed is that there's a significant increase of richness in experience while at the same a significant decrease in brain activity.
@@zakhust6840 In the exact same way, under certain circumstances, there can be a significant increase in chess performance and at the same time, a significant decrease in processing speed.
Best binge watch on youtube.
I agree. Despite the fact he tells us not to binge and to give a few days between videos, I just can't help it and immediately watch the next one.
I don't know how to thank you Bernardo! Every video of this course that I watch seems to be the most important video of my life!!!
Here the same... I have no words to say how thankful I am... thanks from my heart... from Brasil 🇧🇷
Wow! Amazing video, thank you Dr bernardo,
I have to say that when I was a young man I did dabble with magic mushrooms, what I found was that it enhanced my sense of reality tenfold, however, this affects your mood ,ie if you are happy then it's fabulous but if you are depressed then it's terrible, works both ways
I still think this course could have subtitles in as many languages as possible.
The world needs to come into contact with this more than ever before.
Luckily, RUclips has executed your wish. Just click bottom right on the icon Subtitles and choose any language you want the text to be translated in. Enjoy.
I'm absolutely convinced by Barnardo's analytic idealism. I mean thoroughly. Many years ago I came to the conclusion that Schopenhauer was about as close to being correct in giving a metaphorical way of thinking about what existence is and what therefore it can't be. I have read most of Bernardo's books, but not his latest, I'm hoping when I do read it it will be very accessible as I want to pass it around to as many people as possible.
'The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name'
Bernardo your work is brave and amazing! I loved all these videos. You have open my eyes. Forever thankful!
I am not informed or clever enough to know how to argue with any of these lectures, but they have me captivated and thinking of their implications all of the time, now. I've really enjoyed the advice to take them slow, and let them each sink in with a bit of time between. They've been a real joy to take in.
I have many objections, but one of them is that the decrease in brain activity but richer experience could be due to less activity of inhibitory neurons (80%) compared to excitatory neurons (20%)
It it's also necessary to describe whether or not the experience is actually richer, or it is just a radically different experience which is novel but not necessarily richer or more complex.
I would argue a fractal seems richer in detail but it is actually simpler (algorythmically) than let's say a Monett painting.
Good point, I had that thought too, but wouldn't that mean that we would then have to detect at least a relative increase in activity somewhere in the brain? A decrease in inhibitory activity would have to be accompanied by an increase in activity somewhere. Otherwise, from a physicalist perspective, why would nature waste energy and resources on a complex system of neuronal inhibition and excitation when all essential perceptual and cognitive functions could do just as well without them, and consequently with a fraction of the usual brain metabolism?
I feel so fortunate to be here in this time experiencing this transference of knowledge. It's true that every age has It's great thinkers and doers whom move humanity forward, but I would argue that at no point in this current age of humanity has it been so accessible to the majority. Thank you Mr Kastrup and thank you everyone involved in this.
Holy crap I had such a massive A-HA moment with the soccer match metaphor. It put spooky action into such an easily understood framework. gahh… I clcant wait to rewatch all these from beginning again. A true blessing. Thank you everyone for your work at the foundation and thank you Bernardo🎉🎉
This series literally destroyed my ideology of materialistic postmodernism that had a very strong pull to nihilism and replaced it with an ideology that is much more optimistic and gives me the feeling of meaning.
Do you still feel the same way 10 months later?
@@Tino_Tino_Tino Honestly I see the world differently but I don't think there is a practical difference. We treat the Dashbord as if it is real. BUT in a materialistic world there is almost no place for a soul. I believe that nihilism exacerbate the feeling of mortality and prone to depressive disorders. That you know is really different now. I developed an honest believe in some kind of immortal soul. Immortal of course in a materialstic sense. I think that gives a good ancer. How do you feel about this?
Thank you for the explanation of the fysicalist explanation in psychedelic research. I understand now that the effect of this socalled randomness or 'noise' in the brain is minimal.
Part 4 is outstanding, thank you Bernardo.
I am awed and elated! It is so simple, so logical and provides a framework for explaining experiences that can't be explained otherwise.
