0:00 Welcome. 2:20 A brief summery of Bernardo’s position. 3:58 What school of economics do you subscribe to and do you think capitalism is sustainable, or is socialism the future of humanity? 6:33 What do you think about super-determinism as a way to preserve physical realism? 10:54 Does analytic idealism allow for free will, in the robust sense of “could have done otherwise if the universe were re-wound”? 15:11 Could the universe have been different? 17:26 When did you discover idealism and what was the pivotal moment when you fully started to believe in it? 23:56 You said that the results of the 2019 experiment of local observer independence scores some big fat brownie points for relational quantum mechanics. If the results are presumably consistent with all the possible interpretations, how does this score points for RQM in particular? 30:26 What's your opinion on Nietzsche's view that God is dead? 39:13 How does analytic idealism explain phantom limb pain? 42:26 How does music fit into your world view? 49:25 What are your thoughts on the relationship between matter and the speed of light and how does that relate to consciousness (mind-at-large)? 58:01 How do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between the dashboard metaphor and the wave/ocean metaphor? 59:44 Does consciousness have a nature in itself that does not appear as a pattern? 1:02:18 Why does Mind-at-Large get excited at all? 1:06:35 Does consciousness (mind-at-large) have subjective experience when it is not excited? 1:13:00 Is core subjectivity consciousness unexcited? 1:13:53 Why don't you also value the insights of the Vedic sages on the existence of reincarnation and the hierarchy of dissociation? 1:17:23 Why don’t you favour a model hierarchy of dissociation when the Hindus and other Eastern faiths seem to favour that kind of model? 1:20:46 What do you think of the people who say that the many-worlds-interpretation is the most parsimonious because it postulates only one kind of thing? 1:26:04 Are you going to have a chat with Eben Alexander? 1:28:07 What do you think of Spinoza’s monism being compatible with analytic idealism? 1:34:21 The misrepresentation of Spinoza reminds me of the people who say that the collective unconscious is biological. 1:36:37 Is a talk between you and Joscha Bach going to happen? 1:39:53 Are you familiar with Iain McGilchrist’s work on the divided brain? 1:40:53 How do the dispositions of the left and right hemispheres fit into analytic idealism? 1:47:38 Does analytic idealism have anything to say, metaphysically, about the concept of enlightenment? 1:48:31 Who is your favourite contemporary philosopher, intellectual, thinker, or personality? 1:51:36 What is the meaning of life, what is it all about? 1:58:03 Is meaning continuous? 2:06:40 Do dream characters have inner life? 2:10:45 What makes the case of rejecting inner life of dream characters different than rejecting solipsism? 2:14:08 Could you steel man physicalism? 2:17:46 What seems to be the physicalist’s resistance to accept something like mind-at-large? 2:23:33 Floki makes an appearance. 2:23:48 Can you be an analytic idealist while holding the view that mind-at-large is meta-cognitive? 2:26:03 Were you aware that in their own times Kant and Fichte (but not Hegel and Schelling) were idealists? 2:30:12 What are your thoughts on recent [correction: 2006] studies on ayahuasca showing increases in brain activity? 2:40:02 How do these researchers account for the fact that the effect sometimes went the other way around? 2:43:10 Is there any difference between human made objects and things that were in MAL before our civilisation began? 2:44:58 Are you familiar with Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe? 2:49:23 Do we construct what we see rather than re-construct it? 2:55:27 Can you elaborate on why in one case the dashboard-of-dials is an accurate extrinsic appearance but in the case of Miller it is not? 2:57:23 Can you answer in Portuguese? 2:57:53 Thank you. Have a good night.
Man I am so grateful that they asked him about music. How is this not postulated more? One of the most profound phenomena that stares us in the face every single day. Thank you!
1:47:38 omg. His answer. I love this guy. How amazing to finally hear my understandings that I struggle to articulate, so succinctly and powerfully worded. That, is enlightenment. "Does analytic idealism have anything to say metaphysically about the concept of enlightenment as seem by Eastern philosophies?" "Enlightenment is probably the first person experience of a significant weakening of the dissociative boundary of an alter. Without completely dissolving that boundary because the dissolution of the boundary is there. So how far can you go in weakening that boundary making pourous and permeable without compromising its viability in other words without dying. If you can do that, the first person experience of that result is probably what we call enlightenment."
Man, for a startup channel you are doing fantastic. Having Hoffman and Kastrup as your first guests is impressive. The questions were great too. I subbed await more good stuff from this channel in the future. 😎
This is an awesome AMA, very enjoyable! It's very helpful of Bernardo to answer these great questions. 2:10:18 Bernardo says the dream characters of people without DID are not conscious. But why should we only attribute consciousness to the dream characters of people with DID? His answer at 2:11:16 is that dream characters aren't consistent and continuous, but it does not seem to follow logically that because dream characters aren't consistent and continuous that therefore they are not conscious. The duration and frequency of a being is not a measure of whether that being is conscious. A being who pops into existence for only 1 minute, yet is still conscious, is still conscious just as the being who came into being for millions of years. Dr. Deirdre Barrett, a psychologist who teaches at Harvard Medical School, notes how this process of the self splitting off into autonomous-looking entities occurs naturally during REM sleep and is normally a REM phenomenon. In her article entitled "The dream character as prototype for the multiple personality alter" she writes: "The physiologic mechanisms for amnesia and the manufacture of alternate identities, and the cognitive and personality processes which operate outside conscious awareness occur during dreaming...At the very least these dream characters who "wake up" make the closest existing normal analogy to MPD, but the REM state also may prove to be the concrete physiologic precursor of MPD. It is the thesis of the present article that these parallels are stronger than those with waking fantasy processes or any other known states of consciousness." Source: psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-40520-001 The mechanism that forms alters is more parallel to the mechanism that forms dream characters than any other state of consciousness we know of. So why attribute consciousness to alters but not dream characters? If the process of dissociation can lead to conscious beings we call alters, then I'm not seeing why a parallel process does not lead to conscious beings in dreams. Especially, if what we call "alters" are actually reducible to dream characters invading the waking state, then any "alter" that is conscious is actually a dream character that is conscious. And if we are alters then we are dream characters, and since we are definitely conscious then some dream characters must be conscious. I also thought that pandaproducts also brought up a good point at 2:10:47 about how the arguments we use to avoid solipsism are the same arguments that apply to dream characters being conscious. If the arguments we use to believe people in waking life are conscious work, then it would seem those same arguments work for people in dreams as well.
Will there be a part 2? I would love for Bernardo to comment on this observation: He mentions that he can’t rule out the possibility of entities existing that we can’t see or interact with as doing so has no bearing on our survival and therefore we haven’t evolved the capability to do so. But if these entities do exist in a different state of dissociation, with their own inner experience, then surely biological organisms that metabolise are not the only image of dissociation from across the dissociative boundary. Therefore if he can’t rule out the possibility of these entities existing, surely he can’t rule out the possibility of private dissociation being achieved with a silicone substrate, which he does. I think Bernardo is incredible and I think his view that artificial intelligence can not become conscious is very reassuring but this seems like a slight contradiction to me. If anyone can help shed some light on this I’d really appreciate it. Thanks
Stock appeal to impartiality. Understandable. His message is analytic idealism, which would be damaged by the can of worms that comes with making political statements.
