Timestamps 00:00 Intro 00:38 Tim Maudlin, local realism, and physical realism 11:32 Michael Levin and re-association 20:35 Psychedelics and brain activity 35:00 Near-death experiences (NDE’s) and the body 43:02 Integrated information theory and defining consciousness 54:41 NDE’s and brain activity 58:00 NDE’s and the brain stem 01:11:15 Cremated vs. buried? 01:13:40 Gerard Woerlee and consciousness 01:20:42 Meditation, breathwork, and idealism 01:26:34 Nathan Hawkins’ objections to analytic idealism 01:43:44 Analytic idealism and closer to truth 01:52:23 “Stepping outside” of consciousness? 01:58:32 Illusionism and unconscious judgements 02:02:52 Illusionism and seeming 02:07:06 Do you accept Russellian monism? 02:19:30 Noam Chomsky and mysterianism 02:32:25 The importance of affirming idealism 02:35:24 Noam Chomsky and weak emergence 02:43:33 Intermission 02:44:02 The spacetime argument against idealism? 03:04:58 Impure idealism? 03:09:39 Philosophy and word games 03:14:41 Reductionism? 03:20:20 Philosophy and word games 2 03:31:54 Reducing spacetime 03:49:08 The spacetime gap? 03:56:02 The cognitive gap? 04:02:55 Close
It is uncanny to me how much of what Kastrup is saying about mind/nature resonates with what Alan Watts said back in the 60's. In his famous talk on "Man and Nature" given at SMU in 1965, Watts said - "...you are something the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is something that the whole ocean is doing..." Kastrup seems to be carrying the torch that Alan Watts (and others) lit back then in a way that is truly challenging the materialist/physicalist framework at it's core, and opening the doors to think and act in better ways for us to function and survive in our changing world, in my opinion.
Maybe that’s why he irritates me. If one reads mysticism and listens to Watts, it makes Bernardo seem like he believes he is a trail blazer when he is riding in on the academic trail toward mysticism, but it’s not a wilderness he is cracking open. It’s well worn paths but in subject matter his camp isn’t familiar with. It’s a silo he is in. Can’t stand to listen to his top-down affect.
It’s uncanny to me to come across this comment because that Watts lecture has always delighted me but did not become clear to me until stumbling upon Kastrup a few months ago. My late fiancé and I connected on this front: he was a materialist with idealist notions about ridding self of ego while I was becoming more an analytic idealist who saw value in ego. Over 10 years online and then 8 years together we circled back to these discussions - he’d become a Sam Harris fan while I went into Watts. Anyway - I wish he’d been able to listen and read Kastrup. My ego says he would have told me I was right :)
I am delighted to read your reply. I am an engineer (retired) whose started out a strict materialist/physicalist based upon my scientific leanings and educational background. I originally became disillusioned with the limited reductionist "clockwork machine/billiard ball/pavlovian behaviorist/determinist" mentality that many scientists portray (basically "scientism" - science as their religion) after having read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig. That led to Watts, followed by deeper readings into Jung, and then finally last year I discovered Kastrup, Michael Levin, and others, who have helped solidify my views. To be fair, I followed Sam Harris quite regularly as he is quite lucid and convincing on many scholarly and timely issues, but he is out touch that current science seems to be veering away from materialism, and out of his depth on idealism, in my opinion. @@jenmdawg
You're interviews with Kastrup are the best. Other youtubers just keep asking the same questions which make me feel bad for Bernardo. Keep up the great work!
Constantly impressed by Kastrup’s meticulous reasoning and by the way he encourages respectful dialogue with diverse thinkers. A great pleasure to listen to BK always ❤
Excellent interview and while I don’t possess that cast of mind that can easily digest philosophical endeavours, after listening to a lot of BK, I’m much further down the road than I was pre BK. Such an authoritative and erudite man, many thanks.
We are facing one of the most clever living person of our times. I'm really scared by his cleverness and intelligence. I can't even get closer to understand most of the things he states. One thing I've understood: it was 30 years that science stuck with its own quantum dilemmas and consciousness hard problems. Materialist science had come to an end, had hit the wall was going towards, and a new science was needed. My gut feeling could have been "not so new". After all, positive science came along only 300 years ago from alchemic and philosophic ways of knowledge, perhaps it was time to step back. Many people thought that. Then he comes Bernardo. And blew my mind...
