Someone's typing in the background! Why does the interviewer spend so much time talking at length himself? Curious. Wonderful to hear this exceptional mind talk in such a way that this 78 year old woman with a stroke can follow for hours on end. Thankyou Bernardo Kastrup.
55:30 Rick said : “It may feel different for me and you and the fish…” Not sure why but this had me roaring with laughter. I heard a fish saying “Speak for yourself!”
My subjective experience changed when I took a substance, but it seemed to come more from an observation of the effects of that substance than from the substance itself. But subjective experiences change the objective appearance of things. My experience changed a whole level for me: language itself I saw as the creator of things and I was the space in which all conceptualisation took place. Although it is an event that changed me completely, after long years I have moved back to a more primitive state, though I move involuntarily in and out of that understanding, and it sits at the back of my mind somewhere at all times. The exception being where strong emotions become involved - which I find fascinating.
***** I think we should allow for the limits and convention of language here. Clearly all experience is had in consciousness - our world is determined conceptually. But is there more than one space in which we appear to exist? Is the space inside a room separate from the space outside of it? In this analogy the objects within the room can be seen as the contents of mind. The walls are an assumption defined by ownership of the objects in narrative relationship. The body is the central dream image on which a sense of separation is built. But consider whether thoughts are self-created or not. We are conditioned abstractions - products of thought systems we have learned. In a purely material conception of life this is clearly the case. We do not, nor can we, stand apart in reality. The sense of self is formed of the content of mind (all of which is non self-created), whereas the witnessing consciousness, that is its light, stands independent of all content that seems to come and go. Is there more than one life?
Question at 59:10 should not be attempted with words, then the while exercise becomes self defeating, that's the whole journey about. It's like describing a destination without taking the journey.
Stephen Kirby Did Bernardo say he is a Buddhist? I don't think he's a practicing Buddhist. Dr. Kastrup is a computer scientist who spent decades on the cutting edge of AI development, studying the hard problem. The insights he gained eventually compelled him to make new and original contributions to philosophy and ontology. Bernardo's singular solution to idealism is something I understand. But I am confused about the details Rick's cosmology. Are you guys in the same sect or practice? I wish to understand, but it seems there's many different schools of Buddhism. ;0)
Stephen Kirby I couldn't disagree with anything you've shared here. I want to hear your considered insight on the matter, and I think it belongs in this public comment thread. However, If you'd prefer to share via email, I'm jackpassmore@gmail.mail- Thanks for the reply, and happy hunting to you Stephen
Great ideas and a fascinating, complete "model" of reality. If I am allowed a little critic, I have the feeling that sometimes Rick lets his interviews become a comparison between his own Vedic parameters and whatever model the interviewee is exposing. This is not really necessary, in my opinion.
A lot to say about all this. I have not read the book, and don't know if I will get the chance unless I can find one on-line. I see his point of view, very well. I will make a video soon about this. I don't see it as a school, or lab, though the lab may be a better view, but as a game in that All That Is has to do something in eternity. Here we come to the limitations of our in time human view.
The interviewer is far too wrapped up in his own ideas that he doesn't allow space enough to let the conversation to explore the depth it potentially could have. Very annoying! Many times Bernado was in the middle of explaining something and this guy comes in with his own agenda and drowns out any possibility to have a conversation not based on his own prejudices and ideas. On top of that - the clicking while Bernado is talking! very disrespectful! - He appears to be full of spiritual ego which I find thoroughly frustrating.
+Blue Lotus yea i was very upset with ricks interuptions, alot of times i felt like bernardo was about to say somthing i would really like to hear and then hear comes rick.. and if that was rick clicking his pen i agree very unprofecional
Yeah I tend to disagree with that actually what I think is blah blah blah stuff I can't really make sense of myself blah blah blah trying to sound intellectual blah blah blah I'm spiritually better than anyone blah blah bladhiblah
+Mind Mix Hey, how come no one told me about this bevy of groupies? I've been missing out. Anyway, I think Bernardo is wonderful. We spent some time together in October at the SAND conference and I moderated a panel discussion he was part of. I hope to interview him again later this year. He may have a thing or two to learn from me, but I've got a lot more to learn from him.