I know what you mean -- hard to believe he has no strong opinions on that, given his strong opinions on everything else (in one of the "New Thinking Allowed" interviews with Mishlove, Bernardo expounds at length on his natural pugnaciousness, even going so far to admit trolling a retro computing forum at one time telling people that something they did is so stupid!)...just look at him going on about Ukraine in his social media posts, for example. But you're almost certainly correct that he doesn't want to hitch his brand to economics; I find it similar to how he absolutely refuses to admit to even understanding all the fuss over Deepak Chopra, who's been long and widely regarded as a woo-woo New Age charlatan employing pseudoscientidic word salads -- the very sort of public.personslity Bernardo would naturally excoriate otherwise...except for possibly receiving some kind of support from Deepak??? Because it's a real head-scratcher how Bernardo claims total ignorance of the whole controversy over Deepak in a manner reminiscent of a politician disavowing a scandal: "I don't know, I wasn't there, I haven't noticed anything myself"...!
So clear and so well articulated: 1.53.07:" meaning is something that fundamentally transcends space and time,much bigger than a human life,meaning is something that is woven in the fabric of reality of nature itself. It is something that you cannot escape .It is something that is there, whether you know and acknowledge or not. You don't need to see it , you don't need to believe it, you don't need to understand it , you are serving that meaning or that eternal purpose.." A quote of the great Indian sage Sri Ramana Maharshi came in my mind. “the purpose of one’s birth will be fulfilled whether you will it or not.Let the purpose fulfill itself.”
49:47 Ack!!! Y'all forgot that very important second question!!!!! Though I've heard Bernardo answer that one elsewhere somewhere on RUclips, it still would have been most constructive to hear what he would've replied since oftentimes he further expounds on the same topic or approaches an answer in different ways.... Especially interesting would have been if, after answering that second question, someone would then ask him about what Donald Hoffman has said -- since he's said he and Donald agree a hundred percent (though this was in that later AMA on this channel where the two of them are interviewed together) -- about how of we could maybe then "tap in" to Mind at Large (what Hoffman also calls "the realm of conscious agents") and exploit that as a technology to, for instance, possibly travel instantaneously to the other side of the universe since this is all just a headset, a dashboard, a 4D spacetime virtual reality, a 4D graphical user interface desktop...! Don't forget to have him full answer all questions!!! It's actually great that you ask him "advanced" questions and don't waste time going over the basics like most other videos so it's all the more important for him to fully answer everything asked (please)!!
48:47 It was reported years ago that some NYU Professor had conducted a study which found that people who enjoyed loud music such as heavy metal and rap needed the stimulation provided because, it was theorized, they could not be self-excited and would be emotionally dead otherwise. Such people really needed the emotional charge provided by the high decibels as they could not be excited by other means.
Bernado has the answers to many questions in this our reality. I have searched and educated myself for many years. Out of all the modern day philosophers, Bernardo is on the right track.
1:26:45 This is strange as well! Bernardo and Donald Hoffman agree too but it was great seeing the compare and contrast! Sure Donald's focused on math while Bernardo prefers to remain in philosophy (why??? I think he alluded to it during that video but unfortunately again no one presses him on that with a follow-up) but by Bernardo's own Analytic Idealism where Consciousness is dissociating in order to know itself a chat between him and like-minded others would be a similar opportunity to know Analytic Idealism "across a dissociative boundary"...!
1:20:05 Aw man why didn't anyone encourage him to simply speculate further (and not "defend" [or "promote," which is what he really seems to be want to avoid appearing as doing] the Upanishads' hierarchy of reincarnation)...speculation from careful learned people like Bernardo is actually quite informative as well as of course greatly interesting! I find a weird pattern to all these videos on RUclips where no one presses Bernardo very much...and not just him but Donald Hoffman, too -- people ask a question and usually don't follow up on the obvious and even more rarely pursue the matter exhaustively, apparently eager to get in as many questions as possible even if that requires leaving many only mostly but not fully answered.
Bernardo is best when he is using his raw speculative powers, which stems from imagination, which is closer to truth than the empirical method. So when someone asks him about dream characters, Bernardo switched to studies of people with mpd and their dreams. But we can hardly remember our dreams so the explanation Bernardo gives probably isn't Bernardo at his best
We have the free will to impact the evolution of consciousness by imperceptibly affecting the direction of our focus. For example we can move to the right by focusing on the right, causing wave to particle transitions where directed. We have the free will to explore different economic systems by focusing on the logical justification for the ones which best serves the purposes of the audiences which we choose to serve, be it the consumer or the consumed, be it the preacher or the prey.
1:57:33 So Mind was suffering so it naturally dissociated to effectively reduce suffering by coming to know itself??? Is that how it works with Dissociative Identity Disorder, too? I still don't understand why it takes billions of years of repetitive suffering as dissociated alters to... accomplish what, exactly?? What has Mind actually donefor itself in all this time??? This is the most "woo" part of Analytic Idealism for me, where it just feels like copium/hopium...and it's so frustrating no one else seems to find it ridiculous! Seems like everything else Bernardo says appears to be true but this meaning/teleos stuff makes no sense -- and yes it's supposed to be a metaphor but even then it's quite odd. Why doesn't anyone ever ask Bernardo why Mind is so stupid and how much long must it take for Mind to finally stop torturing itself in the form of alters for it to get the memo already!!! Hard to believe Mind is suffering less in the form of just the Ukraine War, never mind something like Man-Love Thursdays in Afghanistan, than it did in its delirium of lonely ignorance, such that Mind shows no signs of ever stopping the dissociation -- indeed, it doesn't know anything despite having all the contents of past dissociations and the experiences thereof!!
And his reply here seems to confuse meaning with goals just like he said most people do at the outset of his reply! Bernardo says that meaning and goals are different but then goes on to postulate that meaning of oru lives is for Mind to know itself, which is telos or purpose (goal-oriented)...sounds really cool at first but upon closer examination it's insufferably disappointing -- "we are a way for the universe to know itself" as Carl Sagan had put it doesn't make my suffering worthwhile to me (yeah sure I'm just an ass with nothing even remotely comparable to what Viktor Frankl had suffered, as he observed in *Man's Search for Meaning* but still, it's mine and I'm not happy with it)...I don't know why people let Bernardo get away with this copium/hopium of an answer; I feel cheated! Physicalist nihilism at least feels "neutral" in comparison...this "we're contributing to Mind's self-knowledge" -- which is to say we're contributing to our own self-knowledge as The One -- is just so lame!!! Mind at Large is nothing more than a cosmic Homer Simpson!!!!!
All that said, what Bernardo describes brings to mind for me how Helen Keller must have felt before her shocking -- and restorative -- epiphany with her teacher Anne Sullivan...the sheer terror of being both blind and deaf yet buffeted by forces one did not understand!!
I am always amazed by how fantastic Bernardo's English is . Discussing these complicated matters in your first language is difficult, so discussing them so eloquently in your second is impressive to say the least . Having said that there is a slight misplaced nuance in something Bernardo says . In the vernacular if you say ' Reality is Mental ' , you are saying that Reality is insane ! Humour hasn't been totally banned in the UK yet , so I found this funny . Of course saying ' Reality is Mental ' is true at both levels - both insane and mental representation . I would humbly suggest that the Buddhist term ' Mind Stuff ' is a better way of describing what appears to be reality . Peace and Love everyone ✌️🕊️
That's just how "the jet set" are -- he was once a senior corporate executive for just about the most important technology company in the world, after all, and this class of modern professionals are well, well versed in many things, not just multiple languages (though much of Europe has had a multilingual heritage, what with all the cultural and linguistic minorities within any given set of borders)...not detracting from his achievement, of course, but for most continental Europeans, especially from a global professional class, it would be considered educational poverty to only know just two languages!
