I love that Michael Shermer and Deepak chopra are friends now. It's somehow enormously cathartic, like the two warring psychological factions in my own mind have found a way to be chill with eachother
Micheal, I love the fact that you bring on such a variety of respectable perspectives that you disagree with! These discussions are just brilliant. Thank you!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Do you have anything meaningful to say on the discussion or are you just an ideologue with your fingers in your ears crying treason?
Kastrup is mind boggling to many a philosopher and i can imagine a few fidgeting in their discomfort trying to hold their integrity while struggling to grasp the flow, yet as an average guy i realise how his interpretations resonate with my undestanding of things that i got to from growing up in a western society and then discovering Buddhism and Taoism, the Tao te ching being a massive turning point in my view of existence. Great interview! Cheers
I really like Michael Shermer. I find myself far more in agreement with Bernardo, but I truly admire Michael’s willingness to engage with people he disagrees with. He’s a true skeptic. Have to respect that.
I agree. some sceptics use the label as a shield to protect themselves from truly engaging with new ideas, not shermer. kastrup, though, is a real dynamo and constantly challenges me.
Hope for exactly what? You sound like a proselytizer hoping to get a convert. What if it's Bernardo that needs to change or soften up from his idealism? Why does it need to be Michael? You're just showing your own confirmation bias by your comment here.
@@grosbeak6130 well said bernado kastrup receives why to much attention for his rather dubious biased ideology of idealism. He needs to step back and maybe perhaps take a more monism approach. Matter + mind = the same process. But he showing a typical Deepak Chopra view.. all is mind. 😒😲
@@Sam-hh3ry ok here's a question what will you do once your body dies and your so called spirit go to where ever in heaven/hell some cosmic consciousness dimension? What then? Am being serious for how long will we live in this afterlife? Cause that's what at stack here. A fuzzy belief cloaked in idealism.. the need to live forever lol.
He got all of his fundamental and basic ideas from George Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer. Bernardo even admits it in other interviews. He is not saying anything fundamentally new that hasn't been discussed at length by these other philosophers. Now just add some quantum physics and a bit of Carl Jung and there is Bernardo Kastrup.
@@domenicmolinaro6580 there is a RUclips channel called New Thinking Allowed - just look for him there. In one of those episodes he talks at length about Arthur Schopenhauer and how he really likes him. In fact I think he wrote a book about him. Just keep in mind he has read and studied, and acquainted himself with many classic philosophers and thinkers and their ideas.
It's very exciting to be alive to witness a change of a paradigm in the world. We still don't know what's going to replace materialism, but we're surely going to expand our understanding of reality.
All it takes is to simply observe people use their imagination to constantly, EAGERLY make stuff up while sincerely believing what they just made up, to understand that we are nowhere near to facing the reality (or what many people call "materialism"). Materialism, in its most basic, simply means the things we UNDERSTAND, while what people call "supernatural/idealism" are the things people IMAGINE. Note, that in order to achieve scientific understanding, one must follow the rules. It's like playing a game of chess -- if you don't follow the rules, the game becomes meaningless. In the same manner, what the idealists are doing is ultimately meaningless; as far as I can see they aren't even trying to follow the rules (scientific method), and the problem with their methodology is that there is, potentially, an unlimited number of ways to explain anything, that's why idealism trying to GUESS the correct answer from an unlimited number of options has pretty much zero chance of reaching the correct conclusion. It's like being obsessed with gambling, constantly loosing, and yet continuing to believe that eventually you will start to consistently make money -- we, humans, have been through it many times before, and yet we continue to insist on using a proven to be 100% unreliable methodology. Yes, idealism might be true, but not because some people want it to be true. To find out whether it is true -- follow the rules. Anything else is dishonest, and subject to immediate dismissal.
Yeah I can't quite explain it but I can almost feel a tangible shift in the air away from the "New Atheism" of the late 00s towards a more philosophically and spiritually mature conversation
@@B1bLioPhil3 lol no it isn't. It is consider a pseudo philosophy. Its epistemically and philosophically useless...you can only use it for your psychological anxieties since it includes a death denying ideology.
I noticed in comments some of us are taking sides and bickering over Shermer vs Kastrup perspective. The point is we don't know. Nobody does. That's what both of them are saying. That's why both of them are brilliant. They don't let their false prejudices get in the way of reasoning.
Another person carrying the torch of the end of materialism science, much respect for Shermer hosting these talks to clarify the ignorant misconceptions.
Great talk, deep concepts. Now we need Kastrup vs. Harris - Bret Weinstein can moderate. :) Seriously though, I wish they'd hash these things out. Thank you Michael Shermer for introducing me to another great mind out there (yourself included).
I don't think Sam's ready to face up to the reality that he's a minor leaguer in this area. He still wants to cherish the notion that he really knows that he's talking about and he's at the top of the pyramid. All it takes is a little courage and spine, but I don't think Sam's got it.
Great guest. Great choice. Great topic of discussion. All memories are false because every time we remember something the brain is writing a new narrative.
@@moesypittounikos No wonder they are avoiding him if this interview is anything to go by - Bernado's arguments seemed to go completely over Michael's head, no response let alone rebuttal. It's like he doesn't even know what idealism is.. did he even read Bernado's book?
@@TH-nx9vf exactly. They avoid him because he's not religious, so they can't make fun of him easily, and he's a super intelligent guy, probably much more intelligent than a lot of the mainstream skeptics and materialist scientists or philosophers.
It's interesting how at the end Michael, the materialist, says he finds the idea of idealism comforting, while Bernardo, the idealist, says he finds the idea of materialism more comforting.
well Materialism addresses our existential anxiety with the indefensible generalization it proposes (nothing than the material exists). Idealism on the other hand addresses both our existential and epistemic anxieties since it includes a death denying ideology. SO idealism by default is a "more comforting". This is why Science rejects both and bases its philosophical acknowledgments on Methodological Naturalism.
@@tobiasjohnson 2 months and no answer..LOL Yes I really enjoyed that moment.He flipped it.Materialism leaves no consequence..Its basically saying you are a meat puppet,with no free will and a victim to genes and conditioning.
@@tobiasjohnson Thats what you identify as.I do not.If you can grant this to everybody,then you will not judge any person for the actions performed over which they have no control.If you cannot then its just a hypocritical existence.
Shermer has the ability to do something that few of us have managed. No matter how much he learns he is nevertheless able to keep an open mind about what all that knowledge means. He has been able to remain unattached to his bias. Well done.
Wow. Shermer is usually so antagonistic against idealism and anything "woo", but he really made this a nice conversation. Not a debate, or "gotcha" interview. Bernardo is really good at this type of conversation, too. Really awesome.
@@solosailor8799 It's ridiculous how brillant Bernardo is. He doesn't get nearly enough credit. I think he'll be making waves in the coming years, though.
@@solosailor8799 I came here because of Bernardo, he's been my favorite philosopher for the past 4 years. That being said, I was commenting on how Shermer usually approaches any consciousness-as-fundamental philosophy. I find the "skeptic" approach to be really dull (granting I know it's necessary to be skeptical), but it usually just subverts really brilliant thinkers from pushing the boundaries. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I was just commenting on how different this one-on-one conversation was. Shermer really listened and I appreciated that. Most of my prior history of seeing Shermer is on Chopra debate panels on consciousness. So maybe I could see a drastic shift in his attitude towards Bernardo's ideas due to the lack of a live audience or "teams" of people debating. Not sure.
I recommend kastrup's book "more than allegory". the 2nd half especially is totally bonkers in the best way. he details several psychedelic trips he embarked on with a scientific mindset. his reporting from the other side is exhilarating and masterful.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 “We don’t need Kastrups pseudo philosophy” Still trolling I see Nicholas Kaspar!! During the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, that is during the reign of what is now referred to by historians as the (cult of reason and atheism) in France one morning's executions began with three men: a rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an atheist who was a “rationalist” skeptic but unfortunately also an (aristocrat). The rabbi was marched up onto the platform first. There, facing the guillotine, he was asked if he had any last words. And the rabbi cried out, "I believe in the one and only true God, and He shall save me." The executioner then positioned the rabbi below the blade, set the block above his neck, and pulled the cord to set the terrible instrument in motion. The heavy cleaver plunged downward, searing the air. But then, abruptly, it stopped with a crack just a few inches above the would-be victim's neck. To which the rabbi said, "I told you so." "It's a miracle!" gasped the disappointed crowd of blood thirsty atheists. And the executioner had to agree, letting the rabbi go. Next in line was the priest. Asked for his final words, he declared, "I believe in Jesus Christ the light of the world, lord your will be done not mine." The executioner then positioned the Christian beneath the blade. And he pulled the cord. Again the blade flew downward thump! creak! ...stopping just short of its mark once more. "Another miracle!" sighed the very disappointed crowd of atheists who were hoping for blood. And the executioner for the second time had no choice but to let the condemned go free. Now it was the atheists turn to face death. "What final words have you to say?" he was asked. But the skeptic didn't hear. Staring intently at the ominous engine of death, he seemed lost. Not until the executioner poked him in the ribs and the question was asked again did he reply. "Oh, I see your problem no supreme mind and consciousness needed, whoops sorry I meant no sky daddy involved it’s nothing more than a blockage in the rear gear assembly, right there!!" “Where!!”? Said the executioner “I can’t see a blockage because there clearly is no blockage and I actually built this machine and also I oiled, tested and checked the mechanism as usual just seconds before the prisoners where brought out?” The atheist stood condescendingly with his hands on his hips and screamed…”I don’t need a pseudo philosophy and woo to know that happened by random chance so it’s clearly not rational or true or even scientific”. The executioner replied to the hysterical atheist.. Certainly sir, but right after I’ve sorted out your so called blockage in the rear gear assembly let’s see what your “random”, “chance”, accidental, blind, mindless, meaningless magical “matter” does to save you!! God facepalms!! Gotcha!! ❤️😎
Who claims to have it all figured out? Every day I know there are thousands of papers being published on a huge variety of topics, including consciousness.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 If you wish to critique Bernardo's worldview, that's certainly your right - but leave the childish insults out of it and stick to the merits. Either you can argue on the substance of what he's arguing for or you can't. One good place to start is to argue persuasively as to how quanitites can give rise to their polar opposite in qualitative experience. I've argued w/ many on this topic and seen a variety of views (whether it's Frankish's Illusionism, Cooke's "Living Mirror Theory of Consciousness," Integrated Information Theory, etc.) and haven't come across one yet that makes a real substantive case as to how consciousness arises from physical systems. By all means though have at it if you think you're seeing something other people aren't.
I agree! I was listening to him and all I could think is “good gracious, this man is well educated on a plethora of topics!”. I’ve seen hardcore atheists debate him and have a smile on their faces as he highlights the assumptions they themselves have overlooked. You can see their worldviews start to shift before their very own eyes.
Most of his thoughts and fundamental ideas are derivative. And he even admits it in other interviews. He basically got his ideas from George Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer. Just throw in some quantum mechanics and you'll see that practically everything that Bernardo says is altogether derivative. He truly has not one idea that's not either coming from George Berkeley, Arthur schopenhauer, Carl Jung, or quantum physics.
@@grosbeak6130 Well I don't have the same breadth here philosophically speaking (as he apparently does) so I am unable to judge. I can only speak from my reading knowledge of Jung. I think you may be simplifying Kastrup a bit, have you read any of his books?
@@grosbeak6130 These ideas go far further back than the one's you mentioned. As Bernardo says, these ideas come from ancient religions/philosophy like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism... Even Christianity if viewed as metaphor, actually speaks of this same philosophy. He never claimed to invent these concepts, he is just using empirical scientific reasoning to argue for this philosophical perspective.