It is also a hopeful, positive framework to go through life with; much better than 'physicalism' that says we are blobs of matter and there is no meaning, just the daily mechanical grind...Thank you!
*26:43*
*26:47* A psichedelic experience isn't random.
*27:56* *if you look at the effect*
*28:40* the comparisson is the level of randomess
*29:14* but look at the bloody scale
*29:55* I don't think it explain
*31:23* ; *32:38* (we have decades of literature showing that under ordinary conditions experience correlates with an increase in brain activity, an increase in metabolism in the brain); *34:35* You can't have both ways
*Summary*
*35:11* *One paradigm here and a complete diferent paradigm here*.
*35:19* the effect is to tiny to account for the fenomenology.
*35:24* the phenomenology is not noisy
*35:30* Structured experience with structured brain activity.
*35:43* Sarcasm
I'm not sure what this is supposed to be.
Time to tell materialism: Thank you, next!
Eu te vejo sempre por aqui. Vc se considera um idealista kastrupiano?
This is a most fascinating concept. But I do have some questions.
1. How is information modelled inside analytical idealism? What is it exactly? And also what about its transfer limit speed (aka speed of light)?
2. How do we use the images on the screen of perception to influence the reality behind the screen? For instance, if psychedelics affect the dissociation, how are they able to do that? Since all they do is affect the images on the screen of perception. It's an image to image interaction using the dissociative boundary and not through it as you've explained previously.
Wow, I feel soooo elated that what I always suspected is now gaining academic validation. No I dare actually say my opinions out loud haha! Also, only now that this is more broadly being recoginzed I am starting to get a sense of the huge implications this holds... Just think what this means! A complete reorienation to life is needed, and to the organisation of our society. Looking forward to dive into this matter more!
Clever!!! Thank you so much Bernardo for your effort to make it available to the non experts.
"And is that all? Noooo HAHAHA. That's not all!"
What a delight to have a resource like this to refer to. Thank you!
Nice! The football match analogy was also used by David Bohm in his Implicate Order book:) using a fish aquarium:)
Yes I was thinking the same thing. I think Michio Kaku also spoke of this.
Thank you Bernardo. You totally convinced me. Continue your work in this area. You are a hero to me! It is mindblowing!
40:00 "causes us to regard ourselves as something bigger, larger than the alter, than our body, than our thoughts and emotions". I think I feel something like that whenever I sing (or perform an instrument like flute, classical guitar etc.) in harmony (and in a rhythm), especially in a finely tuned small group of musicians, especially during performance of meditative music like early music, Taize/Just Intonation/ancient music, even separate slow chords of Just Intonation (which are so original after all the 12-tone EDO (aka 12TET, 12ET) that we are all used to, and which therefore sound so unearthly), transitions of these chords, and so on.
51:27 Bernardo's publications in "Scientific American"
Literally a life saver
The football match / TV sets metaphor is surely inadequate to resolve the issue of observed correlations between measurements carried out on entangled particles, since nothing corresponds in the former to a measurement. For the analogy to work, an adjustment of one TV set would have to have an effect on [what is seen on] the other. Unless you want to say that the underlying reality (in this case, the football match itself) was somehow responsible not only for the images on the sets but on the kind of adjustment made to one of them (in which case we have a kind of superdeterminism) I don't see how positing an underlying reality helps here.
But the images are interactable in real life. You can mess with physical things (which are an image) and affect the underlying process thus.
I have the same question. My thoughts about it are that we are watching the TV while simultaneously inside the stadium. So I can go kick the ball and then look at my screens and watch the ball move on each screen.
@@aitabefornes6237 No, you don't have access to the stadium.
Let's use the words 'image' and 'thing in of itself' instead of 'TV' and 'stadium.'
Under Kastrup's ontology, the particle is an image of a mental process, which is the thing in itself.
