A good video that helped me visualise and understand BK's idea of the dashboard is 'Richard Feynman talks about light', even though he doesn't address consciousness or idealism directly, its the same idea. More grist for the mill, thank you for the interview, looking forward to reading his upcoming book and thinking about this further.
You have one hell of imagination, however you can’t remember something and it’s in a dream state you’re telling me it still took place. Fascinating. Where are these holographic memory stored in the ether and the platonic shapes that’s possible plausible provable impossible
As the first Ultra-Minimalist Contemporary Spiritual Polymath in the world (not a Yogi nor a monk), my real "I" wrote the following: "The Totality of Existence IS The Universal Mind asking: 'ARE YOU ANOTHER ME?'. Your answer determines your reality. 'No' brings suffering, 'Yes, I AM ANOTHER YOU!' reveals Cosmic Love. This is the ONLY real Freedom: choose your answer and live the consequences. THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO KNOW. Suffer or be happy." If some of you want to indict me for doing it so, please talk to my lawyer: Bernardo Kastrup. 😂
I'm so sorry to have missed the timing of this lecture live. If the "Division of separate objects is merely nominal", how is it that these arbitrary objects have different causal powers? This question keeps bugging me and I'd be so grateful if someone could explain it, thanks.
Thank you for making this public. Would it be possible to release the part of the next lecture where he goes though the slides he didn't have time for?
How does analytic idealism fit (or not fit) with arguments for God, i.e., the Necessary Being of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), which says that all for all contingent things there must be a non-contingent, uncaused cause? I imagine that universal mind is this Necessary Being, but perhaps not one that 'causes' anything to happen since that would create a kind of duality. Is universal mind a different kind of Necessary Being?
In experiments doing by Michael Levin the individual cells he got from a living organism behaved like individual organisms moving around, catching nutrients and even collecting other free cells. I thing they couldn´t do it without a (very simple) consciousness of their own. How could they separate it off their mother organisms consciousness or gain it another way? (Excuse my English, please.)
I think Bernardo would see it as an example of dissociation - I think its this video in which he goes into more detail, in conversation with Michael: ruclips.net/video/7woSXXu10nA/видео.html
Maybe somebody could measure the brain activity of a neuroscientist while she or he looks at a measurement of the brain activity of a subject who is having the fear experience, if both measurements are the same it would means that experience and brain activity are the same thing
You can become aware of being completely in synchronicity or synergy as bucky would say with holographic consciousness you’re just babbling about confusion in your own mind. Are you the king of your internal universe? I question that
So you’re telling me now you know what other people experience that’s impossible for only the individual truly knows what they experience just that I said you better be the king of your own internal universe or the queen if you’re a woman, it doesn’t work in opposite directions, but there are those who are fish souls I haven’t lived very many livesbecause you said intuitiveness it should come to you very early that you are one with all that you are no thing and everything nowhere and everywhere that I/we are one consciousness with all it’s very simple velocity. It’s very ancient and it’s called WYDER.
Despite the amount of words used, this is just plain vanilla dual aspect monism, it doesn't account for the role matter has in reality, it just claims it is a mirror image of the metaphysical
I used to think this about what Bernardo says, but it is an understandable mistreatment. I think that if understood correctly, it’s is mostly a way to language most precisely what is available to know and not-know. It’s more of an epistemic exercise combined with recognizing what doesn’t come along for the ride if alternative epistemologies are truly dropped. It is not dual aspect monism because there is no dual aspect: The singular condition of experience is mind. Matter appears to us as mind. It is the appearance of matter that is mind, and it is matter that is also mind. But neither is matter any more than red light is truly red. I think I’m explaining this badly, but I think it’s perceivable just by noticing that we don’t experience matter, we experience mind. We define matter like a cartographer maps a territory, but as a matter of experience, both the map and the territory are mental. The best way that I have been able to see what Bernardo sees is just by noticing that matter is the needless postulation of an additional ontological category.
Nah that would be an upgrade. it is the worst version of idealism downstream from Schopenhauer's misreading of Kant. Getting to Hegelian or Schellingian idealism would be a better upgrade.
@@itslightanddark This is all starting from the cartesian dream and unable to figure a way out and giving up. Reduction only works when there is an intelligible account of what is happening. It is the not explaining matter just explaining it way the mirror opposite of what dennett does. Although, i would put dennett in leagues above bernardo since his bottom up account is intricate and compelling.
BK posits quite clearly that mind and mentation are the sole ontological primitive, of which matter appears as a representation of activity in that fundamental mentation. Very curious how you got "dual aspect monism" out of that.
@@ReflectiveJourney Dennett is a laughingstock even among a growing number of physicalist thinkers. If you call something totally nonsensical and illogical even from a strictly physicalist perspective as "intricate" and "compelling" I'd say that's more a reflection of you.
Definitely love listening to Bernado Kastrup. Amazing conversation, and I thank you.
Great to hear this feedback
Thank you!
Oh, I've been waiting for this. My philosophy addiction is really bad and DR. KASTRUP has the medicine I need. 💊 💉 💊 💉
A good video that helped me visualise and understand BK's idea of the dashboard is 'Richard Feynman talks about light', even though he doesn't address consciousness or idealism directly, its the same idea. More grist for the mill, thank you for the interview, looking forward to reading his upcoming book and thinking about this further.