Well done. Honest, balanced and open discussion. Beginning to like Shermer more and more, he seems to have softened his hard edges and opened up a bit after all those years debating Deepak. Kastrup is an important systems-buster and is doing groundbreaking work in finally making some dents in the mainstream misconceptions about idealism and injecting very potent eastern philosophical thought into western academic minds. Along with Jay Garfield.. which is someone @skeptic really should consider having on for a conversation, that would be really amazing, I think Shermer and Garfield would get along very well!
Michael and Bernardo have presented us with a lot to think about. Michael it would be great if a workshop with Sam Harris, Donald Hoffman, Steven Pinker, John Vervaeke and Bernardo Kastrup could be set up for a civilised discourse on consciousness. Michael thank you for this excellent video.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity. Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. Cont...
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. In recent years, the term “CONSCIOUSNESS” has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalized) to refer to a far more Homogeneous Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Meta-Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The dialectic exercise in the following three paragraphs should help one to understand the nature of the fundamental conscious observer, that is, the ULTIMATE observer of all phenomena (i.e. the subject/Subject, which is the authentic self, as opposed to material objects): If one were to ask you whether you are the same person or individual you were at birth (or even at conception), you would probably respond in the affirmative. So, then, what PRECISELY is it about you which has remained constant since conception? In other words, what is the self-identity you had as an infant, which is the present “you”? It cannot be any part of your body or mind, since none of the atoms or molecules in your zygote body are extant, and “you” certainly did not possess a mind at conception. If you are reasonably intelligent, you may claim that your genome is the same now as it was then. However, it has recently been scientifically demonstrated that genetic code can (and usually does) mutate throughout an individual’s lifetime. Furthermore, nobody actively conceives of their essential nature being a bunch of genes! More intelligent souls would probably counter thus: “The thing which stays the same from my birth to the present time is my sense of self.” This too, is fallacious, since the sense of self does not emerge until at least a couple of years after birth. An infant has no ideation of itself as an individual actor. You may then say “I was a (male/female) human being” but that doesn’t specify any PARTICULAR human (you, yourself). So, then, what precisely is it which remains “you” from conception till death? That is life ITSELF, which precedes any artificial sense of self. In other words, rather than asserting “I am a man/woman/human/king/pilot/etc.”, simply the impersonal sense of “I am”. That is the true self, which is the Universal Self. Therefore, your essential nature is Cosmic Consciousness, usually called “God” by theists (see also Chapter 10). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself. Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit [from “bṛh” - lit. “Expansion”, in English]) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”. REALITY is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings (which occur either spontaneously, or after a gradual process over many months or years), yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16, but have yet to awaken to their essential nature). “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” ************* “The ego is the identified consciousness. When the impersonal Consciousness identifies itself with the personal organism, the ego arises.” ************* “The only true meditation is the constant impersonal witnessing of all that takes place in one’s life as mere movements in the universal Consciousness.” ************* “Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.” ************* “Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness. This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise. Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.” ************* “Just as the difference between the space in a pot and the space outside it disappears when the pot is demolished, so also does duality disappear when it is realized that the difference between the individual consciousness and the Universal Consciousness does not in fact exist.” ************* “All there is, is, is consciousness. That is the Source from which the manifestation has come. ...And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness.” ************* “All there is is Consciousness, not aware of Itself in Its noumenal Subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in Its objective expression. If this is understood in depth, there is nothing more to be understood.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure teachings, or do intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices argument? lol what use are arguments to someone who doesn't use logic to arrive to his theological conclusions...or who doesn't practice what he preaches? THe argument is really simple. Everything in the observable reality are a product of matter, Mental properties are contingent to material structures. That is what science verifies. Claiming that reality is mental is an obvious scientifically ignorant and irrational statements plus a huge category error. If by "reality" you are assuming a meta reality...then you are pseudo philosophizing. first you need to demonstrate that meta reality to be necessary and sufficient in explaining....something lol.
@Growseth Jones “There’s no evidence reality is mental” Was that a rational claim or was it just determined? The fact is that there is more evidence that the Easter bunny and pink fluffy leprechauns exist than that the materialists (random) cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of the coin, the meaningless (random) accidental arrangement of the cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists morning cup of tea created metaphysical realities and metaphysical presuppositions, that is transcendental categories such as Truth, that is value, that is oughts, the prescriptive laws of logic, (conscious agents and free will, that is rationality), inductive reasoning, empiricism, universals, morals, ethics, art, poetry, literature, music, beauty, meaning, purpose, empathy, compassion and ultimately love!! So for the same reason I reject the reality of pink fluffy leprechauns and the magical invisible “nothing” that created everything proposed by the high priests of “new atheism” I would also reject theoretical abstractions of mind such as “matter” conceptually defined under physicalism because using Occam’s razor I can make do with realities only given, that is phenomenal consciousness!! Because the fact is that the only ontological category that enables billions of people to experience any quality or even any quantity, if there is such a thing as quantity in this context, is phenomenal consciousness!! It’s the fundamental ground of reality and is simplicity itself (Occam’s Razor)!!
So good of Shermer to introduce me to Bernardo Kastrup! What a breath of fresh breathable air is this Kastrup! Much to explore here - with heart and intuition. Thanks Skeptic. I look forward to as many interviews with Bernardo as I might find.
Well nothing to explore really since we are dealing with unfalsifiable old beliefs that were foundational to Christianity ,Platonism and every now and then some recycles the same ideas by using different words and logical fallacies.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 why are you going through every single comment trying to bring Bernardo Kastrup down? Really does he destroy your worldview that much that you need to try and debunk him hahaha. Jesus just have an open mind
@@footballfactory8797 I care about my members of my society to become rational educated thinkers. We need to inform people of charlatans and con artists. Now openmindedness means to be willing to accept a claim in the face of evidence....not accept it without any.....
Such an immense pleasure.Even though there seemed moments where Michael world view was shaking and he diverted to distractions,maybe to keep the conversation going.. I understand,lots to take in. with huge ramifications.Correct it all depends where you start from.The nondual awareness or thinking is thee place to explore from,rather than trying to get there from non dual.
This interview is proof positive that even people we think of as bright can get trapped within a paradigm to the extent that questions asked and statements made are besides the point.
Shermer is such a wonderful host and so very respectful. I loved this interview. I am admittedly in the Kastrup rabbit hole and think he may have the closest idea to what it is to be me. Great session and thank you Mr Shermer for an engaging conversation.
It does feel like reality is psychic. It's true that we can really only make indirect references to the nature of truths. I like to think of us as a point of light in an ocean of spectrum..Lol. And I've noticed that there's something special about going into the middle of things. Like.. when one overcomes an obstacle by going straight into it, it feels satisfying. This is like my second time around philosophy stuff and I'm starting to finally appreciate Bernardo on a greater level. Before, I watched too much philosophy on RUclips and really got burnt out on it but I've calmed down since then.
I love both these gentlemen. Long time fan of Mr. Shermer, & recently discovering Dr. Kastrup. I'm grateful just to have witnesses such extraordinary intelligence. Consciousness or God if you want, is Pure intelligence. Wow.
I’ve been a BK fan for two years. I’ve listened to over 50 RUclips videos of him. I’ve listened to this five times. I think this interview was a big stride for us fans. I think the K picking up his pace
Good host. I saw another interview with a materialist, and he constantly interrupted Kastrup by not understanding his logic at all. Michael is calm and at least understands what his guests is talking about which makes the interview much more fluent and fruitful.
that other host shouldn't have been interrupting Kastrup. There is nothing there to understand. Linguistic artifacts, a modified christian dogma, made up entities...just a mesh of philosophy. I am not sure Kastrup him self understands what he claims and from conversations I had with his fans, every single one has a different opinion.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Made up entities? Which entities? You mean the current phenomena that cannot be explained by intersubjective agreement? Have you been living under a rock?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 “Christian dogma” “Made up entities” (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that my Christian neighbour is to blame for me not getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll.” “The belief that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth” “The belief that if i just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!!” “The belief that the most luxurious slide into the VOID and into oblivion is the highest ideal and virtue of the human being” Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting… ❤️
Absolutely fascinating topics.........I will need to rewatch this several times to absorb even just a small amount of this conversation........brilliant...!
I do appreciate Shermer's manner in these discussions - where he obviously disbelieves what is being discussed. But when he says how do I suffer (when dead) if I haven't got a body? I'd just say, a huge percentage of our suffering is in the mind/conscious. Therefore if the conscious survives bodily death then suffering is a distinct possibility.
Good point. But, isn't even mental suffering based in the body? For example, anxiety is just bodily responses that feel unpleasant to us...even if our thoughts trigger it. I've always heard people who are deep into meditation say there is no suffering in pure consciousness. So maybe there actually couldn't be suffering?
Another impressive outing for Bernardo. Sheremer did seem as if he was hearing the idea of non-dualism for the first time: matter being but an expression in and of consciousness. I enjoyed the interview but was saddened when Michael thought he had to stick up for his buddy Sam Harris. He slipped this in strategically late and Bernardo wasn't expecting it, but he gathered himself and stayed cordial to the end. Exemplary.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 “Bovine manure” Ho the irony!! The irony and the absurdity is that under a strictly reductive materialism, determinism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your ironic truth claims regarding “manure” have no more truth value than leaves blowing in the wind!! The elephant in the room is that under this causally closed, effectively complete system “you”, the leaves and your total nihilistic, fatalistic b…sht are destined for the same place buddy (The Fertiliser Pit). Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Michael asked how the person going through a near death experience look down or hear the doctors or even know that she's floating to the top of the room ... from my own experience, this is expressed in the telling after the experience and through a translation of the memory of it ... which, I suppose, is also a translation. The person there not only has external senses which help us navigate the external world, but inner senses that serve to navigate the internal world. These inner senses hold memory. And I think this is why it's so difficult to put an experience like this into words that can be understood by someone who is only using external memory and experience to try to understand.
About half way in and I'm bringing this up because I think it's relevant to the dream analogies. I was reading Forrest Landry's IDM (Immanent Metaphysics) and he does a good job of describing the 'transcendent' as something that almost seems to intrude on a different domain (the other parameters being the 'immanent' and the 'omniscient', the later in the most mundane sense - like being all knowing about the properties of a rubber ball or apple, ie. objective information). His couplings seem to handle that well in this sense where you'd have your three isomorphisms whose relationships are what's intruding (transcendent), it's experience of the objective (the omniscient), and the relationship between the two (the immanent).
When aligned with nature we become aligned. Bernardo's gift is to identify with nature not to compare. He is a naturalist. We create our favorite dreams out of our nightmares. As Bernardo shares we don't mourn our dreams. Thank you Michael.. very entertaining. When working with the dying what worked in the immediacy is the question, "Maybe you are already on the otherside?" We have never known death.
@@schmetterling4477 in the feedback loop of the external and internal. We are the most important component to shift perceptions from meaningless to meaningful One not two.
@@schmetterling4477 bull**** is where you have the power of discernment. It is a self correcting universe. It is inside out job. There are 3 businesses mine, yours and God’s (of our understanding/a power greater than a human power) to get to God’s we have to go through mine and yours. To eat and be eaten is owning the BS to manifest through a higher power. Say when you feel scarcity (eaten) it is to go with in to the power within and visualize 3 things you need to live on a physical planet: food, shelter and transportation. See yourself sitting in the middle of the sun eating a mango. Then do what you normally do, get out of yourself and act as if. You will manifest (eat) from somewhere. Try it.