Fuck yes! I love every collab between you and Kastrup. No punches pulled, we basically get to see Kastrup unplugged and untamed 😂 The back and forth between you guys is top tier
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my RUclips accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
@@clivejenkins4033what does it matter “who”? The idea that someone’s opinion is worthwhile because of who they are runs contrary to civilization since the Enlightenment. And I fear that’s the sort of “intellectual” environment that Kastrup invites-those who are impressed by his swindling rhetoric.
@@TheWorldTeacher The 1st part was a strawman & LOL at the true/correct/unflawed metaphysics for the enlightened ones, thats religion. Good luck with thinking that growth is something you reach & then you're finished.
how you would describe telekinesis or ghosts "typical" activity(self open doors,or flying stuff without physical reason?) under analytic idealism?.when you experience absurdal non-rational physical event? maybe there's some explanation?
@@polishsandman I am in no way coherent enough to offer a "Kastrup" quality explanation for these specific activities, but I would suggest that these and similar psi type phenomenon, including UAP's are a leaking over across dissociative boundaries - a metaphor would be while the dissociated "whirlpool" considers itself a separate and distinct entity from the "lake" of universal mind, occasionally a ripple from a pebble thrown far from the dissociated whirlpool can cross it's boundary and appear "out of nowhere", and without any physical "reason" it can account for, if you will. My best explanation.
I haven't watched the first yet, but I love Bernardo ❤️ And Michael Levin, and Dr. Iian McGilchrist books and lectures, Rupbert Sheldrake , Krishnamurti, and C.J.Jung, "The Redbook," Libra Novus edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani and Dr. Mate Gabor with his compassion with wisdom. I have to return to this, be back shortly. I am back now 😊 I once drowned in a river at the age of 5, and I held my breath as long as I could, and at the bottom of the river were pebbles, and fishes were looking at me back? I started inhaling water and I was laughing. Does that make any sense of consciousness? Thankfully, my grandpa who was Cherokee Indian was running down the banks of boulders of rocks and jumped into the river and pulled me out and gave me mouth to resistatation, and the water came out of my mouth and I started breathing again, I was laughing. Grandpa asked me, "Where you afraid?"No, Grandpa, I saw this light pulling me up, and I was around and and twirling there you were grabbing me , those whirlpools pulled me under,
My question to Bernardo. I've asked it before in a different way, but I am still not seeing an answer clearly, so I'll pose it again here. Does the One Subject *assimilate* the perspectives it obtains down the many lanes (individual dissociated identities) of itself, or is it simply a kind of bag of different perspectives? Because if it assimilates, that suggests that the One Subject is in a sense independently active (from me, even if it may be identified, ultimately, with me). In other words, it is doing something which I (as my human self) cannot do, which is assimilate the contents and experiences of different 'lanes', which I don't (appear to) have access to. Now if it is involved in such active assimilation, what does Bernardo see or interpret as the actual symptoms of this activity, the symptoms of the One Subject learning through the many lanes, as it were, and acting upon this experience or learning? And if it doesn't do this, if the One Subject is in effect passive, aside from its actions as "experiencers" in the many lanes, if it does not cross reference and assimilate experience, what then is really the nature of this One Subject? It doesn't seem like it would be a mind as we understand it, because those are mind-like things to do. Is it then a kind of passive field of consciousness in which any activity can emerge, but it has no "perspective" (in a Gestalt sense) of its own on those experiences? When a particular lane closes, do the experiences formed or found in that lane, during its lifetime, change or influence the One Subject, or do they just exist timelessly within it, like beautiful but otherwise pointless doodles on the ground of being? I hope my question makes sense and, as always, thanks for listening.
The most basic and rudimentary lesson of Idealism is that it imposes strict epistemological limits on our understanding. You can never get to the inner nature of reality along the path of objective analysis. Knowledge itself presupposes representation.