+Blue Lotus You've been unfair n your comment with regard to Rick's so-called interruptons. He maybe interrupted teh intrviewee once or twice during the whole video. Not a big deal in an interview that lasts more than 2 hours
On a new birth of philosophy from the ashes of materialism Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. This doctrine in its modern form seems to have originated from the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment, and from the writings of Voltaire and others seems to have become established in western thinking together with the secularization of society and its opposition to the power of the Church. The critical turn of thinking appears to have been due to an incompleteness in the metaphysics of Descartes. Descartes, for all of his originality and brilliance, overlooked the integration of mind and body, as noted by Leibniz, by dividing reality into two completely distinct realms, one of extension (the body) and one of mind, which is non-extended. This worked out well in practice, by accomodating Newton's new mechanics, since his mechanics only apparently dealt with the physical world, and freed science from dealing with mind (and divinity) by simply ignoring it. Today, with the advent of quantum mechanics, we know that this is not true, for quanta are mental, not physical, since they are not independently in spacetime. In materialistic thinking, the mind is a product of the brain and controlled by it. This however cannot explain intentional acts, which originate in mind. It also allows materialistic thinkers to ignore concepts such as the soul or divinity, giving justification for secularism, and opening up the possibility of dialectical materialism. Leibniz pointed out that matter, since causality must be mental and not physical (since there are no such physical entities as momentum, for example) must have some mental correspondent. Leibniz called this mental correspondent the monad. An example of a monad is a quantum. Another serious problem with materialism is that physical entities in spacetime are contingent, meaning that they are not permanent and fixed, as Bertrand Russell thought they were in his theory of descriptions. They are thus poor, ephemeral referents, since they both move and continually change. An example of a possible correction to materialism is given below, although obviously others might be able to do better. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The three levels of reality in platonic physics FIRSTNESS -FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin. SECONDNESS - SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) ental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." Some of these objects, such as ideas, or mathematics, are not monads, since they have no corresponding physical bodies. According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz: a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle). b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect. c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind. The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming. Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH. This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions. Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this. Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion. THIRDNESS - THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form. 3. Conclusions This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
*Roughly a 1.5 on the -4 to +4 scale* _(for explanation and disclaimers please see the end of the comment)_ Wishful theistic thinking meets intelligent speculative philosopher ! Really has nothing to do with the by Rick stated purpose of the channel. But it might be entertaining for satsang aficionados if they are philosophical newbies. At least they heard of an important book: Chalmers "The Conscious Mind" - or a central term of that book: "the hard [body-mind] problem". Rick clings tenaciously to his Wilberian (that is really Hegelian) cosmic evolution myth, that Auschwitz and the like will have been good after all, and he is decidedly horrified by the proposition that Kastrup's god may in fact be a totally unreflective natural process without the slightest reflective consciousness and hence without any conscience - which in the light of the nature of existence is rather plausible. And so a lot of time is wasted on Rick's dogmatic reiteration of his fairy world. Thoughts contrary to that may not be seriously entertained even for purposes of alternative, experimental consideration, and that is inconsistent with choosing a philosopher as interviewee. In philosophy, there is to be no such fishing for confirmation of one's cherished world view. But the interview was ok for the sake of what Kastrup could express despite Rick's missionary zeal. _About the rating: anything below and including +1 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +3 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +3-3.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 3.0 ratings as a matter of principle._ *General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
Before I even listen into this, one thing: please stop swapping interviewees with Alex Tsakiris and Skeptiko. And a second thing: please leave purely philosophical interviews (not sure if this will be one) to philosophically trained interviewers.
This interviewer is not much better than a Bible-thumping Christian. He believes ancient books, valuable and illuminating as they may be, are the ultimate authority on the nature of reality. Think for yourself.
The first two questions are basically what religion are you and have u ever looked into my religion. Not surprising since first word in channel name. Typical zeal of the convert. Good answer - searching for truth so why lock yourself into a system, category, foreign cultural tradition
The 'faint remains of ignorance', huh?...There is either ignorance, or there isn't....Given that the totality of consciousness is all mind: if there is such a thing as 'realization': it's essence is not an experience, whether temporary or permanent; it's the realization of something (about the fundamental nature of 'reality') by the (finite) conscious mind of a particular individual....Thus: if you are on the 'path of Knowledge' - this means gaining knowledge in its ordinarily understood sense......I can't see how Mysticism, which would appear to consist of searching after an experience which it's impossible to have and/or, Rick-like, to interminably quote (as if it were knowledge) the unsupported assertions of this or that authority (which have not, of course, delivered the goods to Rick) would help. On the contrary, that whole process, broadly speaking, is the ENEMY of truth. And, as we see both presently and from history: the promoter of bullshit and all manner of other unpleasantness.....Naturally. Mysticism will kick and scream as it is gradually throttled by the rise of he scientific method (and, indeed, as it is foiled in its attempt, virus-like, to masquerade as science). But this time it will scream in vain. Thank God!....... As for 'Adyashanti' - his first task is to find out why he's using a stoopId name with whIch he (presumably) wasn't born - and then take it from there.