Kastrup's arguments are compelling we are all Alters in Mind at Large. I knew this at 6 and now I am 60 I am still of the same opinion. I do hope Bernardo writes a book about the Idealism of Bishop George Berkeley as he is really the great great great grandfather of modern quantum physics. His famous quote "Esse Est Percipi" "To be is to be perceived." Sums up the double-slit experiment perfectly as you need an observer to collapse the wave function. The idea being that reality is rendered when an observer looks at it an idea that troubled Einstein who formulated the EPR thought experiment to disprove it, this was probed by Irishman Dr John Bell with his inequality theorem confirmed in 1981 by Alain Aspect and his team, and an experiment repeated many times since.
His book on Schopenhauer was excellent. I also hope he continues and makes a series out of all the great idealists of the past and the different kinds of idealism (Absolute, Transcendental, Berkelian, Neoplatonic, etc.)
No. Vote for me first and get me in office and then I'll tell you what we're going to do. -Mitch McConnel. Three days ago this man said that. After all that's the American way. Never ever was it that way.
36:52 Kastrup just perfectly summed up the disparity between how materialists see idealism v how idealists view materialism. This very question (what about brain damage or other influences on subjective experience)kept me stuck until I understood. It was a fun moment!
I am about 1 hour into this video discussion. I find it extremely interesting... keeping in mind that I don't understand a lot of what I am hearing. No doubt, there are a lot of smart people out there. Sadly, you won't find them in government.
The following explains the REASON for your final assertion: 🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful. Cont...
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation. Basically, the worst of the non-monarchical governments promote, or at least permit, ALL things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will (or contrary to objective morality and dharma/dhamma, for those who disbelieve in the Deity), such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, transvestism, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority, and advancing materialism and nescience via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “kindergartens, schools, colleges and universities”). Their aim is to produce a population of indoctrinated citizens who have been conditioned to serve the state and its perverse agendas. Even though non-monarchical leaders are committing a criminal act by ordering the persecution of its citizens, or instigating war on another nation, the police and military personnel who execute their orders are equally (if not MORE) guilty of their dirty deeds. Even if a non-monarchical government punishes a criminal, that in itself is a criminal act, because it has absolutely no authority to do so. That is akin to a baby punishing its mother for theft, when it is actually the role of the infant's father to enact disciplinary action upon the woman in question. For the past few centuries, most of the earth has been controlled by a CABAL of men comprising of extremely wealthy businessmen (particularly bankers) and so-called religious leaders (those who command a huge following). Ironically, some of these elite businessmen instigate a pseudo-socialist government within their nations, so that they themselves can control the financial system for their selfish goals. This planet is surely doomed, unless the most pernicious institutions ever known to man (democracy, socialism and communism), are replaced by the ONLY legitimate form of government (monarchy - ideally a holy monarch, though even a mediocre king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official or a sociopathic megalomaniac, who could almost never be a righteous ruler). Let it be known, however: non-monarchical rule can not and will not endure. Once society has devolved to such a debased level where it can no longer survive intact, the natural-born kings of the earth shall arise and regain their rightful place at the head of each and every nation. The truth shall surely triumph (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit). “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” Samuel Langhorne Clemens (AKA Mark Twain), American writer. “I would rather obey a fine lion, much stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own species.” François-Marie Arouet (AKA Voltaire), French Writer and Historian. N.B. This is an appropriate place to make mention of a potentially contentious topic: The above Voltaire remark replaces a quotation by an American spiritual teacher who formerly “worked” as a prostitute. I, the author of this Holy Scripture was criticized for quoting a prostitute, implying that her words were invalid due to her being a former harlot. Firstly, the accuracy of any statement is not dependent on the relative holiness of the person making that statement. Secondly, none of the persons I have quoted in “F.I.S.H”, including the Divine Incarnations, were totally blameless in all their actions, despite what many believe. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quote Voltaire, despite his antipathy towards the Holy Priesthood, towards religion in general, and towards certain monarchs.
Well here is a brief summation. Kastrup promotes a death denying ideology for those who feel special just for being humans. His pseudo philosophy is based on argument from ignorance ( we don't know if an ultimate reality is possible) and word trick i.e "we only experience consciousness" (when we only experiences the content of our conscious states....not consciousness" and it provides empistemic and existential comfort for our anxieties. Those ideas are not new but really old . He replaced god with Mind, the logos(λόγος) with consciousness and his version of afterlife is free of hell....
Kastrups Idealism is so elegant, simple, and coherent, it's hard to understand why people who are ostensibly smart misunderstand even its most basic premises so frequently. The only explanation is cultural conditioning of physicalism being so damn strong.
The more I listen to Kastrup the more I realize he's just at another level. Even Shermer squints throughout this discussion struggling to understand what Kastrup is saying. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of it though and has extended a great amount of respect for Kastrup and visa versa. As much as I disagree with Shermer's ontological views, I've always liked him. I've always believed he sincerely wants the truth -whatever that entails - hence his serious and respectable demeanor towards Kastrup. It's almost as if he's saying, 'change my mind, if you can. All empirical data welcome.'
The more I listen to them clowns gloryfying the deceptive assertions by Dr.Kaastrup, the more I lose my faith in humanity: It is irrefutable , that anybody cannot only see all that is outside their own body, they also can see their own body, if not even their own brain. Just let me open your evolved-primate skull!! We can , go figure - put an electrode into a certain areal of your brain and have it fabricate an out-of-body experience for you!
There was a moment where he groked it,"It all depends where you start from".His brain imploded and reverted back again.It seems to take time to let the information sink in .
I was listening to Bernardo and all I could think is “good gracious, this man is well educated on a plethora of topics!”. I’ve seen hardcore atheists debate him and have a smile on their faces as he highlights the assumptions they themselves have overlooked. You can see their worldviews start to shift before their very own eyes.
This is true skepticism. Openness to new ideas but constant questioning. Bernardo is one of the most brilliant philosophers alive, with deeper and (most important) experiential phenomena of consciousness, and I highly agree with his notions. Combine philosophy, psychedelics and constant curiosity, and your self will be transformed. The ALL is mind the universe is mental
Someone once said that the benefit of suffering is that it teaches you how not to suffer. But that alone is valuable. To me, the worst thing you can do with suffering is deny that it's there.
The question at 20 is so key. It has never been that there has to be something else there. It has always been that the basis for the question is built on flawed assumptions.
@@ericmichel3857 there are a lot of his ideas/statements that seem to contradict other of his ideas/statements, and many of them he mentions in this interview. On one hand, everything is mind, and we are many images or expressions of mind taking place within space and time. On another he puts major emphasis on how nature labored for millions of years to evolve all the biological features we use to survive, eyes, ears, nose, etc., and states it's not possible for people having an NDE to be seeing, smelling, feeling things the way we do in this physical world without this physical body. He even says, why would nature expend all that effort creating this physical body, if it can easily have a better one? But then he says we should be careful how much faith we put into believing this reality. So, it seems to me that maybe he's making that fundamental mistake by assuming a "physical" body, like the one we have here, is necessary for us to experience anything, including the ultra reality and enhanced consciousness experienced during a NDE. That doesn't make sense to me.
@@b0ondockz838 I think you misunderstood what he meant. You have full experiences in dreams without physically seeing, hearing, feeling, or tasting. What he suggests is that consciousness is the ontological primitive from which all experience derives, but it does so through the manifestation of mind and body. Materialism supposes that matter is the ontological primitive and that through some unknown complexity conscious experience emerges. Idealism suggests that consciousness is the ontological primitive and that through the development of mind and body we have consciousnes experience. Either way the physical world operates within physical laws. One of those laws is the law of conservation, information is never lost, so when you are born and later die, that experience ceases like waking up from a dream but it is always a part of the underlying consciousness of existence. Kind of like spacetime where past, present, and future, all exist, only we experience individual moments in a linear progression. So all conscious experience is just part of a greater whole. The experience that you are a separate individual having a finite experience is a type of illusion. The real you is this overall consciousness waking from the dream of that experience, but as long as the universe exists producing living organisms, we continue to have experiences. So when you die an return is it possible to recall the experience of a particular place or loved one? Of course, but that is an experience like a dream rather than an actual physical experience. If that makes sense?
@@b0ondockz838 It also gives nature a sense of agency and forward-thinking capacity. If that is the case, what does that say about the nature of our own inner-conscious life as a reflection of the same nature that labored to create us? I think it implies that ultimate reality looks more like a monotheistic God than we would like to believe. And I don't see that as a bad thing.
@@b0ondockz838 this is the problem with woo woo language...concepts shift and meanings get fuzzy. This is a death denying ideology dressed up in a philosophical cloak. So you can not have idealism without an afterlife claim...and NDEs is the "best" excuse for an Argument from ignorance fallacy!
I have the feeling Shermer doesn't fully understand Kastrup. Kastrup explains something and then Shermer asks the same question only formulated in another way. Or Shermer sais something like "ok, ok ...we both don't know". What do you mean "we both don't know". Kastrup just explained it.
Indeed. I got the same impression of Shermer from this interview. He asked the same question twice about a half hour apart and the second time it was barely distinguishable in formulation from the first instance. As if the first instance never happened.
Wow! Not your average run-of-the-mill content. I began thinking of a book I read by Martin Buber in my college days, (c.1964),..."The I And Thou". It triggered reveries about my earliest speculations about the nature of consciousness and the notion of the "ego". I remember concluding that the sense of Self, I.e; the ego, doesn't really expand into full maturity until the accretions of subjective experience create its own niche in our developing neurological selves. That is, it's our experience that actually creates the sense of self---layer by layer. Then, the "weed" wore off and I got hungry for a cheese steak from the Dingleman wagon, so called bcz it was a food truck that plied its trade among hungry freshman at Syracuse U., announcing its presence with a hand rung bell.
I find BK's seeming animosity toward Sam Harris mysterious. I have followed both of their work for many years and fund them to be more in agreement than not. Sam says things in articles and during guided meditations on his meditation app that sound remarkably like things BK is saying. Hopefully they become great friends some day.
Sam flat out rejects idealism, listen to Sam's talk with Rupert Spira. Sam can be obnoxious in his discourse, which tends to be ego-driven debating vs having an honest open-minded discussion when faced with a world view that opposes his own. I suspect that's why BK doesn't like him.
I feel sam has more of the intuition of idealism, but doesn't want to state it due to the grief he'd have to deal with from his colleagues. Based on how he speaks about conciousness, he implies that its fundamental. He's says "conciousness is everything" "conciouness is one thing that can't be an illusion"..hes knows its not physical.
Thanks for this talk Bernardo and Michael! What would the brain's role be, the appearance of the dissociative barrier? A mirror of our inner subjectivity? What is the role of Darwinian evolution? The genome producing proteins? Who or what is organizing all this? Mind at large, my core subjectivity? So many questions Thanks again! 🌿
It is painfully clear, watching Shermer, that Bernardo is quite gracious, since Shermer has not even a clue about what is being discussed! In other words, Kastrup has gently dismantled Mr. Shermer's thinking mechanism!
Yes Michael was hopelessly out of his depth, and I could see that for the majority of the time he had no idea what Bernado was talking about. Kudos to him for engaging though.
One of the issues with assessing consciousness is what it actually is. All assessments of artificial consciousness are related to what consciousness is and whether it is present even in matter itself. This might then allow even artificially created systems to have 'some kind' of innate consciousness if consciousness creates all forms of reality. Consciousness may create matter itself and be the platform upon which physicality rests or emerges. It may be the 'Atlas' holding up the physical dimension. If it is immanent within all expressions of reality, this just might allow artificially created systems to have different levels of not only similarity to our experience of consciousness but be in some sense, self-aware!
The Life after Death is a funny thing of course there is no "life after death" the question is "Is there consciousness after death". Trivial? No it is an important shift from thinking from the perspective of matter only.