@@davidchou1675 Sadly in England now standards in public education can be so low that many people just have basic literacy in their mother tongue . That might even include the Teachers as well 😂✌️
The bit that doesn't make sense is when he says the ego is free to choose things such as mortgage options, or what to do when you get up in the morning. I think this contradicts the rest of what he says and leaves a lot of explaining such as - why are some things willed by the ego but other things aren't? How do you define this list? Isn't everything the ego thinks it is willing, actually being willed by the cosmic consciousness?
Thank you for this conversation. BK, you are getting much better at dumbing down your explanations. I for one appreciate it. Lol. I’ve been studying NDE experiences and they really support the theory of idealism. The question Re: the “why” of existence is intriguing to me and perhaps quite important for the times we are living in. I’m still learning about how idealism breaks it down to such a simple conclusion. NDEs seem to come back with a simple conclusion…love each other. Potential to experience. Interesting. I am that I am. Subjective experience
1:23:52 I still wouldn't rule out Many Worlds (after all, Bernardo, reality doesn't care as you say so why should ontic parsimony be always so decisive) and it's very, very sad that High Everett appears to have been hounded out of an academic career and even into a possible early death, IIRC, but epistemic parsimony is at the very heart of the Scientific Method -- just going by what's actually known from experiments or, where that's not available, "the math" or theory -- and I puzzle at his sheer disdain...yes it sounds incredible but frankly so does Analytic Idealism at first glance, after all. Indeed, Analytic Idealism (and worse, Donald Hoffman's Conscious Realism) postulates a never-ending excitation of Mind such that there will be a infinite number of experiences/dissociations which could sound like a kind of "many worlds" in itself, only achieved "from the other end!"
I really marvel at Bernardo's pet peeves and pet rocks (he's always going on about how we must stand with Ukraine when he's not talking philosophy or retro computing) because you see how such an intellectually careful guy so easily loses that intellectual care so when his emotions are stirred (which of course is an evolutionary feature, not a bug -- but still). "Reality doesn't care" about ontic parsimony, either -- nor Ukraine, for that matter (if anything, Bernardo should be particularly excised over Boris Johnson scuttling the tentative peace deal last April -- unfair though such a treaty would have been, negotiated at gunpoint [but honestly, what treaty isn't?], it would have most likely prevented a lot of Ukrainian deaths since then) -- and it feels a little close to intellectual dishonesty to appeal to "reality" whenever he disagrees with something since it's not like he knows what's beyond the dashboard either...never mind that his own never-ending excitation of Consciousness is basically a kind of Many Worlds Theory (Many Mind's?) in itself!
I think an important aspect of meta cognition and the explication of meaning is the ability to, what Bernard Lonergan, in his book Insight calls, the Inverse Insight - "question the question." This is exemplified by Einsteins questioning of Newtonian mechanics 300 years later.
Bernardo is a modern “Ramunuja”. Qualified dualism but now Analytical Idealism. The parallels are striking. Check it out! But Bernardo got it through straight science.
If consciousness is excitations, then non-conscious things don't get excited at all, at what point do they get excited? as a single cell? As an organism with a brain? I am very suspicious about a model that is on/off.
I think he says that the line is drawn at metabolism and that is where the dissociation happens in some sense. Things with metabolism have a quality of being, a 'what it's like' to be that.
I predict Kastrup's answer to this would probably be something like: The body is a type/kind of manifestation of Mind, that of matter. That is to say the conscience in the body precedes the body in essence. The body can remain with no issue to the consciousness that would have been working in that body because consciousness is not IN the body merely BOUNDED BY the body. It's not separate from Mind-at-Large and the body because the dissociated self is not severed from Mind-at-Large and neither is the body outside of Mind-at-Large, rather both are merely different expressions of the same "thing" performing it's behaviours. This then connects with the question of "Why is Mind-at-Large excited at all?" and Kastrup answer's this as being a cutoff point where the questions sort of "ceases to make sense". Mind-at-Large simply does the things it does. That is to say in some sense it's behaviour is arbitrary unto itself as it either has pre-defined characteristics that "simply are" or it to some degree "willed itself" to be like it is and there's no real cause-and-effect that could be argued. To clarify: It's not YOUR mind (dissociated-self) that generates your body (that would be solipsism). It's Mind-at-Large's excitations that are read by dissociated-selves (in part) as matter and therefore generative of your body. So even if your consciousness "ceases" your body would not. I hope this helped answer your question.
@@by-kb4wx because you are still you. Your "reach" is that of yourself. To move or create matter with your mind would imply that your agency, therefore your mind, extrapolates your body. The issue there being of course that you wouldn't be you, but a "field of action". To clarify, in analytical idealism you're not generating the world from your mind. Mind-at-Large is all that really exists and your body and mind exist as a process within this Mind. You control your body because this is how this Mind-at-Large works in relationship to the dissociated self and the body of that self. The rules of physics still apply in this framework, so your brain is still the interface between this overarching mind, the "snapshot" that is your dissociated consciousness, and your body. If the body gets destroyed that means the interface is gone. It's like if I break your keyboard you could still type in theory, but there no keys anymore to be typed on.
@@NOCOMPLYE i asked another question later in the direction of what is physicalism's point of contention with (analytical) idealism and if Kastrup would mind "steelmanning" that a bit. I think Kastrup took the way I phrased the question to mean that I was conflating the physicalist position with the idealist one. I had meant it more in the sense of: even physicalism has to presuppose some generative event or substance for the quantum particles and the universe itself. That being the case shouldn't they (physicallists) be at least amenable to the idea that there is something like (even if we don't call it that) a Mind-at-Large? It's all good though. It helped to get a shortened idea of Kastrup's issues with materialism and how he is sort "reading" their arguments.
Physical quantities being relational would not falsify physical realism. Bernardo rejects counterfactual definiteness - this is the hallmark of superdeterminism. Superdeterminism and idealism aren't immediately contradictory (although personally, I lean towards physicalism rather than idealism).
@@AskingAnything I have a question for you: What was your transcendental experience that led you to believe Mind-at-Large is meta- cognitive as opposed to what Bernardo who thinks that it is not?
55:29 I don't understand why Bernardo dismisses this logical consequence of relativity; seems to further support the notion that spacetime is a construct of our own -- "a convenient fiction" as he likes to say of so many other scientific facts, such as the very existence of particles like photons. Why is he so dismissive of this curious conundrum? If this were brought up to Donald Hoffman, he'd nod and say "spacetime is doomed!" but Bernardo just shrugs at what's actually a deeply strange idea.
I mean the notion that we can clock a photon to cover a certain distance over a certain time while it itself experiences neither is so strange because we are then really saying that spacetime doesn't exist for something that exists in spacetime...a bit of an orobouros of a contradiction if nothing else! It's like how black holes are a region of spacetime where spacetime doesn't exist at its centermost point (imagine if I say there's a point in the center of Bernardo where there's no Bernardo)...strange situations like these point to something and his own Analytic Idealism resolves such mysteries so it's puzzling why he shrugged this off. Makes me really wonder why we're on the same wavelength here!
