Bernardo's presentation at "Sages and Scientists 2014"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- This has been Bernardo's presentation at the "Sages and Scientists 2014" symposium in Carlsbad, California, in August of 2014. In it, Bernardo briefly summarizes his metaphysical views and, at the end, has a brief exchange with Deepak Chopra.
For more details of the book behind this presentation, see:
www.iff-books.c...
www.amazon.com/...
www.amazon.co.u...
Bernardo's pages:
www.bernardokas...
/ bernardokastrup
/ bernardokastrup
/ bernardokastrup
www.amazon.com/...
This upload in authorized by the Chopra Foundation, which owns the copyright of this video. Sincere thanks go to Carolyn Rangel and Deepak Chopra for making all this possible! This has been a fantastic event that deserves much wider attention than it gets.
ALL: I cannot comment on philosophical content via RUclips comments anymore, due to limited time and redundancy with other places where I do discuss my philosophical system. So if you like to engage on philosophical discussions, please post in my Discussion Forum at: groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/metaphysical-speculations. You can find more useful links about my philosophical system here: www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/04/social-media-policy-and-useful-links.html. I count on your understanding!
great job
I don't understand the connection between the beginning proposition that "colour/sound etc is reality and not a representation of a reality outside mind"... and then the later proposition that "brain is an image of a process"... because then doesn't the latter still leave us in the same predicament where what we perceive is just an image of a process that is still completely out of our direct perception? Does that make sense?
And if what you meant is that this process would be experience-able if only it were not obfuscated to our "limited consciousness" or "localized / individual " experience... then how would this make any more sense than the current model when we can't prove it either since we seem to be unable to directly perceive these processes that create the brain and so on?
Btw, I really love the first idea, that reality IS as experienced. I find it fascinating. I think Riccardo Manzotti touches on that with his "spread mind" model, and he uses the example of a rainbow, which is not outside, yet is unique to each viewer.
Your brain is an image of the process that is your mind, which is not outside consciousness, being consciousness itself. Does that answer the question?
Adam Stephens Voila
No it doesn't answer or explain anything for me. How could it anyway? If what I am is consciousness, then we're all in the same sandbox. How could anyone ever hope to explain the sandbox? Best we can is make models, so exactly like what science does.
So in that sense, I do feel these models can be very helpful but in fact it is a trick, they don't help by explaining anything, but rather by guiding the seeker's attention to their raw experience. EDIT: Perhaps to be a little clearer the models I think are very helpful to challenge held beliefs, but all that is gained is by dropping beliefs.
fuaburisu I'm not sure what your question is if you're still asking one. You do say, "How could anyone ever hope to explain the sandbox?" That is just the thing. What kind of explanation could there be? Whenever we explain something we explain it in terms of something else. The materialist view attempts to explain our experience in terms of matter/energy. It assumes that matter is fundamental -- it is taken as a brute fact that everything else can be explained in terms of. Bernardo points out that this is probably a mistake as matter necessarily is only known through experience, therefore experience is the most reasonable thing to take as fundamental, in terms of which everything else can be explained, not matter. It's got the whole thing inside-out and backward. Bernardo's model of this is just a conceptual tool, not the same type of model as is used in scientific explanations. It is a thought experiment. The intent is to use the tool, but see past it, even drop it when you find what it's leading to, like a raft used to get to the other side of a river. You leave the raft with the river when you get where you're going.
New paradigm towards a greater evolution . ALL IS MENTALITY - ALL IS CONSCIOUSNESS! The universal MIND! THE GHOST NOT only in the distance but everywhere ! HOLY SPIRIT - HOLY SMOKES! YES PHYSIC SAYS “ IT IS MOSTLT EMPTY SPACE” filled with zoo of particles - THOUGHTS !
Absolutely brilliant!
AnduinX BYM Thanks!
Mind (and body) fucked
I just CANNOT figure out *_How on Earth do folks don't get this??!!_*
you seem to understand. could you help me out here - since when do materialists see the world as part of our consciousness and not independently out there??? shouldn't it be the other way around?
@@jedimind5337 materialists believe that brain matter produced consciousness.
@@glynemartin i get that. that info is at par with what i knew about materialists. but bernardo is saying that materialists/physicalists believe that world, like colors, smell are representation of our consciousness but all these times i knew that materialists aggressively believe that the material world is indepepndent of our consciousness. they believe that out consciousness do not affect the world out there
@@jedimind5337 When did Bernado ever say that "materialists believe that the world is representation of our consciousness? When did Bernado say that he believes that our independent consciousness affects the world outside our biology?
@@glynemartin bernardo said "materialists believe that the world is representation of our consciousness" in this video in his introduction at the first few minutes.
*i said that* all these times i thought materialists aggressively believe that the material world is indepepndent of our consciousness. they believe that out consciousness do not affect the world out there
Wonderfully done! :D
Justin Fowler Cheers!
You assume a mental world outside of our own minds. But part of this world has the same rules as a material world. This is why materialism is widely accepted. Your worldview collapses to materialism if consciousness is explained by matter. And I don't see why it should be unexplainable. If our mind is not explained by physics, there should be an even in the brain which doesn't have a physical cause.
I wouldn't call materialism bullshit in either case, as I wouldn't call Einstein a fool when we discover a more precise model than general relativity.
I'm soory. It seems like you have superhuman knowledge: claiming the hard problem of consciousness will never be solved. I tought prophets no longer walk on Earth.
Materialism did not create this problem. More generally this is the problem: how do we think and feel? This is a question regardless of if you are a materialist or not. Dodgeing the question like mind is fundamental and irreducible is dishonest. You still have to describe how consciousness behaves, and you are no further in this task as neuro-scientists. Every good model describes it's irreducible building blocks. Relativity spacetime, particle physics elementary particles, newtonian mechanics point masses and so on. You only got metaphores. Your mind is a whirlpool for sure.
"If our mind is not explained by physics, there should be an even in the brain which doesn't have a physical cause."
That doesn't follow. Physical quantities are descriptions of qualities. To say that physical quantities will explain qualities is exactly like saying the map will give rise to the territory.
@@pandawandas I expect you think our mind is not physical. Somehow your decision making is not physical. Well, at some point thoughts cause physical action, like talking or movement of arms. At some point it becoms measurable by current physics, so if our mind is outside physics there should be something that is physical, measurable but does not have a physical cause.
@@zoltankurti You're confusing the description with the thing described. Physical quantities are a description of how qualities behave. Qualities are not physical, for the same reason that the map is not the territory. There is no physical cause, what is causal are the qualities being described. Physicality is the description of how the actually causal things behave.
Physical quantities are a description of behaviour, but behaviour doesn't tell you much about the thing that behaves. By saying that reality is physical (IE, reality is the description of behaviour we made of it), you're saying two things:
1. The map precedes the territory. The description precedes the thing described. There is nothing to the thing described but its description.
2. The map generates the territory. Physical quantities, which are a description of qualities, generate qualities.
This would be completely incoherent in any other case.