@@footballfactory8797 well its like Roswell. If tomorrow we have a similar malfunction of our brain, we will interpret it by using the same interpretations. i.e.10 years ago I had to give 50ml of blood for cell culture (knee chondro implant culture). As soon as the doctor reached 30ml I started seeing flashes, light and the chaos! I didn't apply any interpretation on it because I knew that loss of blood pressure affects brain function!
20:00 Some strange assumptions in here: If it is too much to claim consciousness somehow emerges from non-consciousness (that you cannot get from quantities to qualities), what are we to do with the emergence of life itself? Did life come from non-life, i.e. chemistry and physics? Was the life somehow always present? Seems incoherent, no?
it isn't the same issue. the materialist has to explain how qualities can emerge from their ontological reduction base but the problem of a-biogenisis is common for any ontological position. no one knows how life began.
I saw the Sam Harris interveiw Bernardo is talking about and he's totally right. Sam staw manned the crap out of idealism. It was sad. And Berdardo's tweet was perfectly appropriate...he just basically said if Sam is ignorant on the topic, there is no value in what he has to say on it. I don't know why Shermer feels the need to come to his rescue other than maybe because Sam is a huge baby that whines and cries anytime someone criticizes him. I say this as someone who agrees with Harris on many things and enjoys listening to him. I just get tired of everyone bowing at his feet and all the pearl clutching boo hoo-ing any time his frail feelings are hurt. You would think meditation would be helping him with this by now. The world of public intellectualism is not a place where you get your hand held.
Your comments on Harris are blatantly ignorant. I don't agree with Sam on everything but he has no problem with anyone disagreeing with him or criticizing him when they do it with intellectual honesty (something most critics aren't able to do.) I think Shermer was right to point out Twitter isn't the best place for philosophical discourse (pretty obvious.) I'd love to see Bernardo Sam and maybe some others have an in person discussion of these topics. I liked several of Bernardo's ideas even though he comes off as arrogant (probably unintentional)
Kastrup puts Consciousness as present in everything and everywhere, pretty much as the background noise in a party. Therefore HIS proposed Consciousness can be ignored because it's unexplainable, all-pervading and nothing is gained considering it. Now, we need to focus on the Interesting Consciousness, which is the one conscious entities have and rocks don't.
I think Michael is wrong in much of what he thinks -- but credit where it's due, he's been willing to entertain free and open discussion with Bernardo, so props for that. It will be interesting to see whether Sam Harris has the intestinal fortitude to try to offer up anything he thinks will counter BK's ideas. In my opinion, if he ever did agree to discussion (unlikely), he'd get demolished.
“Harris” “Demolished” Harris demolished himself because the “new atheist” Sam Harris bragged unashamedly that…. “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.” (Sam Harris). According to the (civil rights) hero Lutz Oette… “Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette). Sam Harris does this all the time. He flips flops around the issues and sneaks in torture and preemptive nuclear strikes on civilians through the back door. I rest my case!!
Shermer has literally dedicated his life to these topics so its always hilarious yet sad to see someone disingenuous come along and go 'I'm assume he's wrong about most stuff' implying you're some how right about it and determined this how? Pseudo intellectual armchair philosophers coming out in droves in these comments lol
Seems BK has the better handle on it and some essential epistemically sound logic: the others are too enamoured of their model. Whether BK is right is still open to question but I do like how he keeps to a cognitive & phenomenological framework.
Is astonishing how Kastrup explains what begging the question means and less than one hour later Shermer is begging the question again. Materialist think that if they beg the question while citing a new neurological study some how this ceases to be begging the question.
Dr.Kaastrup is begging the question by presupposing that we observe properties rather than things. It is irrefutable , that anybody cannot only see all that is outside their own body, they also can see their own body, if not even their own brain. Just let me open your evolved-primate skull!! We can , go figure - put an electrode into a certain areal of your brain and have it fabricate an out-of-body experience for you!
Yes, the question if what we see correspond to matter or just shared mental experience is a question impossible to give evidence in favor or against, Kastrup never claimed to have evidence of that, Shermer is the one proclaiming to have evidence against it (which of course he failed to do). The point is that assuming Kastrup 's premise we can have an explanation of consciousness with the same explanatory power than materialism but being more parsimonious by not postulating the existence of two separate ontological entities (matter and mental experience), only one (mental experience). And once again you begged the question with your talk about putting electrodes in my brain by pressuposing that the brain and the electrodes are made of matter, not shared mental experience.
@@rodolfo9916 >>>the question if what we see correspond to matter or just shared mental experience is a question impossible to give evidence in favor or against,
@@kleenex3000 All that you just did was to cite theories according to which what you believe is true, but what is the evidence of that? You explained very well what you believe, but didn't give any evidence that wouldn't be begging the question.
The problem with Kastrup's idealism is that it depends on the reality of DID, that is, on something that is certainly not yet widely accepted. On the other hand, Kastrup talks a lot about biological evolution, but idealists tend to have problems integrating evolutionary theories into their system. Schopenhauer, for example, strictly rejected Lamarckism and Darwinism because they assumed the reality of time, while for Schopenhauer time can only be something ideal, residing in the cognizing subject.
Nice conversation. I often wondered while listening if either of you had read The Holographic Universe? I would call my self a "Holographic Monist" I guess. I think if you look at what Bernardo talks about that and integrate that into an idea of consciousness as a holographic field, that much of Michaels questions about after death, memory, and such can be answered - the wave set that you were, your memory, tripping can all be explained if there is this field - your self disappears with the loss of your body, but that part that we call the conscious I returns into a higher level of this field is my guess, like the matter and water returns to the Earth. Notions of Intuition, Morphic Field, telepathy, would then all be bleed through like listening to your neighbors through the wall. It is all music. IMHO
It seems clear to me that Shermer does not understand Kastrup's argument and cannot set aside his materialistic view. Perhaps if he were less eager to insert his own arguments he would be able to make that leap.
Actually, he has come a long way from where he used to be. I was surprised he was as open and willing as he was, people don't change long standing strongly held beliefs over night. Unless there is a compelling counter argument, he will get there eventually. Like he said, materialism is a belief system every bit as dogmatic as any religion so...
@@BUSeixas11 Funny, that is exactly what many religious people say about their beliefs in God. They also do not believe they are in a cult, and yet, here we are.
Kastrup's argument for why reality is fundamentally mental can be put in premise conclusion format as follows: - Premise 1: Reality is what exists independently of our observation or measurement - Premise 2: Physical objects are not independent of our observation or measurement, but depend on how we perceive them - Premise 3: Consciousness is independent of our observation or measurement, but is the source of our perception - Conclusion: Therefore, reality is fundamentally mental and consciousness is the ground of being Wouldn't reality also include us and our consciousness? The mental description of physical objects depends on how we perceive them not the physical objects themselves.
Kastrup blows me away every time he speaks. I love watching any content that includes him
If you can't Dazzle them with your Brilliance baffle them with your b*******
I love that Michael Shermer and Deepak chopra are friends now. It's somehow enormously cathartic, like the two warring psychological factions in my own mind have found a way to be chill with eachother
Deepak .. another charlatan.
Why does it matter? Just for your comfort? 🙄
Micheal, I love the fact that you bring on such a variety of respectable perspectives that you disagree with! These discussions are just brilliant. Thank you!
Baseless disagreement... my favorite
He brings them over to expose their irrational foundations.
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt baseless...only facts and reason make his disagreement baseless.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Well he certainly seems perturbed in this conversation,as his foundations were brought into question.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Do you have anything meaningful to say on the discussion or are you just an ideologue with your fingers in your ears crying treason?
Kastrup is mind boggling to many a philosopher and i can imagine a few fidgeting in their discomfort trying to hold their integrity while struggling to grasp the flow, yet as an average guy i realise how his interpretations resonate with my undestanding of things that i got to from growing up in a western society and then discovering Buddhism and Taoism, the Tao te ching being a massive turning point in my view of existence. Great interview! Cheers
I really like Michael Shermer. I find myself far more in agreement with Bernardo, but I truly admire Michael’s willingness to engage with people he disagrees with. He’s a true skeptic. Have to respect that.
I agree. some sceptics use the label as a shield to protect themselves from truly engaging with new ideas, not shermer. kastrup, though, is a real dynamo and constantly challenges me.
Wow.. Micheal softening up to possibilities in his older days. There is hope. 😉
Bernardo is always on top of his game.
Hope for exactly what? You sound like a proselytizer hoping to get a convert. What if it's Bernardo that needs to change or soften up from his idealism? Why does it need to be Michael? You're just showing your own confirmation bias by your comment here.
Original thinking.
@@grosbeak6130 well said bernado kastrup receives why to much attention for his rather dubious biased ideology of idealism. He needs to step back and maybe perhaps take a more monism approach. Matter + mind = the same process. But he showing a typical Deepak Chopra view.. all is mind. 😒😲
@@restorationofidentity Kastrup makes arguments, all you give here is vague feelings. Also idealism is monist so your comment makes no sense.
@@Sam-hh3ry ok here's a question what will you do once your body dies and your so called spirit go to where ever in heaven/hell some cosmic consciousness dimension? What then? Am being serious for how long will we live in this afterlife? Cause that's what at stack here. A fuzzy belief cloaked in idealism.. the need to live forever lol.
Bernardo's philosophy is amazing.. recommend to everyone to read his books. they are mindblowing
😄
He got all of his fundamental and basic ideas from George Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer. Bernardo even admits it in other interviews. He is not saying anything fundamentally new that hasn't been discussed at length by these other philosophers. Now just add some quantum physics and a bit of Carl Jung and there is Bernardo Kastrup.
@@grosbeak6130 can you point me to where the mentioned thinkers discussed DID?
@@domenicmolinaro6580 there is a RUclips channel called New Thinking Allowed - just look for him there. In one of those episodes he talks at length about Arthur Schopenhauer and how he really likes him. In fact I think he wrote a book about him. Just keep in mind he has read and studied, and acquainted himself with many classic philosophers and thinkers and their ideas.
I'm familiar with his work. I'm pointing out that his incorporation of dissociation is indeed novel, from my understanding.
I already respected Bernardo, but I gained a lot of respect for Michael in this episode. Great discussion.
Brilliant from Kastrup. Thanks for hosting this conversation, Michael.
What a great conversation, thank you both so much for sharing this.
It's very exciting to be alive to witness a change of a paradigm in the world. We still don't know what's going to replace materialism, but we're surely going to expand our understanding of reality.
Idealism is here to stay.
All it takes is to simply observe people use their imagination to constantly, EAGERLY make stuff up while sincerely believing what they just made up, to understand that we are nowhere near to facing the reality (or what many people call "materialism"). Materialism, in its most basic, simply means the things we UNDERSTAND, while what people call "supernatural/idealism" are the things people IMAGINE.
Note, that in order to achieve scientific understanding, one must follow the rules. It's like playing a game of chess -- if you don't follow the rules, the game becomes meaningless.
In the same manner, what the idealists are doing is ultimately meaningless; as far as I can see they aren't even trying to follow the rules (scientific method), and the problem with their methodology is that there is, potentially, an unlimited number of ways to explain anything, that's why idealism trying to GUESS the correct answer from an unlimited number of options has pretty much zero chance of reaching the correct conclusion.
It's like being obsessed with gambling, constantly loosing, and yet continuing to believe that eventually you will start to consistently make money -- we, humans, have been through it many times before, and yet we continue to insist on using a proven to be 100% unreliable methodology.
Yes, idealism might be true, but not because some people want it to be true. To find out whether it is true -- follow the rules. Anything else is dishonest, and subject to immediate dismissal.
People have been saying this form materialism for ages, it's not changing just like empiricism is staying the de facto way of understanding the world
Yeah I can't quite explain it but I can almost feel a tangible shift in the air away from the "New Atheism" of the late 00s towards a more philosophically and spiritually mature conversation
@@B1bLioPhil3 lol no it isn't. It is consider a pseudo philosophy. Its epistemically and philosophically useless...you can only use it for your psychological anxieties since it includes a death denying ideology.