I once dreamed that I died and everything got darker, more confusing and more frightening. So this experience even if accounted by an NDE indeed could be more of an expectation what death is than the reality.
A person I know who was schizoid for 74 years had mind reunite spontaneously. The split off parts had apparently healed and could be safely assimilated. The mind is an amazing thing. It self-protects. The same may be true of cells as intelligence and consciousness is everywhere.
1:26:34 My criticism of Kastrup that was put to him here was not well-posed. I argued that using evolution to justify the dashboard metaphor conflicts with his anti-realist view of science which he has put forward elsewhere (see my video for where). But in reply to Monistic in this video BK says that we _can_ construct coherent theories about 'whats going on', like evolutionary theory, even without direct access to it because the dashboard must correlate sufficiently with it to enable survival as per evolutionary theory (this seems like circular reasoning to me, but it is not clearly an _inconsistent_ position, which would be worse). But there _is_ inconsistency between this claim and the anti-realist perspective of science that says scientific theories merely relate the behavior of the dials to each other (i.e. explain and predict perceptual experience). He seems, here at least, to be a 'semi-realist' about science. Some things about scientific theory correlate with reality, but not all. And he should not then say the dashboard is the physical world, otherwise evolution and entropy tell us things about... what... the nature of universal consciousness? I think would be news to Darwin and the entropy physicists. And would Kastrup say universal consciousness is entropic? Also, Kastrup is walking a tightrope here. The dials tell us _something_ about reality (enough to use scientific theories to justify his metaphyiscs), but not what reality is like (enough to speculate about the realm beyond the dashboard). I think he really needs to justify a principled basis for doing so, otherwise it seems like an _ad hoc_ pick'n'mix position. Note too that my argument was not Plantinga's one that says evolution is self-defeating, since it would mean we ought not to trust our reasoning faculties (not perceptions as BK suggests here). Nor am I suggesting that BK's position of accepting both the dashboard and evolution is necessarily self-defeating (as I said it is not an inconsistent position). The point is that evolution (or entropy etc.) cannot be what justifies the dashboard metaphor if the dashboard metaphor is what in turn justifies the truth of evolutionary theory (or entropy etc.).
Thanks for your clarifications. I ended up wording the question in ways that Pessimistic Idealism and myself have worded it before out of habit (I kind of lumped us all together), and if that's what you mean by not well-posed then that's my bad. However, in substance you and I seem to be saying the same thing here: using evolution to justify the dashboard metaphor seems epistemologically self-undermining. That's what I was getting at there, and that's also what you're getting as you've said in your clarification here. Hopefully Bernardo is able to read your comment here. I bet you guys would have a nice, constructive back and forth if given the opportunity.
@@MonisticIdealism Thanks Monistic. On re-listening I think what you said initially was correct by mentioning that the _justification_ is undermined. But BK certainly seemed to interpret it as the idea that evolution as a theory is itself, self-defeating. But honestly, I think I'm done giving any more attention to this because BK seems to be very slippery concerning these matters. I want to know what he thinks science tells us about the nature of ultimate reality (i.e. universal consciousness) and what it doesn't. And on what basis we can know the difference. When pressed he too often appeals to his own metaphors and presents half-way barely-sketched positions that are very frustrating. I didn't mention _Materialism is Baloney_ in my video critique because there he is even more prone to crafting grand metaphors, reading results from them as though they were scientific models, but then saying 'its only a metaphor' whenever it suits him to.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy You're welcome, and I'm glad we can come to an agreement. I understand if you'd rather not pay more attention to this, but for what it's worth: I think you're bringing up excellent points here and I think even fellow supporters of Bernardo would agree.
@@MonisticIdealism Thanks. You are very kind Monistic. But right now I'm working on my own case for Idealism that I hope to release soon. And I'd be interested on your feedback for that. Let's keep talking!
@@AbsolutePhilosophy You are very kind as well, and I appreciate that. Indeed, let's stay in touch! I'm excited for your case to come out and I'll be happy to promote it when it does (and share my feedback too).