All you have access to is the world of images, but you don't have access to the mental states that underlie the physical universe. (until you die)
You're missing the point lmo. It's not like you can mess with entangled particles like a football. The spooky action shows that the beaviour of one particle directly corresponds to behviour of another in an etangled pair. What I feel Bernardo is saying is that the particles are just like dials measuring the same mental activity, like two cameras in the same football match, that's my take on it anyway..
In my understanding of particle physics, which I am no expert on, entangled particles have a superposistion until either one is observed, when observed the one you are measuring has a particular spin and since it's entangled you can predict with a 100% certanty that the other particle of the entangled pair has the opposite spin.
The soccer match analogy is brilliant, Bernardo.
This explains so much. 🙏🏻❤
Thank you for tying this back to the psychedelics states. I too had come across the claims that psychedelics increase brain entropy. I had no idea how insignificant those effects were, and it did seemingly contradict the findings from NDRs etc. Great lectures! Thank you for making them available on RUclips!
If matter is in superposition until observed than why cant I walk through walls with my eyes closed when im alone
"Matter is not there until you look", but what about photos, video camera's, etc...is there a way to get an inkling of this being the case by using those vs. using your mind/senses directly observing things? Even the smallest minute hint that this is actually the case? I'm not sure if this video/course covers that or not (still watching), just asking...
I'll make a string of comments and would love any engagement with others who find Kastrup's work to be important and fascinating. Ooops, I missed part IV. I'll come back to this one later :)
this guy is a genius
Is it possible that the parts of the brain, in the absence of stimulus during a psychedelic experience, interpret the lack of stimulus incorrectly and misfire producing the rich experiences? I am not sure that enough evidence is provided to support the idea that the alter is reassociating... or perhaps I don't understand. Can you expand on that?
“The matter is not really there until you look”… How about when I am not looking at it but just touching it? Does the same idea applies here too?
I love your work Bernardo, thank you for it.
The passion of the teacher is funny, infectious, and very, very, engaging, thank you. Pissant!!! lol
Hey, I find this course awesome, it really keeps me away from studying and doing what I am supposed to do.
My comment regards what you say about physicalists trying to explain the "increase of subjective experience" due to psychedelics: Isn't their main argument for this the increase of connectivity between different brain regions rather than the argument you are dismissing here? Would love to hear your thoughts on this!
The soccer-match analogy produced the biggest brain-fuck ever. Amazing.
The ball is travelling between the past and future at the same time simultaneously in that soccer match game. [S. Hosssenfielder]👆
I feel like I am listening to a Modern Day Copernicus. Thank you, Bernal.
Gazillions of universes popping in and out of existence every infinitesimal fraction of a second…
Here’s my wondering about that: in one interview, BK speaks about his understanding that nothing exists and nothing has ever existed. I think he writes about in one of his books (I don’t recall the name). He speaks of this from the view of “presence” - that all things happen and can only happen and have ever happened in the present moment, yet no matter how you divide time, you will never “find” the present moment.
I wonder if “the universe being recreated in every moment” is just an image of the paradox of presence and “nothing has ever happened.”
You will never be able to find evidence for either because we can’t access the place where evidence “exists”.
Love this, so resonates with me. Just wondered whether if, say an alter’s dissociation is reduced (and hence brain activity) while taking psychedelics, could someone in deep meditation/ satori also actually be experiencing highly reduced dissociation and getting closer to experiencing what reality is? Just wondering. Not, by any means, a scientist in this area.
There is one place where these presentation of an observer dependent reality can be strengthened. The idea when we look away, the object does not exist should be modified to explain that there is still something there, namely, the quantum field. So instead of removing the mountain completely when the onlooker turns away, the image of the mountain should be replaced, or reveal the underlying quantum field. This is actually a point that I think would draw in more people to take this concept more seriously. It is hard to imagine that something, even if it is a representative image exists and then doesn't exist entirely. Instead, we should explain that the underlying quantum field is always there, the image of the mountain scene is an overlay on top of the primary substance. Does that make sense to anyone?