My greatest criticism against BK is that he denies the value of nomen for differentiating things - there is no difference between man made objects and natural phenomena but for some reason biology and metabolism is a valid way to spot different conscious beings. I don't really understand the value of avoiding solipsism like it's the worst thing ever - everything in Idealistic thought _and_ experience itself point that that is the case, but still BK seem to fight for his life to avoid the conclusion. It's a bit perplexing. Solipsism does not entail that you ought to treat every seeming being as cardboard, they are you and if they express conscious life treat them in such a fashion, if they do not - like thermostats - treat them as objects. Sure, you can't really play the philosophical game with the same rigor if you integrate solipsism (every opinion is yours so you're always right/wrong) and I suppose that's why BK can't really admit what his system leads to if you follow it all the way down...
Solipsism is just sort of an unparsimonious theory. Rationally, it does not hold up. Easy to believe, don’t get me wrong, but if you live reality thinking that in the same way you have experience, other beings that look like you DO NOT have experience, then I think that is in inaccurate belief to hold.
@@tdd2427 Ok, things that look like "me" have consciousness but why stop there? Why deny it to rocks and thermostats, they are still in consciousness and again: _Bernardo denies nomen_! There are no different human beings, there are no humanity, nor any biology in his system! Only nature as a grand image of MAL creating the illusion of thought and thereby a world wth multiple things. Without nomen reality is a solipstic experience of the one and only subject which is neither me, you, or anyone else. It just is Itself forever and ever. Either we grant nomen to be a valid way of differentiating things in MAL and sure, then I can accept that metabolism signify a conscious entity - or we don't and then it is solipsism. KASTRUP DOES THE LATTER!! He is not completely honest arguing this way and that is what annoys me..
@@poesiforankor6349 Well, I personally believe that everything in the universe is apart of a dissociation of consciousness. Where Bernardo says only biology is consciousness, I say everything is consciousness. That includes rocks, planets, stars, galaxies, plants, mountains, oceans, clouds, everything. It should be noted that I don't believe these are intelligent beings capable of thinking like a human, but they exist equally on the same plane as everything else. Biology is intelligent, but the universe is still within consciousness.
@Dharma Defender Solipsism follows from all systems since it is the experential truth. We do philosophy because we can't accept the truth but no system ultimately holds up. Kastrup plays a word game where "biology" has the magical role of being the carrier of consciousness. There is no biology and there are no "whirlpools" other than in fantasy. There is only the one subject and It can't be described in terms of the dream it's dreaming.
@@tdd2427 Bernardo does believe that everything is consciousness, but he draws the distinction between life and non-life as to 'what it's like' to be that thing, to have the dissociation of being separate from everything else. This is what he calls an illusion, as there is only one thing in reality.
he uses patching technique too ! the same story ! self concept is what generates consciousness type one and consciousness type two is just a small part of self concept. why they insist on .......... as patching technique !
In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was made flesh. and dwelt among us. and God saw all that he made and saw that it was very good. These bible quotes in combination make more sense now. There is one mind at large, which we are all part of. Perhaps this is why we all wake up to the same basic world. We add our thoughts, experiences, and reflections to it every day. We are eternal. The possibilities of what we can bring into being are near infinite. It seems important therefore, that we are careful what we pay attention to. Important, to keep the sacred in sight, so that the good ( which was there from the beginning ) is not obscured and only horror remains. Horror being a world without good. Good being what we describe as God. The good which from the beginning has dwelt among us. The way, the truth, and the life if you like.
2:05:47 Bernardo keeps saying this stuff about meaning and contributing to God's database (which is to say to our collective memory as The One ourselves, in the aggregate) but why doesn't anyone challenge him on that??? How does he know any of it? What makes him assume such things so confidently? Why does it not sound like the most implausible thing ever, that all this suffering is for the glory of God (Mind/Consciousness/Us)? I mean jeez, who's ever heard of something being less than the sum of its parts! Nature is just so stupid it still doesn't suffering isn't enjoyable after billions of years and keeps alive this universe of scarcity and competition? Why does everyone just accept that? Is it because everyone's simply unwittingly reflecting/manifesting the native stupidity of Nature/Mind/God/Us???
Sim gosto muito dele também, uma pena ele ainda não ter dado nenhuma entrevista em Português para o público de língua Portuguesa que não consegue falar ou entender o Inglês.
@@valterferreirabr Fala Valter! Prazer. Pois é cara... Mas o foda é que ele não tá com o português "afiado" como ele diz no fim dessa entrevista. Eu tenho pretensão de legendar alguns vídeos dele. Na realidade o curso do Idealismo Analítico. Só preciso encontrar um tempo...
@@hitaloaquino6477 Opa tudo bem? Muito Prazer. Se eu não me engano ele cresceu no Rio de Janeiro, eu passei metade da minha vida morando fora do Brasil e uma língua não se perde assim, ele fala Inglês com sotaque brasileiro em muitas palavras. Mas eu respeito a decisão dele de não falar Português e se comunicar nestes Podcasts só em Inglês. Gosto muito dos vídeos dele sobre idealismo analítico e compartilho bastante das suas idéias. Têm vários vídeos dele muito bons no New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove. Bacana você legendar e divulgar estas idéias para o público lusófono. Abraço Hítalo!
It’s kind of funny because he seems to do the same thing with Joscha Bach, who he’s supposedly had a negative/toxic back-and-forth exchange with in the past. I don’t know if Bernardo _really_ hasn’t heard of Langan and the CTMU or if he perhaps just can’t remember, but I think he should get reacquainted with it. I’d love to hear his opinions on it.
0:00 Welcome.
2:20 A brief summery of Bernardo’s position.
3:58 What school of economics do you subscribe to and do you think capitalism is sustainable, or is socialism the future of humanity?
6:33 What do you think about super-determinism as a way to preserve physical realism?
10:54 Does analytic idealism allow for free will, in the robust sense of “could have done otherwise if the universe were re-wound”?
15:11 Could the universe have been different?
17:26 When did you discover idealism and what was the pivotal moment when you fully started to believe in it?
23:56 You said that the results of the 2019 experiment of local observer independence scores some big fat brownie points for relational quantum mechanics. If the results are presumably consistent with all the possible interpretations, how does this score points for RQM in particular?
30:26 What's your opinion on Nietzsche's view that God is dead?
39:13 How does analytic idealism explain phantom limb pain?
42:26 How does music fit into your world view?
49:25 What are your thoughts on the relationship between matter and the speed of light and how does that relate to consciousness (mind-at-large)?
58:01 How do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between the dashboard metaphor and the wave/ocean metaphor?
59:44 Does consciousness have a nature in itself that does not appear as a pattern?
1:02:18 Why does Mind-at-Large get excited at all?
1:06:35 Does consciousness (mind-at-large) have subjective experience when it is not excited?
1:13:00 Is core subjectivity consciousness unexcited?
1:13:53 Why don't you also value the insights of the Vedic sages on the existence of reincarnation and the hierarchy of dissociation?
1:17:23 Why don’t you favour a model hierarchy of dissociation when the Hindus and other Eastern faiths seem to favour that kind of model?
1:20:46 What do you think of the people who say that the many-worlds-interpretation is the most parsimonious because it postulates only one kind of thing?
1:26:04 Are you going to have a chat with Eben Alexander?
1:28:07 What do you think of Spinoza’s monism being compatible with analytic idealism?
1:34:21 The misrepresentation of Spinoza reminds me of the people who say that the collective unconscious is biological.
1:36:37 Is a talk between you and Joscha Bach going to happen?