Bernardo’s right, the hyper-intellectuals and hyper-rationalists of the world seem to have the most difficulty with the immediacy of consciousness. If you’re disconnected from your feelings and live solely in the land of the intellect, you lose sight of what it’s like to be you. Chomsky, as brilliant as he is, seems to be a good example of this; he seems devoid of any emotion!
It is bizarre to criticize someone who reasons without emotions. Listen to Bernardo's emotionally-laden rant on Chomsky and ask yourself whether that becoming for a man of philosophy and science. And you're dead wrong: no human is devoid of any emotion
@@playtonicDsI agree no human is without emotions. But some humans are experts at suppressing/repressing their emotions, and it often shows up in their philosophy
N. Chomsky championed the first amongst us in the western world for calling out the Vietnam War. And he’s written over 100 books.... I would simply stay away from this hype.
this is such a bizarre take. to, first off, exclude Kastrup from the "hyper-intellectuals and hyper-rationalists", as if idealism doesn't itself posit an irreducible disconnect between experience and existence. and then to criticise Chomsky based on his affect during speech, when he's 95 years old. when it no doubt takes him an incredible effort just to engage in speaking, your criticism is that his rhetoric doesn't have enough emotion?
I think Kastrup needs more explanation regarding re-association. He accepts The Reassociation Thesis too quickly. "If xenobots can de-associate, then they can re-associate." No, that is false (I allege; this is just the internet). There may be separate mechanisms for re-association & de-association. Those mechanisms might emerge independently & in different orders, such that something can re-associate before it can de-associate & something can de-associate before it can re-associate.
One flaw in Bernardo's dissociation analogy is that in those humans who have the psychological disorder, only one personality can emerge at one time. In nature, on the other hand, there are billions of dissociated alters existing simultaneously. I wish someone would ask him about that distinction.
I wish I could remember which video, but I did see one where he was asked about this. In his reply, he mentioned studies on dissociative identity disorder where the patients’ various alters interacted in their dreams.
@@paulnoth1281 Yes, he has mentioned that in several of his videos. It is a powerful analogy. However, the dream state is highly distinctive from our normal waking state, so I wish he would address that more directly.
I think Chomsky's position on the mind body problem is very clear, Newton through his theory of gravitation showed that the universe/matter is not mechanical in the classical sense and there has not been a consistent account of the physical and hence of the body since Newton, therefore the mind-body problem can not be formulated consistently. Kastrup ignores/misrepresents Chomsky's position completely and even accuses him of not following the literature...
Kastrup ignores and misrepresents many, MANY thinkers. Just listening to him sit there and lie and spout bullshit pisses me off, and knowing that people actual take him seriously is depressing.
Haaah right out the gate, asking about dr maudlin. This is going to be another cool interview. BK didnt have much patience for maudlin when they tried to have a dialogue.
TIM Maudlin? Did that guy actually try to debate Tim Maudlin? The dude is a total whackjob. His idealism is a silly belief, and here he is trying to talk nonsense about a guy who understands Bell’s theorem quite well. Kastrup doesn’t even know what the award was for-he says “entanglement,” but this is just completely mistaken. It’s non-localism-NOT entanglement! The two things are distinct
@@clivejenkins4033yeah? What would get out of that? Can you imagine anything anyone could say which would refute Kastrup’s views? Why can’t you wait? What sort of pleasure would you get out of such a debate? And for the record, I absolutely would.
@@chriscurry2496 Wait wait - you seem to know your stuff. If this stuff interests you, look at bernardo's bio and you'll see he's an intellectual heavyweight. It's just very easy to misunderstand idealism.
@@chriscurry2496 If nonlocalism is true, then local objects in time and space are untrue. If local objects are untrue, the whole universe is one entangled whole. Seems logical. How do you see it?
Kastrup has absolutely destroyed materialism. But has he destroyed free will under idealism? There is a big debate going on amongst idealists, and it has been sparked in many Idealist groups on FB by philisophers like Richard Oxenburg, who recently had an article published on the Essentia Foundation about how evolutionary theory does not account for the drive to survive and the pursuit of behaviours that don't confer survival advantage, like the appreciation of music and artistic creativity. Anyway, I will soon do a video on my channel about this. My friend Claudio Soprano of @thenonphysical also interview Oxenburg recently so look out for that. He disagrees with Kastrup on free will and reckons it's an ontological primitive.
