Bernardo here describes what the Buddha taught 2500 years ago. Naturally he taught it in cultural terms of his time - as Bernardo is doing here. Buddha said he was "awake" in the way of pure awareness and not anything else that has inherent material existence. Thank you for this.
Interesting concepts in your videos,great. I’m interested in consciousness and reality of humanity and testing assumptions/ceasing assumptions. I like the questioning of whether scientific concepts of particles really exist. Are they mass energy?
There is I believe phenomena, the in-itself(en Sui/ in self) regarding Phenomenology and Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism. A Consciousness For-Itself( pour Sui/For self) of the in-itself. We can flee the negative aspects of consciousness to positive Being(the in-itself/en Sui/ in self).
I’m still confused - and I’ve listened to several of Bernardo’s and Donald Hoffman’s lectures and interviews - many of them more than once. I buy that the universe is complicated and that it served evolutionary purposes for humans to see things in a helpful abstracted way as opposed to the complicated real way - because it would require too much intellectual power to do it and we’d get confused and wouldn’t be able to execute tasks efficiently. But how does this lead to a conclusion that we can’t possibly be seeing anything as it really is? Couldn’t it be that we see some things as they really are and others in a more iconic, abstract way? Why does it have to be all or nothing? That’s the part I don’t understand.
I hear you loud and clear what gets me is the realization that everything happens in our head and that reality cannot be certainly understood as anything beyond a dream or some kind of a manipulation of our sensory perceptions. We live the story our consciousness tells us is real. Our senses can be manipulated.
It's simple Bernardo: to think what is supposed to be outside of all thought is the delusional project of materialism. To put it another way, I cannot dissociate the World from my representation. What exists "outside me" cannot exist without me.
Unrelated, got knocked off of the server for Discord: analytic idealism. Logged in wrong. Somebody help me get back on. People know me on the server. They'll recognize my name.
Bernardo here describes what the Buddha taught 2500 years ago. Naturally he taught it in cultural terms of his time - as Bernardo is doing here. Buddha said he was "awake" in the way of pure awareness and not anything else that has inherent material existence. Thank you for this.
I really like these kind of clear presentations. Thx Bernardo.
Brillante! I think that this is a unified theory of everythink.
The ripples in the lake are caused by something
He comes up with some novel theories and uses some interesting ideas to explain this stuff clear as a bell.
So what causes the perturbations of the field that manifest as things?
I think he would say the perturbations are caused when observed by an observer
Interesting concepts in your videos,great. I’m interested in consciousness and reality of humanity and testing assumptions/ceasing assumptions. I like the questioning of whether scientific concepts of particles really exist. Are they mass energy?
Excitable vibrations. There is no matter as such. I love the way Max Planck said that.
There is I believe phenomena, the in-itself(en Sui/ in self) regarding Phenomenology and Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism. A Consciousness For-Itself( pour Sui/For self) of the in-itself. We can flee the negative aspects of consciousness to positive Being(the in-itself/en Sui/ in self).
@@NomadProfessionalWhat do you think of Bernardo's Analytic Idealism in comparison to those theories?
my only issue is that the higher states are more seedlike - having more potentialities and less differentiated
I’m still confused - and I’ve listened to several of Bernardo’s and Donald Hoffman’s lectures and interviews - many of them more than once. I buy that the universe is complicated and that it served evolutionary purposes for humans to see things in a helpful abstracted way as opposed to the complicated real way - because it would require too much intellectual power to do it and we’d get confused and wouldn’t be able to execute tasks efficiently. But how does this lead to a conclusion that we can’t possibly be seeing anything as it really is? Couldn’t it be that we see some things as they really are and others in a more iconic, abstract way? Why does it have to be all or nothing? That’s the part I don’t understand.
I hear you loud and clear what gets me is the realization that everything happens in our head and that reality cannot be certainly understood as anything beyond a dream or some kind of a manipulation of our sensory perceptions. We live the story our consciousness tells us is real. Our senses can be manipulated.
But there are instruments that capture electromagnetic waves, X-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, etc., things that our body cannot detect
24:26
29:05
31:05
Conclusion 32:00
15:35
16:05
It's simple Bernardo: to think what is supposed to be outside of all thought is the delusional project of materialism. To put it another way, I cannot dissociate the World from my representation. What exists "outside me" cannot exist without me.
Unrelated, got knocked off of the server for Discord: analytic idealism. Logged in wrong. Somebody help me get back on. People know me on the server. They'll recognize my name.