I noticed in comments some of us are taking sides and bickering over Shermer vs Kastrup perspective. The point is we don't know. Nobody does. That's what both of them are saying. That's why both of them are brilliant. They don't let their false prejudices get in the way of reasoning.
Kastrup is one of the great thinkers of our time.
Better than that, he is able to combine imagination with thinking.
Soooo true👍
Here here!
@@S.G.Wallner methinks you mean "hear! hear!". 🤔
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices what does Dharma say about Transhumanism topics?
Another person carrying the torch of the end of materialism science, much respect for Shermer hosting these talks to clarify the ignorant misconceptions.
Great talk, deep concepts. Now we need Kastrup vs. Harris - Bret Weinstein can moderate. :) Seriously though, I wish they'd hash these things out. Thank you Michael Shermer for introducing me to another great mind out there (yourself included).
Sam Harris has too much to lose in debating a smart underdog like Bernardo.
I don't think Sam's ready to face up to the reality that he's a minor leaguer in this area. He still wants to cherish the notion that he really knows that he's talking about and he's at the top of the pyramid. All it takes is a little courage and spine, but I don't think Sam's got it.
Sam Harris is 100 times more open to idealism as a reality that Shermer. But Sam and Bernardo's personalities will drive each other nuts.
@@rooruffneck that’s a great comment. Could u nutshell an explication that their personalities would not meet well?
it reminds me of Einstein arguing with other scientists by letter!
Great guest. Great choice. Great topic of discussion. All memories are false because every time we remember something the brain is writing a new narrative.
I would honestly pay money to see a debate on Idealism between Bernardo and Sam Harris.
I don't know if you noticed but Bernardo call Sam Harris under-educated and delusional
@@dm3199where?
Yes and he called him a child. 😂 sam would be destroyed and he knows it. He’ll never debate Kastrup.
@@scottnorvell2955 because kastrup is not worth debating.
@@dm3199😂 Because Bernardo is afraid of him.
Michael Shermer is a good sport for inviting Bernardo on his podcast.
Why? Bernardo has something to say. He blows my mind. No woo here.
@@solosailor8799 because the more famous sceptics seem to be avoiding Bernardo
@@moesypittounikos No wonder they are avoiding him if this interview is anything to go by - Bernado's arguments seemed to go completely over Michael's head, no response let alone rebuttal. It's like he doesn't even know what idealism is.. did he even read Bernado's book?
@@TH-nx9vf exactly. They avoid him because he's not religious, so they can't make fun of him easily, and he's a super intelligent guy, probably much more intelligent than a lot of the mainstream skeptics and materialist scientists or philosophers.
@@moesypittounikos I can see why!
It's interesting how at the end Michael, the materialist, says he finds the idea of idealism comforting, while Bernardo, the idealist, says he finds the idea of materialism more comforting.
well Materialism addresses our existential anxiety with the indefensible generalization it proposes (nothing than the material exists).
Idealism on the other hand addresses both our existential and epistemic anxieties since it includes a death denying ideology.
SO idealism by default is a "more comforting".
This is why Science rejects both and bases its philosophical acknowledgments on Methodological Naturalism.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 what’s the difference between methodological naturalism and materialism?
@@tobiasjohnson 2 months and no answer..LOL Yes I really enjoyed that moment.He flipped it.Materialism leaves no consequence..Its basically saying you are a meat puppet,with no free will and a victim to genes and conditioning.
@@daviddeida that is what we are. You say it as if it's a bad thing though, I don't think you need to be nihilistic about it
@@tobiasjohnson Thats what you identify as.I do not.If you can grant this to everybody,then you will not judge any person for the actions performed over which they have no control.If you cannot then its just a hypocritical existence.
Shermer has the ability to do something that few of us have managed. No matter how much he learns he is nevertheless able to keep an open mind about what all that knowledge means. He has been able to remain unattached to his bias. Well done.
Wow. Shermer is usually so antagonistic against idealism and anything "woo", but he really made this a nice conversation. Not a debate, or "gotcha" interview. Bernardo is really good at this type of conversation, too. Really awesome.
I don't see why you write that. I don't see woo. I see a person with two PHDs and a boatload of examination.
@@solosailor8799 It's ridiculous how brillant Bernardo is. He doesn't get nearly enough credit. I think he'll be making waves in the coming years, though.
@@B1bLioPhil3 totally agree, I must relisten to get the full impact of this talk.
@@solosailor8799 I came here because of Bernardo, he's been my favorite philosopher for the past 4 years. That being said, I was commenting on how Shermer usually approaches any consciousness-as-fundamental philosophy. I find the "skeptic" approach to be really dull (granting I know it's necessary to be skeptical), but it usually just subverts really brilliant thinkers from pushing the boundaries. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I was just commenting on how different this one-on-one conversation was. Shermer really listened and I appreciated that. Most of my prior history of seeing Shermer is on Chopra debate panels on consciousness. So maybe I could see a drastic shift in his attitude towards Bernardo's ideas due to the lack of a live audience or "teams" of people debating. Not sure.
@@seandotexe yes, I understand. Thx for the background.
I recommend kastrup's book "more than allegory". the 2nd half especially is totally bonkers in the best way. he details several psychedelic trips he embarked on with a scientific mindset. his reporting from the other side is exhilarating and masterful.
Kastrup is great for giving us a gentle reminder that we don't yet have it all figured out...and how lucky are we! :)
we don't need Kastrup's pseudo philosophy to remind us that...what do you think thousands of studies running every day are for?????????
@@nickolasgaspar9660
“We don’t need Kastrups pseudo philosophy”
Still trolling I see Nicholas Kaspar!!
During the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, that is during the reign of what is now referred to by historians as the (cult of reason and atheism) in France one morning's executions began with three men: a rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an atheist who was a “rationalist” skeptic but unfortunately also an (aristocrat).
The rabbi was marched up onto the platform first. There, facing the guillotine, he was asked if he had any last words. And the rabbi cried out, "I believe in the one and only true God, and He shall save me." The executioner then positioned the rabbi below the blade, set the block above his neck, and pulled the cord to set the terrible instrument in motion. The heavy cleaver plunged downward, searing the air. But then, abruptly, it stopped with a crack just a few inches above the would-be victim's neck. To which the rabbi said, "I told you so."
"It's a miracle!" gasped the disappointed crowd of blood thirsty atheists. And the executioner had to agree, letting the rabbi go.
Next in line was the priest. Asked for his final words, he declared, "I believe in Jesus Christ the light of the world, lord your will be done not mine." The executioner then positioned the Christian beneath the blade. And he pulled the cord. Again the blade flew downward thump! creak! ...stopping just short of its mark once more.
"Another miracle!" sighed the very disappointed crowd of atheists who were hoping for blood. And the executioner for the second time had no choice but to let the condemned go free.
Now it was the atheists turn to face death. "What final words have you to say?" he was asked. But the skeptic didn't hear. Staring intently at the ominous engine of death, he seemed lost. Not until the executioner poked him in the ribs and the question was asked again did he reply.
"Oh, I see your problem no supreme mind and consciousness needed, whoops sorry I meant no sky daddy involved it’s nothing more than a blockage in the rear gear assembly, right there!!"
“Where!!”? Said the executioner “I can’t see a blockage because there clearly is no blockage and I actually built this machine and also I oiled, tested and checked the mechanism as usual just seconds before the prisoners where brought out?” The atheist stood condescendingly with his hands on his hips and screamed…”I don’t need a pseudo philosophy and woo to know that happened by random chance so it’s clearly not rational or true or even scientific”.
The executioner replied to the hysterical atheist.. Certainly sir, but right after I’ve sorted out your so called blockage in the rear gear assembly let’s see what your “random”, “chance”, accidental, blind, mindless, meaningless magical “matter” does to save you!!
God facepalms!!
Gotcha!!
❤️😎
Who claims to have it all figured out? Every day I know there are thousands of papers being published on a huge variety of topics, including consciousness.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 If you wish to critique Bernardo's worldview, that's certainly your right - but leave the childish insults out of it and stick to the merits. Either you can argue on the substance of what he's arguing for or you can't.
One good place to start is to argue persuasively as to how quanitites can give rise to their polar opposite in qualitative experience. I've argued w/ many on this topic and seen a variety of views (whether it's Frankish's Illusionism, Cooke's "Living Mirror Theory of Consciousness," Integrated Information Theory, etc.) and haven't come across one yet that makes a real substantive case as to how consciousness arises from physical systems.
By all means though have at it if you think you're seeing something other people aren't.
Thank you for choosing this guest. I see you two as two ends of the magnet. Very well done.
Great guest, thanks Michael.
Omg this guy is the best. How can you be so smart on all levels !
I agree! I was listening to him and all I could think is “good gracious, this man is well educated on a plethora of topics!”.
I’ve seen hardcore atheists debate him and have a smile on their faces as he highlights the assumptions they themselves have overlooked. You can see their worldviews start to shift before their very own eyes.
Google Chris Langan.
Suffering is meaningful, and insight is the goal. Very Jungian line of thought by Kastrup.
Most of his thoughts and fundamental ideas are derivative. And he even admits it in other interviews. He basically got his ideas from George Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer. Just throw in some quantum mechanics and you'll see that practically everything that Bernardo says is altogether derivative. He truly has not one idea that's not either coming from George Berkeley, Arthur schopenhauer, Carl Jung, or quantum physics.
@@grosbeak6130 Well I don't have the same breadth here philosophically speaking (as he apparently does) so I am unable to judge. I can only speak from my reading knowledge of Jung.
I think you may be simplifying Kastrup a bit, have you read any of his books?
@@grosbeak6130 grossly simplified.
@@grosbeak6130 These ideas go far further back than the one's you mentioned. As Bernardo says, these ideas come from ancient religions/philosophy like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism... Even Christianity if viewed as metaphor, actually speaks of this same philosophy. He never claimed to invent these concepts, he is just using empirical scientific reasoning to argue for this philosophical perspective.
@@ericmichel3857 affirmative.
Well done.
Honest, balanced and open discussion. Beginning to like Shermer more and more, he seems to have softened his hard edges and opened up a bit after all those years debating Deepak. Kastrup is an important systems-buster and is doing groundbreaking work in finally making some dents in the mainstream misconceptions about idealism and injecting very potent eastern philosophical thought into western academic minds. Along with Jay Garfield.. which is someone @skeptic really should consider having on for a conversation, that would be really amazing, I think Shermer and Garfield would get along very well!
Shermer is not a skeptic at all. He's an academic apologist. Notice how he never challenges institutional gatekeeper approved narratives.
Bingo.
Michael and Bernardo have presented us with a lot to think about. Michael it would be great if a workshop with Sam Harris, Donald Hoffman, Steven Pinker, John Vervaeke and Bernardo Kastrup could be set up for a civilised discourse on consciousness. Michael thank you for this excellent video.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator.
Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity.
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system.
A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness.
So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
Cont...
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
In recent years, the term “CONSCIOUSNESS” has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalized) to refer to a far more Homogeneous Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.
The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Meta-Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The dialectic exercise in the following three paragraphs should help one to understand the nature of the fundamental conscious observer, that is, the ULTIMATE observer of all phenomena (i.e. the subject/Subject, which is the authentic self, as opposed to material objects):
If one were to ask you whether you are the same person or individual you were at birth (or even at conception), you would probably respond in the affirmative. So, then, what PRECISELY is it about you which has remained constant since conception? In other words, what is the self-identity you had as an infant, which is the present “you”? It cannot be any part of your body or mind, since none of the atoms or molecules in your zygote body are extant, and “you” certainly did not possess a mind at conception. If you are reasonably intelligent, you may claim that your genome is the same now as it was then. However, it has recently been scientifically demonstrated that genetic code can (and usually does) mutate throughout an individual’s lifetime. Furthermore, nobody actively conceives of their essential nature being a bunch of genes!