Bernardo may be interested in the theories of Riccardo Manzotti who has a hypothesis that the mind is not inside the body but a process involving the external world (something like that ;)). Check out his site he has some pretty cool cartoons on "perception, AI, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind".
Someone's typing in the background! Why does the interviewer spend so much time talking at length himself? Curious. Wonderful to hear this exceptional mind talk in such a way that this 78 year old woman with a stroke can follow for hours on end. Thankyou Bernardo Kastrup.
One of the best interviews. Thanks Rick
55:30 Rick said : “It may feel different for me and you and the fish…” Not sure why but this had me roaring with laughter. I heard a fish saying “Speak for yourself!”
This interview was A..mazing!! Loved it!! Thanks for all you do Rick :-)
Nice interview!!!
Amazing interview Rick, just amazing!
Oh god, right from the beginning its all about the interviewer. Looking for a convert, pushing his opinion, even tapping away while he spoke.
My subjective experience changed when I took a substance, but it seemed to come more from an observation of the effects of that substance than from the substance itself. But subjective experiences change the objective appearance of things. My experience changed a whole level for me: language itself I saw as the creator of things and I was the space in which all conceptualisation took place. Although it is an event that changed me completely, after long years I have moved back to a more primitive state, though I move involuntarily in and out of that understanding, and it sits at the back of my mind somewhere at all times. The exception being where strong emotions become involved - which I find fascinating.
***** I think we should allow for the limits and convention of language here. Clearly all experience is had in consciousness - our world is determined conceptually. But is there more than one space in which we appear to exist? Is the space inside a room separate from the space outside of it? In this analogy the objects within the room can be seen as the contents of mind. The walls are an assumption defined by ownership of the objects in narrative relationship. The body is the central dream image on which a sense of separation is built. But consider whether thoughts are self-created or not. We are conditioned abstractions - products of thought systems we have learned. In a purely material conception of life this is clearly the case. We do not, nor can we, stand apart in reality. The sense of self is formed of the content of mind (all of which is non self-created), whereas the witnessing consciousness, that is its light, stands independent of all content that seems to come and go. Is there more than one life?
thanks for sharing nice interview
Great ideas but wish you would let have guest speak more of his ideas without interruption... And clarifications by Rick
incredible stuff!
Question at 59:10 should not be attempted with words, then the while exercise becomes self defeating, that's the whole journey about. It's like describing a destination without taking the journey.
Brilliant!!
Phenomenal! .., and beyond ;)
Love it!!!
Bernardo may just be the most --likable-- lovable PhD on the planet.
Stephen Kirby
Did Bernardo say he is a Buddhist?
I don't think he's a practicing Buddhist. Dr. Kastrup is a computer scientist who spent decades on the cutting edge of AI development, studying the hard problem. The insights he gained eventually compelled him to make new and original contributions to philosophy and ontology.
Bernardo's singular solution to idealism is something I understand. But I am confused about the details Rick's cosmology.
Are you guys in the same sect or practice? I wish to understand, but it seems there's many different schools of Buddhism. ;0)
Stephen Kirby
I couldn't disagree with anything you've shared here.
I want to hear your considered insight on the matter, and I think it belongs in this public comment thread.
However, If you'd prefer to share via email, I'm jackpassmore@gmail.mail-
Thanks for the reply, and happy hunting to you Stephen
Stephen Kirby
sorry... gmail.com
I'm a bit tired... :0)
Great ideas and a fascinating, complete "model" of reality.
If I am allowed a little critic, I have the feeling that sometimes Rick lets his interviews become a comparison between his own Vedic parameters and whatever model the interviewee is exposing. This is not really necessary, in my opinion.
A lot to say about all this. I have not read the book, and don't know if I will get the chance unless I can find one on-line. I see his point of view, very well. I will make a video soon about this. I don't see it as a school, or lab, though the lab may be a better view, but as a game in that All That Is has to do something in eternity. Here we come to the limitations of our in time human view.