Yes it does make sense, and (I’ve not finished this video yet) is there also the factor that there are numerous alters and does their observation also maintain the image for another whether they’re looking or not? (Although I guess we could never know…!) I’d thought before that BK’s theory pointed to the one consciousness being the observer and therefore there’s always ‘something’ observing - but then that doesn’t hold water with the double slit experiment…
@@helenamery Good point! I think your first suggestion does make sense. But there is an important distinction. The appearance of the mountain would exist only on the screen of perception of each individual alter. Remember, the image, and the physicality of the mountain do not exist independently and objectively. So, I may turn away, and the representative image will disappear, but if you continue looking at the mountain it does remain on your screen of perception. No matter how many alters, 0, 10, 100, gazillions, no image of the mountain exists objectively. Only the underlying substance and process of the quantum field exists eternally. As to your second point, I am not sure where BK sits. Your universal observer, reminds me of Spinoza's position of "god," being ultimate observer (although this point is complicated, and BK does a great job elucidating it in one of these lectures...I've lost track which one.) However, I don't think a universal observer can observe itself, in and of itself, or from outside itself as we do. We look at universal mind at large. But being universal mind, restricts it from seeing taking a perspective on itself. Just like we can not see inside the boundary of our own dissociated alter. Yikes, I'm feeling like I'm stretching the limit of my understanding. It would be nice for Bernardo to weight in on this.
@Jonathan Andrews Agreed, it is a great video in general. And the simplifications are useful, especially for people who are just encountering the ideas for the first time. But there seem to be points for improvement. Maybe the next video of this nature will include some of the changes we suggest with our comments and feedback.
@@S.G.Wallner yes that makes sense and aligns with nondual understandings that the world of form enables consciousness to experience itself which it could never otherwise do. The eye and the ‘I’ both need a mirror to see themselves.
@@helenamery Very interesting. In one sense I agree, if we take ourselves as dissociated alters to be a part of the universal mind at large, each alter can look upon it's "larger self." But I don't take this to mean universal mind at large sees itself through us because, dissociation implies a boundary and in a sense blindness. Ugh, such a tricky distinction. Dissociation is challenging to comprehend, and conceptualize with language because implies both a difference and sameness. Feel free to respond again, I don't believe I have it completely figured out or articulated well by any means.
The rather simple concept of rendering(metaphorical or not) can also make sense of Quantum weirdness. Though I get why he refrains from digital physics. No set of Ideas resonates with me more than BK's. They can even encompass other such models. IMO, you can just grant mind at large some intentionality & loose the fine tuning problem as well.
I agree with Bernardo's attacks upon physicalism. However, I am not persuaded that the examples he cites, while valid against physicalism, are "evidence" of the validity of analytic idealism. An attack on physicalism is not evidence that his analytic idealism is true. For instance, if the studies cited on psychedelic's actually showed that the brain DID light up, then those studies would be just as consistent with his theory as they would be if the brain DID NOT light up. In other words, in the former case he could advance the thesis that the increased activity in the brain were simply "what the brain looks like when psychedelics were ingested." Bernardo correctly argues that the physicalists can't have it both ways. But neither can he.
For the lack of a better term ill refer to that one great outside consciousness as the One. Could it be that the One is trying to forge a very tight closed-off connection with the physical world? And uses the process of evolution through time to build that connection to this physical world. Why else would the process of evolution and our innate fear of death be so persistent? Does the One use this physical world to organize its knowledge and thoughts?
The only thing I would add to the stadium analogy is that we are inside the stadium, but can only watch the game through the screens. This means that we can interact with the game, and then observe “spooky action at a distance” on our view panels.
really well put together
Maybe I didn't get it, but the difference between the soccer game and the mentioned experiment seems to be that the two cameras are pointing at the same match, whereas the correlating observations supposedly happen in totally different parts of the universe. For the analogy to be correct, the cameras should point at different parts of the stadium, and then it doesn't work anymore does it?
No, what we call the two particles are different perspectives of the same underlying reality - when you measure them it is like opening up the TV on one of the broadcasters - when Alice measures her particle she sees broadcaster 1, while Bob, when he measures his particle, sees broadcaster 2.