"Kastrup has absolutely destroyed materialism." LMFAO. Only among his minority of his adoring followers. Like all believers of idealism, he's leaning farther into cult leader status, and avoiding any scrutiny that his weak and fragile ego can't take.
@@chriscurry2496I disagree. Have you read his book 'Why Materialism Is Baloney?' If you want to refute someone's arguments, steelman them first and then cogently explain why he's wrong. Starting with ad hominems, like claiming he's slowly becoming a cult leader, is usually a red herring and the hallmark of a debate loser. I want you to explain to me where, precisely, BK went wrong in the basics of idealism.
@@johnhausmann2391 Step one: buy into a bunch of Eastern boloney about consciousness Step two: conjecture that consciousness is “all there is”, while relying on it’s vague and essentially useless definition (because if you can’t even properly define something, and you claim it’s what everything “is,” you’re forever insulated from falsification because you’re never clear enough in any formulation of your theory to even achieve falsifiability Step three (critical for Kastrup): COMPLETELY misunderstand (or simply lie) about what Bell’s Theorem asserts and what subsequent tests show Step four: go on a ton of little podcasts with claims about your “theory” while literally running away from the one individual who provided any serious critique of your bullshit claims Step five: profit
@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist look, none of Kastrup’s arguments have any merit. They are not only wrong, but they aren’t even original. It literally makes no sense to claim everything is “consciousness.” There’s zero reasons to think that. So stop with this “use good arguments” nonsense-if you can present a reasonable theory to use reason against, I’ll be happy to do it. But reading Hegel and taking drugs to theorize “all is consciousness” is not science. I’m sorry.
Chomsky doesn’t say the mind/body problem was solved with newton he says the problem doesn’t exist since newton showed we have no notion of body. So we can’t ask how can the body give rise to the mind, if we have no notion of body. If we have a notion of body which cannot account for the mind then there is a mind body problem. We have no clear understanding of what matter (body) is, so how can the mind being a property of the brain be unexplainable? He goes on to say i think that this is an example of our ‘materialism’ lacking. I think hes arguing that we mistakenly think we know what the world is consitituded of when in fact we don’t know
A very sensible and nuanced position that Kastrup does not get, but nevertheless feels entitled to talk down (listen to his condescending tone) to Chomsky like righteous sophist.
Bernardo's suggestion that the corpse is an image in consciousness and so still sort of conscious (hope i'm not butchering the theory?) reminds me of a horror film starring Liam Neason where the just arrived (corpse) in Liams mortuary is still conscious, and is talking, but trapped in the corpse, and asking to be released but Liam Neason shuts them in the coffin while they scream. So when the body eventually vanishes into the elements we are released back into source. So does this mean mummys are being tortured cos they cant leave to the afterlife😮
Here's what Chomsky meant when he referred to "what's-it-like" questions as "impossible interrogatives" that are "meaningless." He means that the answers to such questions cannot be scientifically determined. So take a question like, "What's it like to eat poo?" This question is meaningless in the sense that it cannot be formulated into a scientific investigation capable of yielding objective and verifiable answers. This concept of meaninglessness is similar to Wittgenstein's usage in the Tractatus, saying that metaphysical questions are nonsense or meaningless because they cannot be addressed scientifically. Kastrup should be less smug responding to Chomsky, who is quite meticulous in this thinking. I’m not sure I could say the same about Kastrup.
I think the question "What's it like to eat poo?" is not meaningless. It can be scientifically determined by investigating what kind of modfications of consciousness that experiences it thru assuming the perspective of fly or any kind of insects that swarm it.