Well-presented, i really enjoyed listening to this
You have one hell of imagination, however you can’t remember something and it’s in a dream state you’re telling me it still took place. Fascinating. Where are these holographic memory stored in the ether and the platonic shapes that’s possible plausible provable impossible
Excellent.
As the first Ultra-Minimalist Contemporary Spiritual Polymath in the world (not a Yogi nor a monk), my real "I" wrote the following:
"The Totality of Existence IS The Universal Mind asking: 'ARE YOU ANOTHER ME?'. Your answer determines your reality. 'No' brings suffering, 'Yes, I AM ANOTHER YOU!' reveals Cosmic Love. This is the ONLY real Freedom: choose your answer and live the consequences. THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO KNOW. Suffer or be happy."
If some of you want to indict me for doing it so, please talk to my lawyer: Bernardo Kastrup. 😂
I'm so sorry to have missed the timing of this lecture live. If the "Division of separate objects is merely nominal", how is it that these arbitrary objects have different causal powers? This question keeps bugging me and I'd be so grateful if someone could explain it, thanks.
Such a great question! You could join the sessions in November if you want, and ask this
Thank you for making this public. Would it be possible to release the part of the next lecture where he goes though the slides he didn't have time for?
We'll be releasing that soon, but meanwhile you can access it here: ruclips.net/video/hqsG99WGjQc/видео.html
@@adventuresinawareness Thank you!
How does analytic idealism fit (or not fit) with arguments for God, i.e., the Necessary Being of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), which says that all for all contingent things there must be a non-contingent, uncaused cause?
I imagine that universal mind is this Necessary Being, but perhaps not one that 'causes' anything to happen since that would create a kind of duality. Is universal mind a different kind of Necessary Being?
In experiments doing by Michael Levin the individual cells he got from a living organism behaved like individual organisms moving around, catching nutrients and even collecting other free cells. I thing they couldn´t do it without a (very simple) consciousness of their own. How could they separate it off their mother organisms consciousness or gain it another way? (Excuse my English, please.)
I think Bernardo would see it as an example of dissociation - I think its this video in which he goes into more detail, in conversation with Michael: ruclips.net/video/7woSXXu10nA/видео.html
I also find meta cognition problematic in that surely a will implies meta cognition so why does B.K. think of Universal Consciousness as without it.
Maybe somebody could measure the brain activity of a neuroscientist while she or he looks at a measurement of the brain activity of a subject who is having the fear experience, if both measurements are the same it would means that experience and brain activity are the same thing
You can become aware of being completely in synchronicity or synergy as bucky would say with holographic consciousness you’re just babbling about confusion in your own mind. Are you the king of your internal universe? I question that
So you’re telling me now you know what other people experience that’s impossible for only the individual truly knows what they experience just that I said you better be the king of your own internal universe or the queen if you’re a woman, it doesn’t work in opposite directions, but there are those who are fish souls I haven’t lived very many livesbecause you said intuitiveness it should come to you very early that you are one with all that you are no thing and everything nowhere and everywhere that I/we are one consciousness with all it’s very simple velocity. It’s very ancient and it’s called WYDER.
Despite the amount of words used, this is just plain vanilla dual aspect monism, it doesn't account for the role matter has in reality, it just claims it is a mirror image of the metaphysical
I used to think this about what Bernardo says, but it is an understandable mistreatment. I think that if understood correctly, it’s is mostly a way to language most precisely what is available to know and not-know. It’s more of an epistemic exercise combined with recognizing what doesn’t come along for the ride if alternative epistemologies are truly dropped. It is not dual aspect monism because there is no dual aspect: The singular condition of experience is mind. Matter appears to us as mind. It is the appearance of matter that is mind, and it is matter that is also mind. But neither is matter any more than red light is truly red. I think I’m explaining this badly, but I think it’s perceivable just by noticing that we don’t experience matter, we experience mind. We define matter like a cartographer maps a territory, but as a matter of experience, both the map and the territory are mental. The best way that I have been able to see what Bernardo sees is just by noticing that matter is the needless postulation of an additional ontological category.
Nah that would be an upgrade. it is the worst version of idealism downstream from Schopenhauer's misreading of Kant. Getting to Hegelian or Schellingian idealism would be a better upgrade.
@@itslightanddark This is all starting from the cartesian dream and unable to figure a way out and giving up. Reduction only works when there is an intelligible account of what is happening. It is the not explaining matter just explaining it way the mirror opposite of what dennett does. Although, i would put dennett in leagues above bernardo since his bottom up account is intricate and compelling.
BK posits quite clearly that mind and mentation are the sole ontological primitive, of which matter appears as a representation of activity in that fundamental mentation.
Very curious how you got "dual aspect monism" out of that.
@@ReflectiveJourney Dennett is a laughingstock even among a growing number of physicalist thinkers. If you call something totally nonsensical and illogical even from a strictly physicalist perspective as "intricate" and "compelling" I'd say that's more a reflection of you.