Thank you Bernardo and Essentia Foundation team for free sharing this lesson and course. It’s amazing how a change of a philosophical and empiric perspective from the old paradigm can be so enlightening and simple to see and give new logic meaning to reality. Sure we need a new epistomology.
Mainstream science can’t and don’t want to see the subjectivy and interiors (the mind) because only see exteriors (material objects as the brain).
After watching this episode I got the following doubt: is the ego or, as Ken Wilber calls it, the self-system an alter?
Thank you for the extense list of scientific links and studies.
I’m not sure about the contradiction between the use of scientific standards to discount physicalism in episode 1, but to then dismiss the scientific standard of statistical significance in this episode. Maybe it’s highlighting the more fundamental flaw of science that it removed experience from its calculations and this highlights the need for experience to be included.
How do we get a talk with you on Sam Harris Podcast?
Bernardo has already talked to Sam Harris' wife... It's probably gonna happen soon
I wouldn’t count on that. Both SAM and Annika would be very afraid of this guy if they knew what they were taking on.
SAM does not want to be labeled a panpsychist and that’s what Bernardo would do.
BK would make mincemeat of both of them at the same time.
@@sxsmith44 thats what I want to see :)
They’ve had Don Hoffman on interviewed by both Sam & Annika and it was edgy and fascinating. I guess BK takes it to another level of challenging their stance though. Or at least Annika’s stance.
BK is an engineer expert ni AI with an implacable speach and an incredible logic, even if English is his thrd language. He will win in any debates. He also has a phd in philosophy. Very soon he wil be a very well known “voice” all over the world.
Thanks so much.
I was a bit disappointed that Meditation was taken into so little account... reducing mental activity ( an the correlate manifestation of "brain metabolism") is precisely the aim of meditation, as the famous Patanjali's sutra says: "Yoga Chitta Vritti Nirodha". Why look for drugs and brain damage, when anyone can achieve much better and stable results just by patient and carefull training? And leaving aside the fact that meditation dramatically improves all the rest of your life..
Is there an increase in activity in other parts or organs
In the body besides the brain during a psychedelic experience?
I wish Sean Carroll would debate BK. I imagine BK has offered him the opportunity.
Bernard: Before you watch the next one, wait a few days
Me: No. Now. Right now.
Bernardo mentions at one point that local non-realism implies either Idealism is true or that new universes are created every picosecond (or so.) I take this to mean that he thinks Many Worlds and Idealism are the only ways to reconcile local non-realism. I assume he got there inductively but I would note that this is a consequence of Godel's Ontological Argument (GOA). I am just going to assert the interchangeability of primitives implies that GOA implies either
1) there is only one material universe and it could not be any other way than it is,
2) there *is* a multiplicity of possible material universes and they are not only all equally real but in some sense co-existent with & inextricable from our universe, (hence the use of *is*)
3) there is no material universe.
Now, I don't think we have, as of yet ruled out (1), but it is fascinating that the scientific evidence is absolutely pointing against it in an almost blatant way. Not only is it difficult to explain quantum mechanics but it's not clear thermodynamics retains its coherence under (1) and it becomes very difficult to explain why it is that we cannot remember the future. Not to mention one must accept that the age of the universe is finite AND could not have possibly have been different. This is a really hard pill to swallow. It's not even clear what that is supposed to mean because it implies there is a necessitation that is both causally disconnected from us AND unique (remember there are no other universes). Indeed, that starts to sound very deistic.
As for (2) I think Bernardo's criticism of it as lacking empirical evidence is a bit (maybe a lot) unfair. We ought not have direct evidence for it and the indirect evidence is that Everettianism is just quantum mechanics. That having been said, I don't think people grapple strongly enough with the fundamental implication of Everetianism that "reality" in any meaningful sense of the word is defined by consciousness. That is the conditions under which consciousness cleaves a branch out of the superposition is the defining principle of realness. Since, consciousness clearly does not cleave all possible branches -- else we would not observe wave-like interference -- there is a serious pickle here.