1:39:53 Are you familiar with Iain McGilchrist’s work on the divided brain?
1:40:53 How do the dispositions of the left and right hemispheres fit into analytic idealism?
1:47:38 Does analytic idealism have anything to say, metaphysically, about the concept of enlightenment?
1:48:31 Who is your favourite contemporary philosopher, intellectual, thinker, or personality?
1:51:36 What is the meaning of life, what is it all about?
1:58:03 Is meaning continuous?
2:06:40 Do dream characters have inner life?
2:10:45 What makes the case of rejecting inner life of dream characters different than rejecting solipsism?
2:14:08 Could you steel man physicalism?
2:17:46 What seems to be the physicalist’s resistance to accept something like mind-at-large?
2:23:33 Floki makes an appearance.
2:23:48 Can you be an analytic idealist while holding the view that mind-at-large is meta-cognitive?
2:26:03 Were you aware that in their own times Kant and Fichte (but not Hegel and Schelling) were idealists?
2:30:12 What are your thoughts on recent [correction: 2006] studies on ayahuasca showing increases in brain activity?
2:40:02 How do these researchers account for the fact that the effect sometimes went the other way around?
2:43:10 Is there any difference between human made objects and things that were in MAL before our civilisation began?
2:44:58 Are you familiar with Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?
2:49:23 Do we construct what we see rather than re-construct it?
2:55:27 Can you elaborate on why in one case the dashboard-of-dials is an accurate extrinsic appearance but in the case of Miller it is not?
2:57:23 Can you answer in Portuguese?
2:57:53 Thank you. Have a good night.
Man I am so grateful that they asked him about music. How is this not postulated more? One of the most profound phenomena that stares us in the face every single day. Thank you!
No one is more dedicated to finding and disseminating the truth to the world than Bernardo. Deserving of the first Nobel Prize of Metaphysics.
To me he definitely deserves a Nobel Prize of Philosophy.
I agree he deserves the first Nobel Prize in metaphysics, but they will never (for now) give it to someone who is not a materialist.
Why does he deserve it more than Saul Kripke, David Lewis, Kit Fine, David Chalmers, or Schaffer, Dasgupta, Sider, etc?
I would say philosophy, certainly.
Agree!!
1:47:38 omg. His answer. I love this guy. How amazing to finally hear my understandings that I struggle to articulate, so succinctly and powerfully worded. That, is enlightenment.
"Does analytic idealism have anything to say metaphysically about the concept of enlightenment as seem by Eastern philosophies?"
"Enlightenment is probably the first person experience of a significant weakening of the dissociative boundary of an alter. Without completely dissolving that boundary because the dissolution of the boundary is there. So how far can you go in weakening that boundary making pourous and permeable without compromising its viability in other words without dying. If you can do that, the first person experience of that result is probably what we call enlightenment."
This person is an absolute freak. Sending me abusive messages and attacking me personally for reasons I have yet to fathom.
@@ElleUzun who?
@@JA-gz6cj their sick abusive comments have been deleted
@@ElleUzun gotcha, thought you meant Bernardo for a second lol
Man, for a startup channel you are doing fantastic. Having Hoffman and Kastrup as your first guests is impressive. The questions were great too. I subbed await more good stuff from this channel in the future. 😎
This is an awesome AMA, very enjoyable! It's very helpful of Bernardo to answer these great questions.
2:10:18 Bernardo says the dream characters of people without DID are not conscious. But why should we only attribute consciousness to the dream characters of people with DID? His answer at 2:11:16 is that dream characters aren't consistent and continuous, but it does not seem to follow logically that because dream characters aren't consistent and continuous that therefore they are not conscious. The duration and frequency of a being is not a measure of whether that being is conscious. A being who pops into existence for only 1 minute, yet is still conscious, is still conscious just as the being who came into being for millions of years. Dr. Deirdre Barrett, a psychologist who teaches at Harvard Medical School, notes how this process of the self splitting off into autonomous-looking entities occurs naturally during REM sleep and is normally a REM phenomenon. In her article entitled "The dream character as prototype for the multiple personality alter" she writes:
"The physiologic mechanisms for amnesia and the manufacture of alternate identities, and the cognitive and personality processes which operate outside conscious awareness occur during dreaming...At the very least these dream characters who "wake up" make the closest existing normal analogy to MPD, but the REM state also may prove to be the concrete physiologic precursor of MPD. It is the thesis of the present article that these parallels are stronger than those with waking fantasy processes or any other known states of consciousness."
Source: psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-40520-001
The mechanism that forms alters is more parallel to the mechanism that forms dream characters than any other state of consciousness we know of. So why attribute consciousness to alters but not dream characters? If the process of dissociation can lead to conscious beings we call alters, then I'm not seeing why a parallel process does not lead to conscious beings in dreams. Especially, if what we call "alters" are actually reducible to dream characters invading the waking state, then any "alter" that is conscious is actually a dream character that is conscious. And if we are alters then we are dream characters, and since we are definitely conscious then some dream characters must be conscious.
I also thought that pandaproducts also brought up a good point at 2:10:47 about how the arguments we use to avoid solipsism are the same arguments that apply to dream characters being conscious. If the arguments we use to believe people in waking life are conscious work, then it would seem those same arguments work for people in dreams as well.
Will there be a part 2? I would love for Bernardo to comment on this observation:
He mentions that he can’t rule out the possibility of entities existing that we can’t see or interact with as doing so has no bearing on our survival and therefore we haven’t evolved the capability to do so. But if these entities do exist in a different state of dissociation, with their own inner experience, then surely biological organisms that metabolise are not the only image of dissociation from across the dissociative boundary. Therefore if he can’t rule out the possibility of these entities existing, surely he can’t rule out the possibility of private dissociation being achieved with a silicone substrate, which he does. I think Bernardo is incredible and I think his view that artificial intelligence can not become conscious is very reassuring but this seems like a slight contradiction to me. If anyone can help shed some light on this I’d really appreciate it. Thanks
I fully appreciate Bernando's thoughtful comment on enconomic systems. Thank you for this.
Stock appeal to impartiality. Understandable. His message is analytic idealism, which would be damaged by the can of worms that comes with making political statements.
I know what you mean -- hard to believe he has no strong opinions on that, given his strong opinions on everything else (in one of the "New Thinking Allowed" interviews with Mishlove, Bernardo expounds at length on his natural pugnaciousness, even going so far to admit trolling a retro computing forum at one time telling people that something they did is so stupid!)...just look at him going on about Ukraine in his social media posts, for example.
But you're almost certainly correct that he doesn't want to hitch his brand to economics; I find it similar to how he absolutely refuses to admit to even understanding all the fuss over Deepak Chopra, who's been long and widely regarded as a woo-woo New Age charlatan employing pseudoscientidic word salads -- the very sort of public.personslity Bernardo would naturally excoriate otherwise...except for possibly receiving some kind of support from Deepak???
Because it's a real head-scratcher how Bernardo claims total ignorance of the whole controversy over Deepak in a manner reminiscent of a politician disavowing a scandal: "I don't know, I wasn't there, I haven't noticed anything myself"...!
This was a great interview. His poignant musing on the universal power of music was unexpectedly touching. Just another reason to love Bernardo.
So clear and so well articulated:
1.53.07:" meaning is something that fundamentally transcends space and time,much bigger than a human life,meaning is something that is woven in the fabric of reality of nature itself. It is something that you cannot escape .It is something that is there, whether you know and acknowledge or not. You don't need to see it , you don't need to believe it, you don't need to understand it , you are serving that meaning or that eternal purpose.."