More intelligent souls would probably counter thus: “The thing which stays the same from my birth to the present time is my sense of self.” This too, is fallacious, since the sense of self does not emerge until at least a couple of years after birth. An infant has no ideation of itself as an individual actor. You may then say “I was a (male/female) human being” but that doesn’t specify any PARTICULAR human (you, yourself).
So, then, what precisely is it which remains “you” from conception till death? That is life ITSELF, which precedes any artificial sense of self. In other words, rather than asserting “I am a man/woman/human/king/pilot/etc.”, simply the impersonal sense of “I am”. That is the true self, which is the Universal Self. Therefore, your essential nature is Cosmic Consciousness, usually called “God” by theists (see also Chapter 10).
The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself.
Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit [from “bṛh” - lit. “Expansion”, in English]) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri).
Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”.
REALITY is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings (which occur either spontaneously, or after a gradual process over many months or years), yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16, but have yet to awaken to their essential nature).
“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
*************
“The ego is the identified consciousness. When the impersonal Consciousness identifies itself with the personal organism, the ego arises.”
*************
“The only true meditation is the constant impersonal witnessing of all that takes place in one’s life as mere movements in the universal Consciousness.”
*************
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
*************
“Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness.
This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise.
Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.”
*************
“Just as the difference between the space in a pot and the space outside it disappears when the pot is demolished, so also does duality disappear when it is realized that the difference between the individual consciousness and the Universal Consciousness does not in fact exist.”
*************
“All there is, is, is consciousness. That is the Source from which the manifestation has come.
...And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness.”
*************
“All there is is Consciousness, not aware of Itself in Its noumenal Subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in Its objective expression. If this is understood in depth, there is nothing more to be understood.”
Ramesh S. Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
*************
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices stop copy pasting empty deepities....educate your self by studying Neuroscience.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure teachings, or do intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices argument? lol what use are arguments to someone who doesn't use logic to arrive to his theological conclusions...or who doesn't practice what he preaches?
THe argument is really simple. Everything in the observable reality are a product of matter, Mental properties are contingent to material structures. That is what science verifies. Claiming that reality is mental is an obvious scientifically ignorant and irrational statements plus a huge category error.
If by "reality" you are assuming a meta reality...then you are pseudo philosophizing.
first you need to demonstrate that meta reality to be necessary and sufficient in explaining....something lol.
Wow ... I agree with Kastrup almost completely. This is part of an argument I've had with others.
@Growseth Jones
“There’s no evidence reality is mental”
Was that a rational claim or was it just determined?
The fact is that there is more evidence that the Easter bunny and pink fluffy leprechauns exist than that the materialists (random) cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of the coin, the meaningless (random) accidental arrangement of the cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists morning cup of tea created metaphysical realities and metaphysical presuppositions, that is transcendental categories such as Truth, that is value, that is oughts, the prescriptive laws of logic, (conscious agents and free will, that is rationality), inductive reasoning, empiricism, universals, morals, ethics, art, poetry, literature, music, beauty, meaning, purpose, empathy, compassion and ultimately love!!
So for the same reason I reject the reality of pink fluffy leprechauns and the magical invisible “nothing” that created everything proposed by the high priests of “new atheism” I would also reject theoretical abstractions of mind such as “matter” conceptually defined under physicalism because using Occam’s razor I can make do with realities only given, that is phenomenal consciousness!! Because the fact is that the only ontological category that enables billions of people to experience any quality or even any quantity, if there is such a thing as quantity in this context, is phenomenal consciousness!! It’s the fundamental ground of reality and is simplicity itself (Occam’s Razor)!!
So good of Shermer to introduce me to Bernardo Kastrup! What a breath of fresh breathable air is this Kastrup! Much to explore here - with heart and intuition. Thanks Skeptic. I look forward to as many interviews with Bernardo as I might find.
Well nothing to explore really since we are dealing with unfalsifiable old beliefs that were foundational to Christianity ,Platonism and every now and then some recycles the same ideas by using different words and logical fallacies.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 why are you going through every single comment trying to bring Bernardo Kastrup down? Really does he destroy your worldview that much that you need to try and debunk him hahaha. Jesus just have an open mind
@@footballfactory8797 I care about my members of my society to become rational educated thinkers.
We need to inform people of charlatans and con artists.
Now openmindedness means to be willing to accept a claim in the face of evidence....not accept it without any.....
@@nickolasgaspar9660 there is no evidence for physicalism whereas consciousness is our only direct experience, which world view is based on a fallacy?
Such an immense pleasure.Even though there seemed moments where Michael world view was shaking and he diverted to distractions,maybe to keep the conversation going.. I understand,lots to take in. with huge ramifications.Correct it all depends where you start from.The nondual awareness or thinking is thee place to explore from,rather than trying to get there from non dual.
This interview is proof positive that even people we think of as bright can get trapped within a paradigm to the extent that questions asked and statements made are besides the point.
Can you elaborate on that?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I think he means how Michael asks the same-ish question a few times over
how is silence explained
Understanding how sentences encode meaning makes it
easier to grasp how neural discharge frequencies are able to do likewise.
Absolutely fascinating conversation!
Shermer is such a wonderful host and so very respectful. I loved this interview. I am admittedly in the Kastrup rabbit hole and think he may have the closest idea to what it is to be me. Great session and thank you Mr Shermer for an engaging conversation.
It was a privilege to watch this. Thanks.
It does feel like reality is psychic. It's true that we can really only make indirect references to the nature of truths. I like to think of us as a point of light in an ocean of spectrum..Lol.
And I've noticed that there's something special about going into the middle of things. Like.. when one overcomes an obstacle by going straight into it, it feels satisfying.
This is like my second time around philosophy stuff and I'm starting to finally appreciate Bernardo on a greater level. Before, I watched too much philosophy on RUclips and really got burnt out on it but I've calmed down since then.
Wonderful discussion. Thanks for sharing
I love both these gentlemen. Long time fan of Mr. Shermer, & recently discovering Dr. Kastrup. I'm grateful just to have witnesses such extraordinary intelligence. Consciousness or God if you want, is Pure intelligence. Wow.
I’ve been a BK fan for two years. I’ve listened to over 50 RUclips videos of him.
I’ve listened to this five times.
I think this interview was a big stride for us fans. I think the K picking up his pace
Have you ever thought why are you a fan of his? That is a sincere question.
Yes,the last six months its really opening up,so pleased for him and for so many people..One day he will be on Joe Rogan.lol
@@daviddeida Rogan is too light weight for BK.
@@mkor7 Hes a heavy weight in the feild of media.He is a good listener and would certainly ask good questions and more on point than Sherman
@@nickolasgaspar9660 same reason I used to be a Sam Harris fan…I thought he was right.
Polite conversation. Refreshing and enlightening. Thank you B and M!
Good host. I saw another interview with a materialist, and he constantly interrupted Kastrup by not understanding his logic at all. Michael is calm and at least understands what his guests is talking about which makes the interview much more fluent and fruitful.
that other host shouldn't have been interrupting Kastrup. There is nothing there to understand. Linguistic artifacts, a modified christian dogma, made up entities...just a mesh of philosophy. I am not sure Kastrup him self understands what he claims and from conversations I had with his fans, every single one has a different opinion.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 In what part does he suggest christian dogma and made up entities?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Made up entities? Which entities? You mean the current phenomena that cannot be explained by intersubjective agreement? Have you been living under a rock?
@@nickolasgaspar9660
“Christian dogma”
“Made up entities”
(Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that my Christian neighbour is to blame for me not getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll.”
“The belief that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth”
“The belief that if i just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!!”
“The belief that the most luxurious slide into the VOID and into oblivion is the highest ideal and virtue of the human being”
Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting…
❤️
Absolutely fascinating topics.........I will need to rewatch this several times to absorb even just a small amount of this conversation........brilliant...!
I do appreciate Shermer's manner in these discussions - where he obviously disbelieves what is being discussed. But when he says how do I suffer (when dead) if I haven't got a body? I'd just say, a huge percentage of our suffering is in the mind/conscious. Therefore if the conscious survives bodily death then suffering is a distinct possibility.
Good point. But, isn't even mental suffering based in the body? For example, anxiety is just bodily responses that feel unpleasant to us...even if our thoughts trigger it. I've always heard people who are deep into meditation say there is no suffering in pure consciousness. So maybe there actually couldn't be suffering?
Another impressive outing for Bernardo. Sheremer did seem as if he was hearing the idea of non-dualism for the first time: matter being but an expression in and of consciousness. I enjoyed the interview but was saddened when Michael thought he had to stick up for his buddy Sam Harris. He slipped this in strategically late and Bernardo wasn't expecting it, but he gathered himself and stayed cordial to the end. Exemplary.
Impressive pile of bovine manure...indeed sir!
Harris is a buffoon regarding Idealism,its so embarrassing..
Shermer was indeed quite condescending in trying to shame Kastrup into being nice on twitter. LOL
@@nickolasgaspar9660
“Bovine manure”
Ho the irony!! The irony and the absurdity is that under a strictly reductive materialism, determinism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism “you” and your ironic truth claims regarding “manure” have no more truth value than leaves blowing in the wind!! The elephant in the room is that under this causally closed, effectively complete system “you”, the leaves and your total nihilistic, fatalistic b…sht are destined for the same place buddy (The Fertiliser Pit).
Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Michael asked how the person going through a near death experience look down or hear the doctors or even know that she's floating to the top of the room ... from my own experience, this is expressed in the telling after the experience and through a translation of the memory of it ... which, I suppose, is also a translation. The person there not only has external senses which help us navigate the external world, but inner senses that serve to navigate the internal world. These inner senses hold memory. And I think this is why it's so difficult to put an experience like this into words that can be understood by someone who is only using external memory and experience to try to understand.
@Goseth Jones Very well said, Goseth!
About half way in and I'm bringing this up because I think it's relevant to the dream analogies. I was reading Forrest Landry's IDM (Immanent Metaphysics) and he does a good job of describing the 'transcendent' as something that almost seems to intrude on a different domain (the other parameters being the 'immanent' and the 'omniscient', the later in the most mundane sense - like being all knowing about the properties of a rubber ball or apple, ie. objective information). His couplings seem to handle that well in this sense where you'd have your three isomorphisms whose relationships are what's intruding (transcendent), it's experience of the objective (the omniscient), and the relationship between the two (the immanent).
I'm glad someone is giving Schopenhauer a proper contemporary, analytic treatment. Schopenhauer 2.0 if you will lol.
Schopenhauer is KING
willcel
When aligned with nature we become aligned. Bernardo's gift is to identify with nature not to compare. He is a naturalist. We create our favorite dreams out of our nightmares. As Bernardo shares we don't mourn our dreams. Thank you Michael.. very entertaining. When working with the dying what worked in the immediacy is the question, "Maybe you are already on the otherside?" We have never known death.
Nature is mostly eat and being eaten. What's so great about that? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 in the feedback loop of the external and internal. We are the most important component to shift perceptions from meaningless to meaningful One not two.
@@patriciaching6392 And there is the bullshit. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 bull**** is where you have the power of discernment. It is a self correcting universe. It is inside out job. There are 3 businesses mine, yours and God’s (of our understanding/a power greater than a human power) to get to God’s we have to go through mine and yours. To eat and be eaten is owning the BS to manifest through a higher power. Say when you feel scarcity (eaten) it is to go with in to the power within and visualize 3 things you need to live on a physical planet: food, shelter and transportation. See yourself sitting in the middle of the sun eating a mango. Then do what you normally do, get out of yourself and act as if. You will manifest (eat) from somewhere. Try it.