More over it is a metaphysical pickle that situates consciousness as "meaningfully" primary. Yes, there is a material world but it's a single superposition of all possible worlds which is kind of like no world at all. Indeed, very much so since our cosmology suggests that matter is the result of random quantum fluctuations, and such fluctuations are "canceled out" in the superposition. The only way a material world can be said to exist at all is as a degeneration of the universal wave function precipitated by branching. But, branching -- that is cleaving branches from the superposition -- is a thing that consciousness does. The wave function itself -- and hence the underlying physics of all material stuff -- is unaffected by the cleavage in any way. It's purely a consciousness/oberver phenomenon. This is physicalism in name only. Though its not clear what sort of Idealism exactly its equivalent to. The most obvious is solipsism but we typically just discard that and its not clear what the next most plausible equivalence would be.
Once again, I have to watch this more than once. Some parts I was shaking my head about because I couldn't grok the connections being made. But overall, I agree with the premise that what we call the "physical" world is not "material." It is a "force," as in a collection of electromagnetic and atomic forces "appearing as." And I say that all things do "exist" in form and function even when "we" are not looking at them because the universe is observing itself. Science knows that "matter" pops into existence out of seemingly "nothingness" only to get annihilated by anti-matter. Maybe this is the "noise" we see as the so-called microwave background declared to be the evidence of the Big Bang. And maybe the Big Bang is still happening - right now - everywhere - at once! And as the universe expands, the void it is creating is allowing for this "noise" to coalesce into "matter" for the next "cycle" of creation.
How is the universe observing itself?
@@resurrectingand You ask such easy questions. For which there is no way to answer in terms that are familiar to you. You must first develop an awareness of self to then experience the Oneness of everything.
The universe of subject and objects are in mind's language. It's purely a mind thing.
This has been great, love these videos so far!
One question though.
It seems like psychedelics thin the dissociative barrier of the alter, I understand how this will allow experience of the actual reality/substance but why does this not influence the physical body as well? I mean if the physical body is part of the barrier where true reality is impinging in on the alter, wouldn't the body then be modified in some way by these types of substances?... I think I might be missing something?
1. From the external point of view, the thinning of the barrier of the alter is seen in the decrease of the brain activity.
2. Assume the brain activity goes down to zero, meaning you die. Your dissociative barrier breaks down and there is no alter anymore. In the perception of other alters, they experience a dead body in the same way as they experience the external unconscious world (that happens in the Universal Consciousness). Dead body corresponds to the death of an alter.
So: Increase of intensity of experience corresponds to the reduction of brain activity (experienced from outside).
This is how the physical body gets influenced.
I hope it answers the question.
@@azubiuni-ausbildungunivers2386 are you an analitic idealist?
Seems to me that you understand a log about it.
@@kingmob2124 I am. Always feel free to ask questions.
13:33 quantum entanglement
"...due to impairment of brain function"--seems a clunky way to gain the goal. Perhaps you can suggest more direct methods of increasing the permeability of the screen of perception. Or perhaps you do as the video(s) continue(s).
Another problem with this approach is that is suggests then we see localised images of a wider reality. This means that it is always bound to a perspective. However does the footballstadion in the example given exist without any perspective. So how can is have an existence. You might say universal consiousness looks at it, however is that really possible. Universal consiousness is without perspective and has no sensory apparatus. If things only exists only when observed, who observes the reality in ittself. Does it exist then or not? Is it a mental abstraction of the footballstadium? Does the mental abstraction then exist? Does the footballstadium even has any content? If universal consiousness oberves it, how it that possibe then? Where in experience can this be validated? So how about your own body then, does it exist before being observed? But if it exists only after being observed, how is observation then even possible? Can a mental abstraction of a body observe anything? How then does a localisation of consiousness start. Does it start with an observation of it, or is there a localised body first? Chicken and egg problem. That is why it is so important that good philosophy is number one and science is secondary, otherwise these issues are easily overlooked.