A quote of the great Indian sage Sri Ramana Maharshi came in my mind.
“the purpose of one’s birth will be fulfilled whether you will it or not.Let the purpose fulfill itself.”
As a musician, I so appreciated BKs intricate explanation of the experience of music. ❤
49:47 Ack!!! Y'all forgot that very important second question!!!!! Though I've heard Bernardo answer that one elsewhere somewhere on RUclips, it still would have been most constructive to hear what he would've replied since oftentimes he further expounds on the same topic or approaches an answer in different ways....
Especially interesting would have been if, after answering that second question, someone would then ask him about what Donald Hoffman has said -- since he's said he and Donald agree a hundred percent (though this was in that later AMA on this channel where the two of them are interviewed together) -- about how of we could maybe then "tap in" to Mind at Large (what Hoffman also calls "the realm of conscious agents") and exploit that as a technology to, for instance, possibly travel instantaneously to the other side of the universe since this is all just a headset, a dashboard, a 4D spacetime virtual reality, a 4D graphical user interface desktop...!
Don't forget to have him full answer all questions!!! It's actually great that you ask him "advanced" questions and don't waste time going over the basics like most other videos so it's all the more important for him to fully answer everything asked (please)!!
This was excellent. Please do more of these with Bernardo.
48:47 It was reported years ago that some NYU Professor had conducted a study which found that people who enjoyed loud music such as heavy metal and rap needed the stimulation provided because, it was theorized, they could not be self-excited and would be emotionally dead otherwise.
Such people really needed the emotional charge provided by the high decibels as they could not be excited by other means.
Bernado has the answers to many questions in this our reality. I have searched and educated myself for many years. Out of all the modern day philosophers, Bernardo is on the right track.
1:26:45 This is strange as well! Bernardo and Donald Hoffman agree too but it was great seeing the compare and contrast! Sure Donald's focused on math while Bernardo prefers to remain in philosophy (why??? I think he alluded to it during that video but unfortunately again no one presses him on that with a follow-up) but by Bernardo's own Analytic Idealism where Consciousness is dissociating in order to know itself a chat between him and like-minded others would be a similar opportunity to know Analytic Idealism "across a dissociative boundary"...!
Love the podcast. The questions are top notch. Thank you and looking forward to see who your next guests will be : )
Fantastic work - subscribed.
1:20:05 Aw man why didn't anyone encourage him to simply speculate further (and not "defend" [or "promote," which is what he really seems to be want to avoid appearing as doing] the Upanishads' hierarchy of reincarnation)...speculation from careful learned people like Bernardo is actually quite informative as well as of course greatly interesting!
I find a weird pattern to all these videos on RUclips where no one presses Bernardo very much...and not just him but Donald Hoffman, too -- people ask a question and usually don't follow up on the obvious and even more rarely pursue the matter exhaustively, apparently eager to get in as many questions as possible even if that requires leaving many only mostly but not fully answered.
Bernardo is amazing! Thanks from Brazil.
Bernardo's born in Brazil and he and his mother speak Portuguese!
Thank you for the incredible conversation. Is there ever going to be another AMA with Bernardo? I would love to ask him a question.
@@AskingAnything Oh yeah!! Thank you :)
Very interesting stream/AMA, ty for sharing!
2:44:09 Wait a minute -- if a paramecium has "a private life," then would all our individual cells as well???
Loved this one, great job! :)
Bernardo is best when he is using his raw speculative powers, which stems from imagination, which is closer to truth than the empirical method. So when someone asks him about dream characters, Bernardo switched to studies of people with mpd and their dreams. But we can hardly remember our dreams so the explanation Bernardo gives probably isn't Bernardo at his best
At about the fifty-six minute mark, Bernardo talked about a physicist/meditation teacher named Peter. I believe he was referring to Peter Russell.
13:18 this argument is brilliant. I have no choice but to accept it.
We have the free will to impact the evolution of consciousness by imperceptibly affecting the direction of our focus. For example we can move to the right by focusing on the right, causing wave to particle transitions where directed. We have the free will to explore different economic systems by focusing on the logical justification for the ones which best serves the purposes of the audiences which we choose to serve, be it the consumer or the consumed, be it the preacher or the prey.
1:45:48 I lol’d at Bernardo’s impression of the “brave materialists”
1:57:33 So Mind was suffering so it naturally dissociated to effectively reduce suffering by coming to know itself???
Is that how it works with Dissociative Identity Disorder, too?
I still don't understand why it takes billions of years of repetitive suffering as dissociated alters to... accomplish what, exactly?? What has Mind actually donefor itself in all this time???
This is the most "woo" part of Analytic Idealism for me, where it just feels like copium/hopium...and it's so frustrating no one else seems to find it ridiculous!
Seems like everything else Bernardo says appears to be true but this meaning/teleos stuff makes no sense -- and yes it's supposed to be a metaphor but even then it's quite odd. Why doesn't anyone ever ask Bernardo why Mind is so stupid and how much long must it take for Mind to finally stop torturing itself in the form of alters for it to get the memo already!!!
Hard to believe Mind is suffering less in the form of just the Ukraine War, never mind something like Man-Love Thursdays in Afghanistan, than it did in its delirium of lonely ignorance, such that Mind shows no signs of ever stopping the dissociation -- indeed, it doesn't know anything despite having all the contents of past dissociations and the experiences thereof!!
And his reply here seems to confuse meaning with goals just like he said most people do at the outset of his reply!
Bernardo says that meaning and goals are different but then goes on to postulate that meaning of oru lives is for Mind to know itself, which is telos or purpose (goal-oriented)...sounds really cool at first but upon closer examination it's insufferably disappointing -- "we are a way for the universe to know itself" as Carl Sagan had put it doesn't make my suffering worthwhile to me (yeah sure I'm just an ass with nothing even remotely comparable to what Viktor Frankl had suffered, as he observed in *Man's Search for Meaning* but still, it's mine and I'm not happy with it)...I don't know why people let Bernardo get away with this copium/hopium of an answer; I feel cheated!
Physicalist nihilism at least feels "neutral" in comparison...this "we're contributing to Mind's self-knowledge" -- which is to say we're contributing to our own self-knowledge as The One -- is just so lame!!!
Mind at Large is nothing more than a cosmic Homer Simpson!!!!!
All that said, what Bernardo describes brings to mind for me how Helen Keller must have felt before her shocking -- and restorative -- epiphany with her teacher Anne Sullivan...the sheer terror of being both blind and deaf yet buffeted by forces one did not understand!!
I am always amazed by how fantastic Bernardo's English is . Discussing these complicated matters in your first language is difficult, so discussing them so eloquently in your second is impressive to say the least . Having said that there is a slight misplaced nuance in something Bernardo says . In the vernacular if you say ' Reality is Mental ' , you are saying that Reality is insane ! Humour hasn't been totally banned in the UK yet , so I found this funny . Of course saying ' Reality is Mental ' is true at both levels - both insane and mental representation . I would humbly suggest that the Buddhist term ' Mind Stuff ' is a better way of describing what appears to be reality . Peace and Love everyone ✌️🕊️
I've read that Bernardo speaks 3 or 4 languages, and that English is his 3rd, so it's even more impressive!
@@Wolf-ey8nr Humbling indeed to say the least !