My new fave.
30:00 - "a glass of water" is a conceptual thing, so of course it is the stuff of consciousness.
Rick.. You need help with that MMORPGing over there..
The interviewer is far too wrapped up in his own ideas that he doesn't allow space enough to let the conversation to explore the depth it potentially could have. Very annoying! Many times Bernado was in the middle of explaining something and this guy comes in with his own agenda and drowns out any possibility to have a conversation not based on his own prejudices and ideas. On top of that - the clicking while Bernado is talking! very disrespectful! - He appears to be full of spiritual ego which I find thoroughly frustrating.
+Blue Lotus yea i was very upset with ricks interuptions, alot of times i felt like bernardo was about to say somthing i would really like to hear and then hear comes rick.. and if that was rick clicking his pen i agree very unprofecional
Yeah I tend to disagree with that actually what I think is blah blah blah stuff I can't really make sense of myself blah blah blah trying to sound intellectual blah blah blah I'm spiritually better than anyone blah blah bladhiblah
+Mind Mix Hey, how come no one told me about this bevy of groupies? I've been missing out. Anyway, I think Bernardo is wonderful. We spent some time together in October at the SAND conference and I moderated a panel discussion he was part of. I hope to interview him again later this year. He may have a thing or two to learn from me, but I've got a lot more to learn from him.
+Blue Lotus You've been unfair n your comment with regard to Rick's so-called interruptons. He maybe interrupted teh intrviewee once or twice during the whole video. Not a big deal in an interview that lasts more than 2 hours
@@ARdave311 It tells us plenty about the interviewer...
What is that awful tapping. I couldn't listen to interview too distracting.
On a new birth of philosophy from the ashes of materialism
Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
This doctrine in its modern form seems to have originated from the secular philosophers of the
Enlightenment, and from the writings of Voltaire and others seems to have become established
in western thinking together with the secularization of society and its opposition to the power of the
Church.
The critical turn of thinking appears to have been due to an incompleteness in the metaphysics of
Descartes. Descartes, for all of his originality and brilliance, overlooked the integration of mind
and body, as noted by Leibniz, by dividing reality into two completely distinct realms, one
of extension (the body) and one of mind, which is non-extended. This worked out well in practice,
by accomodating Newton's new mechanics, since his mechanics only apparently dealt with the physical world,
and freed science from dealing with mind (and divinity) by simply ignoring it. Today,
with the advent of quantum mechanics, we know that this is not true, for
quanta are mental, not physical, since they are not independently in spacetime.
In materialistic thinking, the mind is a product of the brain and controlled by it.
This however cannot explain intentional acts, which originate in mind. It also
allows materialistic thinkers to ignore concepts such as the soul or divinity,
giving justification for secularism, and opening up the possibility of dialectical
materialism.
Leibniz pointed out that matter, since causality must be mental and not physical (since there are
no such physical entities as momentum, for example) must have some mental correspondent.
Leibniz called this mental correspondent the monad. An example of a monad is a quantum.
Another serious problem with materialism is that physical entities in spacetime are contingent,
meaning that they are not permanent and fixed, as Bertrand Russell thought they were
in his theory of descriptions. They are thus poor, ephemeral referents, since they both
move and continually change.
An example of a possible correction to materialism is given below, although obviously
others might be able to do better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The three levels of reality in platonic physics
FIRSTNESS -FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.
SECONDNESS - SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) ental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." Some of these objects, such as ideas, or mathematics, are not monads, since they have no corresponding physical bodies.
According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz:
a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle).
b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.
c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming.
Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH.
This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions.
Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this.
Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion.
THIRDNESS - THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form.
3. Conclusions
This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
*Roughly a 1.5 on the -4 to +4 scale* _(for explanation and disclaimers please see the end of the comment)_
Wishful theistic thinking meets intelligent speculative philosopher !
Really has nothing to do with the by Rick stated purpose of the channel. But it might be entertaining for satsang aficionados if they are philosophical newbies. At least they heard of an important book: Chalmers "The Conscious Mind" - or a central term of that book: "the hard [body-mind] problem".