Yeah, that’s not science. Again, it won’t yield objective and verifiable answers. You and i will never know what it’s like to be a fly, much less what it’s like to be a fly eating poo. Hence the question’s meaninglessness
@@Cpt_Guirk it’s not a scientific claim because it can’t be investigated scientifically. It’s an impossible interrogative. If you disagree, then show us how to formulate the question into a testable hypothesis
Chomsky (in one of the videos on the TOE channel) has dismissed phenomenology (& the Eastern Contemplatives) as a viable method for studying & understanding consciousness. The only was to fully understand any phenomena is to study it directly & the only way to study consciousness is via the first-person perspective (aka phenomenology). Whatever Chomsky has to say about consciousness should be ignored if he’s gonna dismiss phenomenology. Alan Wallace & his organizations are trying to have contemplatives collaborate with neuroscientists & cognitive scientists in understanding consciousness via reinvigorating William James’ introspection methodology. That’s way more productive & conducive to the topic of consciousness than anything Chomsky has to say (I admire Chomsky for his political views & knowledge, however, he should stay in his lane if he’s not even gonna entertain serious consciousness studies).
I found it humourous when Bernardo said Goethe would not have a clue in understanding analytic idealism, and indeed quantum physics, when a young bratty Arthur Schopenheur handed him a book some 150 years ahead of his time. Schopenhauer writes that Goethe read his book. But he probably skim read it like we all do😅
No. What about Heraclitus and down throughout centuries to Spinoza and Nietzche writings? I liked Dawkins to speak, but I loved Carl Sagan's depth of meanings of universe of galaxies, black holes and daek matter, Who created Qutamm mechanics? And the string theory? Who was Albert Enistein ?❤I had other other writings about what happened to me as child drowning. What happened? Where did that go? What are the primary colors, what is blue and white combined?
Poem: Hypathes Pupiis? Meaning her eyes?What happened to the first woman of astrology and she created instruments? Who was her father?What happened to her?
The Christains tore her flesh off her because she was a pagan. Pardon me, I can't write fast enough, I left many wonders out. My papa gave me books at a very young age. I loved reading books, I came out of my mama's womb of water, the umbilical cord was cut, and I took my first breath and cried, as we all do. I am skipping over Noam Chomsky , he was really intelligent, I loved Professor Michael Parenti better. Did one ever hear those two debate? Professor Michael Parenti won, hands down!!!! Did one ever see Noam Chomsky and Foucault debate. I go with Foucault "Method or Madness, he made good arguments about shadows governments. I could name many others, I am out of breath now for I have up 24 hours writing non- stop. When one knows, one doesn't know and when one doesn't know, then and only then one may. What does accumulated knowledge mean? Where does awarness and insights come from? What is perception? My papa made an iconoclast? I can't help but enqiure deeply. Krishnamurti and Alan Watts. I am not good with technology , in fact, I don't cell phones, just like Dr. iain McGilchrist, Rupbert Sheldrake, who also knew and David Bohm, Physicist. , Krishnamurti. Plus, the late Harold Bloom of Yale University who taught literature. He did like cellphones either. I never have Facebook, Instagram or tic took, just RUclips, I am stubborn, I haven't ever learned how to do an e-mail. I love philosophy and art and literature, sciences, and religious divisions for centuries. I loved Dr. Sugrue, philosophy and history, and literature . He just passed away recently. I love the Essentialists Philosophy and Dr. Wes Cecil. Professor Rick from Texas also passed away philosophy and political science, so RUclips has its advantages. FIilip Horn, "Let's Talk Religion and John Sledge, "Esoterica." America History on all sides and Howard Zinn is a good starter, "A People's History of the United States of America and and Sheldon Wollin's books and journalists John Pilger Rip🙏❤️ And Chris Hedges books, so many great independent journalists, in addition if I may I also add Dr Gerald Horne's Books, historian of Afro-American studies here in America and Central America and Africa who has over fifty books written and still is writing. Will, "Stoics" Julius Ceasars Meditations , Seneca, and Epicurus, and others, I have all these books, Fiction Beast on RUclips again, Philosophy and literature. My papa left me over 150 first edition books of years past, and I grew up in libraries at a very young age, and I did not like to read Heidi, either. Is that normal? I still go to libraries and I buy book from them and then donate back to the library and go to book stores, old and new, and still go back and to the Libraries. No one is at my local library in my rural town hardly. I know I may lack an education, but I do read great books of various kinds