@@patriciaching6392 And this is where I am reminded of the story of god ventriloquating the donkey. Hard pass. :-)
Kastrup's arguments are compelling we are all Alters in Mind at Large. I knew this at 6 and now I am 60 I am still of the same opinion.
I do hope Bernardo writes a book about the Idealism of Bishop George Berkeley as he is really the great great great grandfather of modern quantum physics. His famous quote "Esse Est Percipi"
"To be is to be perceived."
Sums up the double-slit experiment perfectly as you need an observer to collapse the wave function.
The idea being that reality is rendered when an observer looks at it an idea that troubled Einstein who formulated the EPR thought experiment to disprove it, this was probed by Irishman Dr John Bell with his inequality theorem confirmed in 1981 by Alain Aspect and his team, and an experiment repeated many times since.
His book on Schopenhauer was excellent. I also hope he continues and makes a series out of all the great idealists of the past and the different kinds of idealism (Absolute, Transcendental, Berkelian, Neoplatonic, etc.)
may the world have discussions in this way... thank you
No. Vote for me first and get me in office and then I'll tell you what we're going to do. -Mitch McConnel.
Three days ago this man said that. After all that's the American way. Never ever was it that way.
Excellent guest. Kastrup is awesome 🤩
kudos to Michael. He stayed so open though I’m sure he wanted to interrupt. Great interview.
wonderful conversation, thankyou
36:52 Kastrup just perfectly summed up the disparity between how materialists see idealism v how idealists view materialism. This very question (what about brain damage or other influences on subjective experience)kept me stuck until I understood. It was a fun moment!
I am about 1 hour into this video discussion. I find it extremely interesting... keeping in mind that I don't understand a lot of what I am hearing. No doubt, there are a lot of smart people out there. Sadly, you won't find them in government.
Don't worry. You're not alone. I don't think any layperson grasps fully what is being said!
@@Anon-zb5op try Bernardo's book he mentioned at the beginning. It's a good start.
The following explains the REASON for your final assertion:
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
Cont...
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Basically, the worst of the non-monarchical governments promote, or at least permit, ALL things contrary to God’s perfect and pure will (or contrary to objective morality and dharma/dhamma, for those who disbelieve in the Deity), such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, transvestism, pornography, homosexuality, gambling (even running lotteries themselves), illegitimate abortion of poor innocent unborn children, irreligion, drug addiction, disrespect for authority, and advancing materialism and nescience via a powerful network of institutions of miseducation (so-called “kindergartens, schools, colleges and universities”).
Their aim is to produce a population of indoctrinated citizens who have been conditioned to serve the state and its perverse agendas.
Even though non-monarchical leaders are committing a criminal act by ordering the persecution of its citizens, or instigating war on another nation, the police and military personnel who execute their orders are equally (if not MORE) guilty of their dirty deeds. Even if a non-monarchical government punishes a criminal, that in itself is a criminal act, because it has absolutely no authority to do so. That is akin to a baby punishing its mother for theft, when it is actually the role of the infant's father to enact disciplinary action upon the woman in question.
For the past few centuries, most of the earth has been controlled by a CABAL of men comprising of extremely wealthy businessmen (particularly bankers) and so-called religious leaders (those who command a huge following). Ironically, some of these elite businessmen instigate a pseudo-socialist government within their nations, so that they themselves can control the financial system for their selfish goals.
This planet is surely doomed, unless the most pernicious institutions ever known to man (democracy, socialism and communism), are replaced by the ONLY legitimate form of government (monarchy - ideally a holy monarch, though even a mediocre king is preferable to being ruled by an elected official or a sociopathic megalomaniac, who could almost never be a righteous ruler).
Let it be known, however: non-monarchical rule can not and will not endure. Once society has devolved to such a debased level where it can no longer survive intact, the natural-born kings of the earth shall arise and regain their rightful place at the head of each and every nation.
The truth shall surely triumph (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit).
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (AKA Mark Twain),
American writer.
“I would rather obey a fine lion, much stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own species.”
François-Marie Arouet (AKA Voltaire),
French Writer and Historian.
N.B. This is an appropriate place to make mention of a potentially contentious topic:
The above Voltaire remark replaces a quotation by an American spiritual teacher who formerly “worked” as a prostitute. I, the author of this Holy Scripture was criticized for quoting a prostitute, implying that her words were invalid due to her being a former harlot. Firstly, the accuracy of any statement is not dependent on the relative holiness of the person making that statement. Secondly, none of the persons I have quoted in “F.I.S.H”, including the Divine Incarnations, were totally blameless in all their actions, despite what many believe. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quote Voltaire, despite his antipathy towards the Holy Priesthood, towards religion in general, and towards certain monarchs.
Well here is a brief summation.
Kastrup promotes a death denying ideology for those who feel special just for being humans.
His pseudo philosophy is based on argument from ignorance ( we don't know if an ultimate reality is possible) and word trick i.e "we only experience consciousness" (when we only experiences the content of our conscious states....not consciousness" and it provides empistemic and existential comfort for our anxieties.
Those ideas are not new but really old . He replaced god with Mind, the logos(λόγος) with consciousness and his version of afterlife is free of hell....
Kastrups Idealism is so elegant, simple, and coherent, it's hard to understand why people who are ostensibly smart misunderstand even its most basic premises so frequently. The only explanation is cultural conditioning of physicalism being so damn strong.
This was great guys . Really appreciate you both.
The more I listen to Kastrup the more I realize he's just at another level. Even Shermer squints throughout this discussion struggling to understand what Kastrup is saying. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of it though and has extended a great amount of respect for Kastrup and visa versa. As much as I disagree with Shermer's ontological views, I've always liked him. I've always believed he sincerely wants the truth -whatever that entails - hence his serious and respectable demeanor towards Kastrup. It's almost as if he's saying, 'change my mind, if you can. All empirical data welcome.'
The more I listen to them clowns gloryfying the deceptive assertions by Dr.Kaastrup, the more I lose my faith in humanity: It is irrefutable , that anybody cannot only see all that is outside their own body, they also can see their own body, if not even their own brain. Just let me open your evolved-primate skull!! We can , go figure - put an electrode into a certain areal of your brain and have it fabricate an out-of-body experience for you!
yes his woo are at another level indeed.
@Dutchy Holland His ignorance is hilarious,hes like a flapping dinosaur .
There was a moment where he groked it,"It all depends where you start from".His brain imploded and reverted back again.It seems to take time to let the information sink in .
@@daviddeida Indeed!
I was listening to Bernardo and all I could think is “good gracious, this man is well educated on a plethora of topics!”.
I’ve seen hardcore atheists debate him and have a smile on their faces as he highlights the assumptions they themselves have overlooked. You can see their worldviews start to shift before their very own eyes.
Aloha and Mahalo, Michael, for this interview. Great discussion! Aliman
Bernardo gives me at least some hope for the future of the human race at an exceptionally troubling period.
He has given me a foothold.
This is true skepticism. Openness to new ideas but constant questioning.
Bernardo is one of the most brilliant philosophers alive, with deeper and (most important) experiential phenomena of consciousness, and I highly agree with his notions.
Combine philosophy, psychedelics and constant curiosity, and your self will be transformed.
The ALL is mind
the universe is mental
100% Agree
Great conversation, thank you! 🙌🏻
Someone once said that the benefit of suffering is that it teaches you how not to suffer. But that alone is valuable. To me, the worst thing you can do with suffering is deny that it's there.
I've waited for this.
The question at 20 is so key. It has never been that there has to be something else there. It has always been that the basis for the question is built on flawed assumptions.
lol......what???? hahaha. Amazing question!
Exactly.Amazing how threatening that is to some..
Bernardo is a HeavyWeight, pretty interesting!
Heavyweight indeed....he shovels tones of new age bovine manure in every interview!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 where does he lose you? I’m actually interested because his argument is very convincing.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 false
@@nickolasgaspar9660 You come across in this thread as a stalker, or as someone with an axe to grind.
Great interview. Thanks for letting him speak at length
I love Kastrup, I just think he's wrong on NDEs and the afterlife. I think there's more to it that we just don't understand.
How so? He does allow for the experience so...
@@ericmichel3857 there are a lot of his ideas/statements that seem to contradict other of his ideas/statements, and many of them he mentions in this interview. On one hand, everything is mind, and we are many images or expressions of mind taking place within space and time. On another he puts major emphasis on how nature labored for millions of years to evolve all the biological features we use to survive, eyes, ears, nose, etc., and states it's not possible for people having an NDE to be seeing, smelling, feeling things the way we do in this physical world without this physical body. He even says, why would nature expend all that effort creating this physical body, if it can easily have a better one? But then he says we should be careful how much faith we put into believing this reality. So, it seems to me that maybe he's making that fundamental mistake by assuming a "physical" body, like the one we have here, is necessary for us to experience anything, including the ultra reality and enhanced consciousness experienced during a NDE. That doesn't make sense to me.
@@b0ondockz838 I think you misunderstood what he meant. You have full experiences in dreams without physically seeing, hearing, feeling, or tasting. What he suggests is that consciousness is the ontological primitive from which all experience derives, but it does so through the manifestation of mind and body.
Materialism supposes that matter is the ontological primitive and that through some unknown complexity conscious experience emerges. Idealism suggests that consciousness is the ontological primitive and that through the development of mind and body we have consciousnes experience. Either way the physical world operates within physical laws. One of those laws is the law of conservation, information is never lost, so when you are born and later die, that experience ceases like waking up from a dream but it is always a part of the underlying consciousness of existence. Kind of like spacetime where past, present, and future, all exist, only we experience individual moments in a linear progression. So all conscious experience is just part of a greater whole. The experience that you are a separate individual having a finite experience is a type of illusion. The real you is this overall consciousness waking from the dream of that experience, but as long as the universe exists producing living organisms, we continue to have experiences. So when you die an return is it possible to recall the experience of a particular place or loved one? Of course, but that is an experience like a dream rather than an actual physical experience. If that makes sense?
@@b0ondockz838 It also gives nature a sense of agency and forward-thinking capacity. If that is the case, what does that say about the nature of our own inner-conscious life as a reflection of the same nature that labored to create us? I think it implies that ultimate reality looks more like a monotheistic God than we would like to believe. And I don't see that as a bad thing.
@@b0ondockz838 this is the problem with woo woo language...concepts shift and meanings get fuzzy.
This is a death denying ideology dressed up in a philosophical cloak. So you can not have idealism without an afterlife claim...and NDEs is the "best" excuse for an Argument from ignorance fallacy!
Great interview! Adore Bernardo. Fellow Santa Barbarian here. I hope my art makes you smile
I have the feeling Shermer doesn't fully understand Kastrup. Kastrup explains something and then Shermer asks the same question only formulated in another way. Or Shermer sais something like "ok, ok ...we both don't know". What do you mean "we both don't know". Kastrup just explained it.
Indeed. I got the same impression of Shermer from this interview. He asked the same question twice about a half hour apart and the second time it was barely distinguishable in formulation from the first instance. As if the first instance never happened.
agreed. it’s rather frustrating. there are many interviewers that spoil their time with him. drives me mad.
Wow! Not your average run-of-the-mill content. I began thinking of a book I read by Martin Buber in my college days, (c.1964),..."The I And Thou". It triggered reveries about my earliest speculations about the nature of consciousness and the notion of the "ego". I remember concluding that the sense of Self, I.e; the ego, doesn't really expand into full maturity until the accretions of subjective experience create its own niche in our developing neurological selves. That is, it's our experience that actually creates the sense of self---layer by layer.