Rick clings tenaciously to his Wilberian (that is really Hegelian) cosmic evolution myth, that Auschwitz and the like will have been good after all, and he is decidedly horrified by the proposition that Kastrup's god may in fact be a totally unreflective natural process without the slightest reflective consciousness and hence without any conscience - which in the light of the nature of existence is rather plausible.
And so a lot of time is wasted on Rick's dogmatic reiteration of his fairy world. Thoughts contrary to that may not be seriously entertained even for purposes of alternative, experimental consideration, and that is inconsistent with choosing a philosopher as interviewee. In philosophy, there is to be no such fishing for confirmation of one's cherished world view.
But the interview was ok for the sake of what Kastrup could express despite Rick's missionary zeal.
_About the rating: anything below and including +1 means by and large a waste of time, and anything below 0 is not only worthless but damaging to the world. For comparison, on that scale, Francis Bennett would be a +3 or more and Harri Aalto would be roughly a tentative +3-3.5. Not coming up with original, independent cosmological insights bans any interviewee from > 3.0 ratings as a matter of principle._
*General Disclaimer:* the rating _pertains to an interview, not to the interviewee_. If the rating is high it means merely and exclusively that I consider the interview to be of high value relative to the stated purpose of the channel, and that it is therefore no waste of time to listen to the interview. It would _not_ imply that whatever the interviewee speaks is the truth (as if I was the arbiter over that) or that you should follow him/her or accept whatever that person offers. _That is particularly in need of emphasis if that would be an expensive enterprise_ !
Is the body/mind not an image in consciousness?
nickolasgaspar
"it depends....what the word consciousness means to you. An activity or an entity?"
Not sure why it depends, but I would say neither.
nickolasgaspar can i refer you to my original question:
Is the body/mind not an image in consciousness?
nickolasgaspar The first state necessary for all other states and ideas to exist at all is awareness itself. What is not a concept?
nickolasgaspar words. we are not going to get beyond words. this is a non conversation. ironic that
Before I even listen into this, one thing: please stop swapping interviewees with Alex Tsakiris and Skeptiko. And a second thing: please leave purely philosophical interviews (not sure if this will be one) to philosophically trained interviewers.
Soteriologe whatever that means
This interviewer is not much better than a Bible-thumping Christian. He believes ancient books, valuable and illuminating as they may be, are the ultimate authority on the nature of reality. Think for yourself.
Guy really tells it like it is... I think.
Hall Larry Anderson Sarah Lewis Brian
www.vedanet.com/2012/06/hindu-view-of-nature/
The first two questions are basically what religion are you and have u ever looked into my religion. Not surprising since first word in channel name. Typical zeal of the convert. Good answer - searching for truth so why lock yourself into a system, category, foreign cultural tradition
It sounds like the interviewer is typing when the guest is talking.
No, but my wife might have been. She's in the same office.
The 'faint remains of ignorance', huh?...There is either ignorance, or there isn't....Given that the totality of consciousness is all mind: if there is such a thing as 'realization': it's essence is not an experience, whether temporary or permanent; it's the realization of something (about the fundamental nature of 'reality') by the (finite) conscious mind of a particular individual....Thus: if you are on the 'path of Knowledge' - this means gaining knowledge in its ordinarily understood sense......I can't see how Mysticism, which would appear to consist of searching after an experience which it's impossible to have and/or, Rick-like, to interminably quote (as if it were knowledge) the unsupported assertions of this or that authority (which have not, of course, delivered the goods to Rick) would help. On the contrary, that whole process, broadly speaking, is the ENEMY of truth. And, as we see both presently and from history: the promoter of bullshit and all manner of other unpleasantness.....Naturally. Mysticism will kick and scream as it is gradually throttled by the rise of he scientific method (and, indeed, as it is foiled in its attempt, virus-like, to masquerade as science). But this time it will scream in vain. Thank God!....... As for 'Adyashanti' - his first task is to find out why he's using a stoopId name with whIch he (presumably) wasn't born - and then take it from there.
Bernardo may be interested in the theories of Riccardo Manzotti who has a hypothesis that the mind is not inside the body but a process involving the external world (something like that ;)). Check out his site he has some pretty cool cartoons on "perception, AI, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind".
BTW: 25:44 is where he thankfully refutes this "everything is conscious" nonsense of Mr. Kirk. Good job !
I really enjoyed this interview. Kastrup is genuine, humble, unpretentious and brilliant.
Maybe Bernado is a teacher... have you considered that?
Add this to my fave interview list.
Plotinus!