over my youthful years. I am not good with physics, but I love to listen to those who have gorilla minds of enormous energy and calcutions and concepts. I will listen to this again about 4 times over and over again. I thank all of you for this extraordinary discussion. Thank all of you again. I can write and listen at the same time, even through space and time. Albert Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. What is ultimate truth? Have we discovered it yet? Does it evolve as histories lies come fruition as generations evolve and sciences evolve? May I ask how languages do all of you speak? Noam Chomsky does well at that.and he is an elder statesmen now, years of writing books and teaching. MIT, wow!!! Nietzche spoke seven, and Spinoza also, and many others languages, and so did Krishnamurti? I read where one of our ambassadors spoke 12 languages, and he resigned from his position. What will happen to all of us in 2024 election season? I am not voting either way unless Cornel West brings the ships home of miracles. We need a new education for humanity. what do they teach at those higher universities of knowledge anyway, unless someone layers uncharted boundaries with thinking outside of the box no matter what one field one is in. We are walking in seas of madness, and all societies and human beings are tramatized by psychopaths of greed and powers of governments? Human nature 101. Just by listening, all of you are not like that. You are respectful of your critical analysis and each others papers written and what you have learned. This is sanity. 😊 I also have an enormous love of all genras of music dating as far as Mesopotamia and further back of hunter gatherers as they picked up sticks and banged each over the head and the women had to separate them with clinking sounds. A generalized definition of civilization: a civilized society is exhibiting the fine qualities of truth, beauty, art, and peace. Alfred North Whitehead I love creative arts in every field of dance, painting, and poetry. May I also thank my reading group of CJ.Jung's "The Redbook" Libra Novus edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani and many other books in his Jungian field of writers. Also , all documentaries are animal life and insects. Kevin, the cat whisperer of South Africa and his team. Subsequently, i also found out recently we have a wonderful man in Denver Colorado, who a sanctuaries of cats, he evolved in that by trial and error for he had no schooling work, he received old animals who had been abused in zoo"s and by abusive people. Jacque Cousteau for his example of marine biology and all those who followed in his footsteps and there are many. PIus David Hoffman, editor and filmmaker for many years of real people and music, 16 milimenter film. Lastly, Dr. Gabor Mate and his wisdom and compassion in the psychiatristry field, alas Dr Fraad, hers also, She is married to Professor Richard Wolff and thanks to Dr. Michael Hudson, Yanis Varoufakis and many great independent journalists of news organizations with persistence for the real news our to the World. We have many!! Archeologists , all of them, and everyone else I search for to acquire more wisdom. Wheeeoh!!! Where there light may join together to the stars of galaxies and solar sun's, stars fading out and gathering forces again. How many billions years since bursts of the universe began? I don't know, that is definitely unknown to me. .I am so fortunate to listen to people who are living examples of what they have learned without contempt for one another and jealousy and hate. There are some guiding lights of lighthouses guiding all our ships home to safe harbors of loving and living withoutt wars with families and parents, children running in all directions in fear and being murdered. We can do better than this. As , I ponder these ideas and concepts over and always with narrowing down to facts, well, I don't know physics and biology, I was good in geometry Enough said , I have to watch this again and again. At least I am interested and not walking in self-defeat and self- pity Dark and light matter. The gold resides in all of us.❤ 🙏❤️🌏🌿🎵🎶🎵 Whatever you do and wherever you are don't listen jazz clubs especially NYC. Oh, I am only being humorous . I forgive most all of them, well, I have a few I'm now letting go finally. It is a journey unfolding with seconds and inches to restore my anger, to wisdom and sanity. We are only human and on this earth for minutes, hours, days, nights, just be in it and walk through all of it's tragedies and joys and know we are love and reach a hand out for all our brothers and sisters. 🙏❤️🌏🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
What is the quality of Thy experience? While concerning unto our OWN experience. Is like...remind nevertheless will visit some will say who is visiting? Heirs and our Beautiful will say why are these hide us from HIM? Who love with patience, mercy, and grace!
The Bernardo's interpretation off near-death experiences cannot be refuted like just the spaghetti monster can't. there is NDE with precognition, for example.