"So how about your own body then, does it exist before being observed? But if it exists only after being observed, how is observation then even possible?" What evidence do you have that your body exists before an observation of it? The point is not that it exists prior to or only after being observed. You cannot say what exists prior to your observation by way of the gauges and dials on your dashboard. "The body" is a mental construct. All you have is your observables. From your observables you construct a story of me, world, matter, etc. No, a mental abstraction cannot observe anything. So there is the question to ask yourself, what is observing your dashboard? Put your other thinking aside.
@@4991544 exactly, so why pose an universal consiousness as it is only there in connection to the mental construct of the body. The universal consiousness, how could it be there without the mental construct? It is a mental construct in the first place that poses an existence of universal consiousness.
@@Marco-wq7nn Absolutely not. Come out of this box. Mind is not there in between thoughts. Mind is not there in dreamless sleep. Mind is nothing but the flow of mental activity, thinking and perceiving. It is this root activity of mind movement that is the core illusion or hangup. What must be there to see mind activity, to see it start and stop? A thought does not recognize itself. What knows? In what does thinking arise?
@@4991544 not at all. Your notion is false that when there is no thinking there is no thought. The space which is a mental category still remains. The noticing of sensory perceptions without naming them is still there, but known as sensory. The notion that mind is just a flowing stream is boeddhistic inspired, but the sense of beingness is still there when you are awake, thinking or not. But beingness is a thought that is constantly there on the background. Even when asleep there is a sense of not being there as a thought but without content, as you know that you have slept.
@@Marco-wq7nn "Your notion is false that when there is no thinking there is no thought." This is not even sensical.
"The space which is a mental category still remains." The "space" is a mental category"
"But beingness is a thought..." ?????????????
There is a lot of confusion in your words. If you are comfortable with your understanding, so be it. I don't believe you are, but you are apparently not ready to move beyond your sticking point. Keeping seeking to learn, though. It's self knowledge you are trying to work out.
*35:11* conclusion
Bernado, approx. what dose of LSD would be required to break-on-through to the highly structured state?
Not sure about LSD (my ballpark figure would be 400/600mcg) but surely a single breakthrough with Salvia Divinorum brings you there.
The problem i have with analytic idealism is that it starts from science and makes philosophical claims on reality. This approach makes that science stands above philosophy. This is however the wrong follow up. Science should be able to illustrate good philosophy, not the other way around. This means start for example with nagarjuna and reason from there. The current method has the danger that the transcendent is viewed in terms of the immanent, and not the other way around. This also can easily makes philosophical mistakes as trying to reduce phenomena to consiousness. This is problematic as consiousness is then two things at the same time, the lake and the ripple. However can a lake really exist without a ripple. What is mirror without any reflection. So did consiousness start at some point. Is this possible? If nobody knows then what is the status of everything being in consiousness? Is is really correct? These questions needs to be adressed and science cannot go there. Analytic idealism is succesfull in undermining the idea of materialism, but as a metaphysics theory she needs more.
Psicodelic experience is the transparent windshield to real reality…????
Brilliant. I only wish he wouldn't get snide and dismissive. He doesn't need to!
45:37
The Cat's meow !
When?😻 I missed it! ☹
The fact that psychedelics decrease brain metabolism doesn’t refute the notion that experience is generated by the brain. To give a chess analogy, a slow CPU running an AlphaZero will beat a fast CPU running a more primitive chess engine.
Uhmm... What? That analogy does not apply, because what is observed is that there's a significant increase of richness in experience while at the same a significant decrease in brain activity.
@@zakhust6840 In the exact same way, under certain circumstances, there can be a significant increase in chess performance and at the same time, a significant decrease in processing speed.
@@marianpalko2531 speed is not a synonym for complexity
@@domenicmolinaro6580 Not sure what you mean, could you please explain?
@@marianpalko2531 you're comparing cpu speed to richness, complexity, intensity etc. as if they are analogous, but they aren't
*27:40*
consciousness, seems to me, is a case of the little head thinking for the big head
The soccer photos clearly are mirrored. So this example is not accurate. A left leg can't change into a right one by perspective change.😂
There are no materialists in foxholes.
That Short film of Quantum Entanglement is like a look at a husband from certain eyes that changes the life of the wife back home.