That's just how "the jet set" are -- he was once a senior corporate executive for just about the most important technology company in the world, after all, and this class of modern professionals are well, well versed in many things, not just multiple languages (though much of Europe has had a multilingual heritage, what with all the cultural and linguistic minorities within any given set of borders)...not detracting from his achievement, of course, but for most continental Europeans, especially from a global professional class, it would be considered educational poverty to only know just two languages!
@@davidchou1675 Sadly in England now standards in public education can be so low that many people just have basic literacy in their mother tongue . That might even include the Teachers as well 😂✌️
Bravo Bernardo 😊
The bit that doesn't make sense is when he says the ego is free to choose things such as mortgage options, or what to do when you get up in the morning. I think this contradicts the rest of what he says and leaves a lot of explaining such as - why are some things willed by the ego but other things aren't? How do you define this list? Isn't everything the ego thinks it is willing, actually being willed by the cosmic consciousness?
Thanks so much!!
Thank you for this conversation. BK, you are getting much better at dumbing down your explanations. I for one appreciate it. Lol. I’ve been studying NDE experiences and they really support the theory of idealism. The question Re: the “why” of existence is intriguing to me and perhaps quite important for the times we are living in. I’m still learning about how idealism breaks it down to such a simple conclusion. NDEs seem to come back with a simple conclusion…love each other. Potential to experience. Interesting. I am that I am. Subjective experience
1:23:52 I still wouldn't rule out Many Worlds (after all, Bernardo, reality doesn't care as you say so why should ontic parsimony be always so decisive) and it's very, very sad that High Everett appears to have been hounded out of an academic career and even into a possible early death, IIRC, but epistemic parsimony is at the very heart of the Scientific Method -- just going by what's actually known from experiments or, where that's not available, "the math" or theory -- and I puzzle at his sheer disdain...yes it sounds incredible but frankly so does Analytic Idealism at first glance, after all.
Indeed, Analytic Idealism (and worse, Donald Hoffman's Conscious Realism) postulates a never-ending excitation of Mind such that there will be a infinite number of experiences/dissociations which could sound like a kind of "many worlds" in itself, only achieved "from the other end!"
I really marvel at Bernardo's pet peeves and pet rocks (he's always going on about how we must stand with Ukraine when he's not talking philosophy or retro computing) because you see how such an intellectually careful guy so easily loses that intellectual care so when his emotions are stirred (which of course is an evolutionary feature, not a bug -- but still).
"Reality doesn't care" about ontic parsimony, either -- nor Ukraine, for that matter (if anything, Bernardo should be particularly excised over Boris Johnson scuttling the tentative peace deal last April -- unfair though such a treaty would have been, negotiated at gunpoint [but honestly, what treaty isn't?], it would have most likely prevented a lot of Ukrainian deaths since then) -- and it feels a little close to intellectual dishonesty to appeal to "reality" whenever he disagrees with something since it's not like he knows what's beyond the dashboard either...never mind that his own never-ending excitation of Consciousness is basically a kind of Many Worlds Theory (Many Mind's?) in itself!
I think an important aspect of meta cognition and the explication of meaning is the ability to, what Bernard Lonergan, in his book Insight calls, the Inverse Insight - "question the question." This is exemplified by Einsteins questioning of Newtonian mechanics 300 years later.
Langan refers to an email exchange with Bernardo at this point in Curt’s ToE podcast: t.co/3ieH29AvwM
Juicyyyy!!!
Bernardo is a modern “Ramunuja”. Qualified dualism but now Analytical Idealism. The parallels are striking. Check it out! But Bernardo got it through straight science.
If consciousness is excitations, then non-conscious things don't get excited at all, at what point do they get excited? as a single cell? As an organism with a brain? I am very suspicious about a model that is on/off.
I think he says that the line is drawn at metabolism and that is where the dissociation happens in some sense. Things with metabolism have a quality of being, a 'what it's like' to be that.
When the mind at large says "papers please". ... what does that mean ?
when some one dies,why the body remain for some time,even years if kept in a ice coffin?
I predict Kastrup's answer to this would probably be something like: The body is a type/kind of manifestation of Mind, that of matter. That is to say the conscience in the body precedes the body in essence. The body can remain with no issue to the consciousness that would have been working in that body because consciousness is not IN the body merely BOUNDED BY the body. It's not separate from Mind-at-Large and the body because the dissociated self is not severed from Mind-at-Large and neither is the body outside of Mind-at-Large, rather both are merely different expressions of the same "thing" performing it's behaviours. This then connects with the question of "Why is Mind-at-Large excited at all?" and Kastrup answer's this as being a cutoff point where the questions sort of "ceases to make sense". Mind-at-Large simply does the things it does. That is to say in some sense it's behaviour is arbitrary unto itself as it either has pre-defined characteristics that "simply are" or it to some degree "willed itself" to be like it is and there's no real cause-and-effect that could be argued.
To clarify: It's not YOUR mind (dissociated-self) that generates your body (that would be solipsism). It's Mind-at-Large's excitations that are read by dissociated-selves (in part) as matter and therefore generative of your body. So even if your consciousness "ceases" your body would not.
I hope this helped answer your question.
@@thefakegarbageman my body is defferent from other matter, I can control my body,but I can not control outer matter,why?
@@by-kb4wx because you are still you. Your "reach" is that of yourself. To move or create matter with your mind would imply that your agency, therefore your mind, extrapolates your body. The issue there being of course that you wouldn't be you, but a "field of action". To clarify, in analytical idealism you're not generating the world from your mind. Mind-at-Large is all that really exists and your body and mind exist as a process within this Mind. You control your body because this is how this Mind-at-Large works in relationship to the dissociated self and the body of that self. The rules of physics still apply in this framework, so your brain is still the interface between this overarching mind, the "snapshot" that is your dissociated consciousness, and your body. If the body gets destroyed that means the interface is gone. It's like if I break your keyboard you could still type in theory, but there no keys anymore to be typed on.
@@NOCOMPLYE that was indeed me embarrassing myself in front of an audience.
@@NOCOMPLYE i asked another question later in the direction of what is physicalism's point of contention with (analytical) idealism and if Kastrup would mind "steelmanning" that a bit. I think Kastrup took the way I phrased the question to mean that I was conflating the physicalist position with the idealist one. I had meant it more in the sense of: even physicalism has to presuppose some generative event or substance for the quantum particles and the universe itself. That being the case shouldn't they (physicallists) be at least amenable to the idea that there is something like (even if we don't call it that) a Mind-at-Large? It's all good though. It helped to get a shortened idea of Kastrup's issues with materialism and how he is sort "reading" their arguments.
Physical quantities being relational would not falsify physical realism.
Bernardo rejects counterfactual definiteness - this is the hallmark of superdeterminism. Superdeterminism and idealism aren't immediately contradictory (although personally, I lean towards physicalism rather than idealism).
How do we participate in this I have a question for Bernardo.
@@AskingAnything I have a question for you: What was your transcendental experience that led you to believe Mind-at-Large is meta- cognitive as opposed to what Bernardo who thinks that it is not?
Listen to song Vagues from French band La Femme. Magic music with inherent harmonics. And Echoes Pink Floyd.
55:29 I don't understand why Bernardo dismisses this logical consequence of relativity; seems to further support the notion that spacetime is a construct of our own -- "a convenient fiction" as he likes to say of so many other scientific facts, such as the very existence of particles like photons.
Why is he so dismissive of this curious conundrum? If this were brought up to Donald Hoffman, he'd nod and say "spacetime is doomed!" but Bernardo just shrugs at what's actually a deeply strange idea.