Then, the "weed" wore off and I got hungry for a cheese steak from the Dingleman wagon, so called bcz it was a food truck that plied its trade among hungry freshman at Syracuse U., announcing its presence with a hand rung bell.
I find BK's seeming animosity toward Sam Harris mysterious. I have followed both of their work for many years and fund them to be more in agreement than not. Sam says things in articles and during guided meditations on his meditation app that sound remarkably like things BK is saying. Hopefully they become great friends some day.
I dislike Harris, little more than a celebrity showboater.
Sam flat out rejects idealism, listen to Sam's talk with Rupert Spira. Sam can be obnoxious in his discourse, which tends to be ego-driven debating vs having an honest open-minded discussion when faced with a world view that opposes his own. I suspect that's why BK doesn't like him.
I feel sam has more of the intuition of idealism, but doesn't want to state it due to the grief he'd have to deal with from his colleagues. Based on how he speaks about conciousness, he implies that its fundamental. He's says "conciousness is everything" "conciouness is one thing that can't be an illusion"..hes knows its not physical.
@@patrickkissane4341 precisely. BK also walks a fine line with belief, which is something SH reacts strongly against.
@@gratefulgregg9058 you're saying Sam reacts strongly against what exactly?
Thanks for this talk Bernardo and Michael! What would the brain's role be, the appearance of the dissociative barrier? A mirror of our inner subjectivity? What is the role of Darwinian evolution? The genome producing proteins? Who or what is organizing all this? Mind at large, my core subjectivity? So many questions Thanks again! 🌿
It is painfully clear, watching Shermer, that Bernardo is quite gracious, since Shermer has not even a clue about what is being discussed!
In other words, Kastrup has gently dismantled Mr. Shermer's thinking mechanism!
Yes Michael was hopelessly out of his depth, and I could see that for the majority of the time he had no idea what Bernado was talking about. Kudos to him for engaging though.
One of the issues with assessing consciousness is what it actually is. All assessments of artificial consciousness are related to what consciousness is and whether it is present even in matter itself. This might then allow even artificially created systems to have 'some kind' of innate consciousness if consciousness creates all forms of reality. Consciousness may create matter itself and be the platform upon which physicality rests or emerges. It may be the 'Atlas' holding up the physical dimension. If it is immanent within all expressions of reality, this just might allow artificially created systems to have different levels of not only similarity to our experience of consciousness but be in some sense, self-aware!
The Life after Death is a funny thing of course there is no "life after death" the question is "Is there consciousness after death". Trivial? No it is an important shift from thinking from the perspective of matter only.
this shift is called irrationality since the available data don't justify such shifts....
Near death experiences give good evidence that consciousness after death is true
@@footballfactory8797 lol they don't. They show us that people interpret their ineffable experiences in line with their death denying ideologies.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 why does everyone have similar experiences then? An all loving white light?
@@footballfactory8797 well its like Roswell. If tomorrow we have a similar malfunction of our brain, we will interpret it by using the same interpretations. i.e.10 years ago I had to give 50ml of blood for cell culture (knee chondro implant culture). As soon as the doctor reached 30ml I started seeing flashes, light and the chaos! I didn't apply any interpretation on it because I knew that loss of blood pressure affects brain function!
20:00 Some strange assumptions in here: If it is too much to claim consciousness somehow emerges from non-consciousness (that you cannot get from quantities to qualities), what are we to do with the emergence of life itself? Did life come from non-life, i.e. chemistry and physics? Was the life somehow always present? Seems incoherent, no?
it isn't the same issue. the materialist has to explain how qualities can emerge from their ontological reduction base but the problem of a-biogenisis is common for any ontological position. no one knows how life began.
I saw the Sam Harris interveiw Bernardo is talking about and he's totally right. Sam staw manned the crap out of idealism. It was sad. And Berdardo's tweet was perfectly appropriate...he just basically said if Sam is ignorant on the topic, there is no value in what he has to say on it. I don't know why Shermer feels the need to come to his rescue other than maybe because Sam is a huge baby that whines and cries anytime someone criticizes him. I say this as someone who agrees with Harris on many things and enjoys listening to him. I just get tired of everyone bowing at his feet and all the pearl clutching boo hoo-ing any time his frail feelings are hurt. You would think meditation would be helping him with this by now. The world of public intellectualism is not a place where you get your hand held.
I cant verify it,but my sense is SH is a narcissist.He is embarrassing in regards to Idealism..Quite pathetic really.
Your comments on Harris are blatantly ignorant. I don't agree with Sam on everything but he has no problem with anyone disagreeing with him or criticizing him when they do it with intellectual honesty (something most critics aren't able to do.) I think Shermer was right to point out Twitter isn't the best place for philosophical discourse (pretty obvious.) I'd love to see Bernardo Sam and maybe some others have an in person discussion of these topics. I liked several of Bernardo's ideas even though he comes off as arrogant (probably unintentional)
Kastrup puts Consciousness as present in everything and everywhere, pretty much as the background noise in a party. Therefore HIS proposed Consciousness can be ignored because it's unexplainable, all-pervading and nothing is gained considering it. Now, we need to focus on the Interesting Consciousness, which is the one conscious entities have and rocks don't.
Bernardo is an extremely impressive human.
Information and memory is stored in the web of inner SPACE
I think Michael is wrong in much of what he thinks -- but credit where it's due, he's been willing to entertain free and open discussion with Bernardo, so props for that. It will be interesting to see whether Sam Harris has the intestinal fortitude to try to offer up anything he thinks will counter BK's ideas. In my opinion, if he ever did agree to discussion (unlikely), he'd get demolished.
Absolutely. As heavyweight bouts go I think Harris will duck this one.
“Harris”
“Demolished”
Harris demolished himself because the “new atheist” Sam Harris bragged unashamedly that….
“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity.”
(Sam Harris).
According to the (civil rights) hero Lutz Oette…
“Torture is one of the ultimate abuses of state power, and the use of extreme violence that exploits the powerlessness of individuals subject to state control is anathema to the rule of law. It easily becomes a license to target anyone who is declared to be a threat” (Lutz Oette).
Sam Harris does this all the time. He flips flops around the issues and sneaks in torture and preemptive nuclear strikes on civilians through the back door.
I rest my case!!
Shermer has literally dedicated his life to these topics so its always hilarious yet sad to see someone disingenuous come along and go 'I'm assume he's wrong about most stuff' implying you're some how right about it and determined this how? Pseudo intellectual armchair philosophers coming out in droves in these comments lol
I had a professor who insisted on calling Berkeley’s, and Bernardo’s view “idea-ism” in order to distinguished it from Platonic idealism.
That just muddies the waters even more
The self in conversation with the self!
It’s difficult to know who has the better explanation, Anil Seth, Donald Hoffman, or Bernardo. They are all leading intellectuals in this field.
Just integrate them and make up your own mind, it’s all we ever really have
Seems BK has the better handle on it and some essential epistemically sound logic: the others are too enamoured of their model. Whether BK is right is still open to question but I do like how he keeps to a cognitive & phenomenological framework.
Is astonishing how Kastrup explains what begging the question means and less than one hour later Shermer is begging the question again.
Materialist think that if they beg the question while citing a new neurological study some how this ceases to be begging the question.
Dr.Kaastrup is begging the question by presupposing that we observe properties rather than things.
It is irrefutable , that anybody cannot only see all that is outside their own body, they also can see their own body, if not even their own brain. Just let me open your evolved-primate skull!! We can , go figure - put an electrode into a certain areal of your brain and have it fabricate an out-of-body experience for you!
Yes, the question if what we see correspond to matter or just shared mental experience is a question impossible to give evidence in favor or against, Kastrup never claimed to have evidence of that, Shermer is the one proclaiming to have evidence against it (which of course he failed to do).
The point is that assuming Kastrup 's premise we can have an explanation of consciousness with the same explanatory power than materialism but being more parsimonious by not postulating the existence of two separate ontological entities (matter and mental experience), only one (mental experience).
And once again you begged the question with your talk about putting electrodes in my brain by pressuposing that the brain and the electrodes are made of matter, not shared mental experience.
@@rodolfo9916 >>>the question if what we see correspond to matter or just shared mental experience is a question impossible to give evidence in favor or against,
@@rodolfo9916 Please re-read, only NOW am i done editing, including the keywords "map and territory"
@@kleenex3000 All that you just did was to cite theories according to which what you believe is true, but what is the evidence of that?
You explained very well what you believe, but didn't give any evidence that wouldn't be begging the question.
Bernardo has a real waterfall of talks!
The problem with Kastrup's idealism is that it depends on the reality of DID, that is, on something that is certainly not yet widely accepted. On the other hand, Kastrup talks a lot about biological evolution, but idealists tend to have problems integrating evolutionary theories into their system. Schopenhauer, for example, strictly rejected Lamarckism and Darwinism because they assumed the reality of time, while for Schopenhauer time can only be something ideal, residing in the cognizing subject.
@@NOCOMPLYE The idea of dissociation is definitely interesting, although it still seems speculative to me as a metaphysical principle.
DID has been empirically demonstrated to be real over and over again. It was controversial maybe in the 90s, not now.
@@pandawandas If so, Kastrup makes a good case.
“matter is not a machine, and we do not have any definition of matter. The properties of the material world are inconceivable to us.” -Noam Chomsky
Nice conversation. I often wondered while listening if either of you had read The Holographic Universe? I would call my self a "Holographic Monist" I guess. I think if you look at what Bernardo talks about that and integrate that into an idea of consciousness as a holographic field, that much of Michaels questions about after death, memory, and such can be answered - the wave set that you were, your memory, tripping can all be explained if there is this field - your self disappears with the loss of your body, but that part that we call the conscious I returns into a higher level of this field is my guess, like the matter and water returns to the Earth. Notions of Intuition, Morphic Field, telepathy, would then all be bleed through like listening to your neighbors through the wall. It is all music. IMHO
Good book
It would be more than interesting to hear Bernardo Kastrup and António Damásio speaking about this subject!
It seems clear to me that Shermer does not understand Kastrup's argument and cannot set aside his materialistic view. Perhaps if he were less eager to insert his own arguments he would be able to make that leap.
Actually, he has come a long way from where he used to be. I was surprised he was as open and willing as he was, people don't change long standing strongly held beliefs over night.
Unless there is a compelling counter argument, he will get there eventually.
Like he said, materialism is a belief system every bit as dogmatic as any religion so...
Yes,he had a glimpse,when he said it depends where you start from,then reverted back again.It takes contemplation for some.
@@ericmichel3857 Materialism is not a dogmatic religion. It is literally confirmed by every evidence in the universe.
@@BUSeixas11 Funny, that is exactly what many religious people say about their beliefs in God. They also do not believe they are in a cult, and yet, here we are.
@@ericmichel3857 fallacious argument. You didn’t actually point out anything wrong with my point
Kastrup's argument for why reality is fundamentally mental can be put in premise conclusion format as follows:
- Premise 1: Reality is what exists independently of our observation or measurement
- Premise 2: Physical objects are not independent of our observation or measurement, but depend on how we perceive them
- Premise 3: Consciousness is independent of our observation or measurement, but is the source of our perception
- Conclusion: Therefore, reality is fundamentally mental and consciousness is the ground of being
Wouldn't reality also include us and our consciousness? The mental description of physical objects depends on how we perceive them not the physical objects themselves.
Shermer Believes in the Religion of Scientism!!
Not accepting woo doesn't mean that one embraces scientism. There are middle grounds ...no need to go to the extremes.
Their days are numbered.
LOL!
Fantastic presentation.
I love Sam but sometimes he needs to be yelled at.
Please, more with Bernardo Kastrup, Michael.