I mean the notion that we can clock a photon to cover a certain distance over a certain time while it itself experiences neither is so strange because we are then really saying that spacetime doesn't exist for something that exists in spacetime...a bit of an orobouros of a contradiction if nothing else!
It's like how black holes are a region of spacetime where spacetime doesn't exist at its centermost point (imagine if I say there's a point in the center of Bernardo where there's no Bernardo)...strange situations like these point to something and his own Analytic Idealism resolves such mysteries so it's puzzling why he shrugged this off.
Makes me really wonder why we're on the same wavelength here!
"Why we're NOT on the same...."
Thou Art That, Brahman ❤️
I think we meet reality halfway, via a cocktail of paradoxical hallucinogens produced within
So how could a thing that really does not exist even have anxiety?
For those who haven't seen Bernardo's latest interview here is the link: ruclips.net/video/exbn0Dlu9ts/видео.html
Thank you 🙏
Isn't Nietzsche's superman Bernardo Kastrup? Or is he just an oracle? :)
My greatest criticism against BK is that he denies the value of nomen for differentiating things - there is no difference between man made objects and natural phenomena but for some reason biology and metabolism is a valid way to spot different conscious beings. I don't really understand the value of avoiding solipsism like it's the worst thing ever - everything in Idealistic thought _and_ experience itself point that that is the case, but still BK seem to fight for his life to avoid the conclusion. It's a bit perplexing. Solipsism does not entail that you ought to treat every seeming being as cardboard, they are you and if they express conscious life treat them in such a fashion, if they do not - like thermostats - treat them as objects.
Sure, you can't really play the philosophical game with the same rigor if you integrate solipsism (every opinion is yours so you're always right/wrong) and I suppose that's why BK can't really admit what his system leads to if you follow it all the way down...
Solipsism is just sort of an unparsimonious theory. Rationally, it does not hold up. Easy to believe, don’t get me wrong, but if you live reality thinking that in the same way you have experience, other beings that look like you DO NOT have experience, then I think that is in inaccurate belief to hold.
@@tdd2427 Ok, things that look like "me" have consciousness but why stop there? Why deny it to rocks and thermostats, they are still in consciousness and again: _Bernardo denies nomen_! There are no different human beings, there are no humanity, nor any biology in his system! Only nature as a grand image of MAL creating the illusion of thought and thereby a world wth multiple things. Without nomen reality is a solipstic experience of the one and only subject which is neither me, you, or anyone else. It just is Itself forever and ever.
Either we grant nomen to be a valid way of differentiating things in MAL and sure, then I can accept that metabolism signify a conscious entity - or we don't and then it is solipsism. KASTRUP DOES THE LATTER!! He is not completely honest arguing this way and that is what annoys me..
@@poesiforankor6349 Well, I personally believe that everything in the universe is apart of a dissociation of consciousness. Where Bernardo says only biology is consciousness, I say everything is consciousness. That includes rocks, planets, stars, galaxies, plants, mountains, oceans, clouds, everything. It should be noted that I don't believe these are intelligent beings capable of thinking like a human, but they exist equally on the same plane as everything else. Biology is intelligent, but the universe is still within consciousness.
@Dharma Defender Solipsism follows from all systems since it is the experential truth. We do philosophy because we can't accept the truth but no system ultimately holds up.
Kastrup plays a word game where "biology" has the magical role of being the carrier of consciousness. There is no biology and there are no "whirlpools" other than in fantasy. There is only the one subject and It can't be described in terms of the dream it's dreaming.
@@tdd2427 Bernardo does believe that everything is consciousness, but he draws the distinction between life and non-life as to 'what it's like' to be that thing, to have the dissociation of being separate from everything else. This is what he calls an illusion, as there is only one thing in reality.
he uses patching technique too ! the same story ! self concept is what generates consciousness type one and consciousness type two is just a small part of self concept.
why they insist on .......... as patching technique !
In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was made flesh. and dwelt among us.
and
God saw all that he made and saw that it was very good.
These bible quotes in combination make more sense now.
There is one mind at large, which we are all part of.
Perhaps this is why we all wake up to the same basic world. We add our thoughts, experiences, and reflections to it every day. We are eternal. The possibilities of what we can bring into being are near infinite.
It seems important therefore, that we are careful what we pay attention to. Important, to keep the sacred in sight, so that the good ( which was there from the beginning ) is not obscured and only horror remains. Horror being a world without good.
Good being what we describe as God. The good which from the beginning has dwelt among us.
The way, the truth, and the life if you like.
2:05:47 Bernardo keeps saying this stuff about meaning and contributing to God's database (which is to say to our collective memory as The One ourselves, in the aggregate) but why doesn't anyone challenge him on that???
How does he know any of it? What makes him assume such things so confidently? Why does it not sound like the most implausible thing ever, that all this suffering is for the glory of God (Mind/Consciousness/Us)?
I mean jeez, who's ever heard of something being less than the sum of its parts! Nature is just so stupid it still doesn't suffering isn't enjoyable after billions of years and keeps alive this universe of scarcity and competition?
Why does everyone just accept that? Is it because everyone's simply unwittingly reflecting/manifesting the native stupidity of Nature/Mind/God/Us???
Bernardo é FODA!
Sim gosto muito dele também, uma pena ele ainda não ter dado nenhuma entrevista em Português para o público de língua Portuguesa que não consegue falar ou entender o Inglês.
@@valterferreirabr Fala Valter! Prazer. Pois é cara... Mas o foda é que ele não tá com o português "afiado" como ele diz no fim dessa entrevista. Eu tenho pretensão de legendar alguns vídeos dele. Na realidade o curso do Idealismo Analítico. Só preciso encontrar um tempo...
@@hitaloaquino6477 Opa tudo bem? Muito Prazer. Se eu não me engano ele cresceu no Rio de Janeiro, eu passei metade da minha vida morando fora do Brasil e uma língua não se perde assim, ele fala Inglês com sotaque brasileiro em muitas palavras. Mas eu respeito a decisão dele de não falar Português e se comunicar nestes Podcasts só em Inglês. Gosto muito dos vídeos dele sobre idealismo analítico e compartilho bastante das suas idéias. Têm vários vídeos dele muito bons no New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove. Bacana você legendar e divulgar estas idéias para o público lusófono. Abraço Hítalo!
Bearing in mind that "capitalism" was coined by Marx and to accept his framing is, more or less, begging the question.
Tinha que ser um br pra estragar tudo...
👍
🙏🙏🙏
Tinha que ser um br pra passar vegonha na frente de todo o mundo
Nietzche is talking about the Demiurge the god of the OT. Bernardo needs to brush up on his Gnosticism.
This unpleasant and boring guy is talking about physics without any deeper knowledge.
these hosts are not so bright
Pah! Dismal. Could have at least have had the temerity to admit he had clearly heard of Mr. Langan's (better) metaphysical theory. Poor show, Bernard.
Come off it.
It’s kind of funny because he seems to do the same thing with Joscha Bach, who he’s supposedly had a negative/toxic back-and-forth exchange with in the past. I don’t know if Bernardo _really_ hasn’t heard of Langan and the CTMU or if he perhaps just can’t remember, but I think he should get reacquainted with it. I’d love to hear his opinions on it.
Here’s Chris Langan on Curt’s Theory of Everything podcast: overcast.fm/+d3_zy4DV0