I thought sperm and egg were dissasociated alters, doesn't that mean if they reassociate it would be into mind at large? I know I'm not understanding something could someone please help me?
Why wouldn NDEers not be able to see a random number shown anywhere in the room if they are indeed able to hear what doctors & nurses are saying, let alone thinking, in real time ,in that same room!?
I don't know if Bernardo will look at these comments, but regarding word games: 1) they're awful and have no place in productive discourse. 2) being able to sit in the privacy of your own bedroom to watch yourself get a rise out of yourself remotely really makes you appreciate the utility of the dissociative barrier.
The Hardest Problem of Consciousness We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur? Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one. Billions showed up after this one. None of them seem to have created my existence. This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others All bodies are made of the same elements. All brains have the same basic anatomy. If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously. A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once. I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different. Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs? When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room? According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence. Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject. How could pure awareness even be individualized? Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure. There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that. Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized. My blender uses electricity. Is it a genius? Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is. As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual. One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case. In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
This is an excellent example of how idealism can confuse and delude an individual to such an extent that even the simplest questions with the most obvious answers become intractable and perplexing. Even as far back as the 1700's, Kant was writing about the fundamental nature of one's perception of space and time, making the localization of things fundamental to human perception, and realists such as myself (and perhaps Kant) would argue that this is fundamental to reality as well. So asking why your consciousness resides "here" and "now" is just as obvious as why a particular rock exists here and now rather than different rock that exists "there" perhaps now, or perhaps later.
If the "outcome of measurement is physical" but "what is being measured is not ", how on Earth does the non-physical gets converted into the physical ? In fact what does it mean that something is "not physical" ? Just saying that a thing is not physical states absolutely nothing without explaining what aspect of physicality does not apply to the "non-physical". Of course this would then expose Kastrup to having to explain how making a measurement expands/replaces/transforms the non-physical so that it becomes "physical". Obviously he is not going into this because he has absolutely nothing to say other then a vague science fiction story in which the world is made of "something ELSE". Oh good. Now we know how the world works. Moving on...
Not just one body. Three bodies make up the human: causal body (ideational body); astral: (energy body); physical (elemental body).. After the death of the physical or element body two bodies are left. According to the person’s advancement the soul with its two remaining bodies goes to the causal or astral dimension for a duration of time until it is time to reincarnate again. Liberation is having passed all tests and being released into Spirit.
Bernardo shows a clear misunderstanding of the effects of oxygen on the brain, and the mechanics of hyperventilation. I wonder what else he's wrong about :)
What's it like to be me? What is your experience of red, and such questions are argued as nonsensical in pms hacker's, the intellectual powers, 2013, Blackwell, chapter 1, and other places.
I need to give this a read. But Many philosophers and cognitive scientists over-privilege the intellectual/cognitive aspects of mind and ignore feeling/intuition.
Refer Tibetian book of the Dead ..E vens Wence ... take a larger Dose ...Feed your Head ...center of brain.....Idont think you are ever going to IT .....sad luck ......eh
you're going into another extreme now, generating additional realities and entities in total contradiction to the Occam's principle. Now you have a world of consciousness, another non-physical world that somehow is free from having a physical substrate or materiality and a "dashbord" metaphor that mediates the two. And all this so you can poopoo materialism. This is a passion that could've been better applied elsewhere. Pure physicalism is idiotic, and any attempt to hide behind "oh, it's a mystery, an epiphenomena" etc is simply not serious, I will readily grant you that. However, "how much my thought weighs" is just bad faith rhetoric and shows why you can't reconcile idealism with materialism and see that they are one and the same. In a billiard-ball model universe, let's inspect two arrangements, one with stripes to the left of some imaginary line (say, an observer's 12 o'clock) and solids on the right, and the second one with balls mixed evenly on both sides. How much does the arrangement 1 weigh vs. arrangement 2? Precisely the same. Are these arrangements informationtheoretically equal? Is their Kolmogorov complexity/algorythmic compression of balls' positions/system's entropy the same? Hell no! So no, of course your thought doesn't weigh anything, but a distinct thought is a novel arrangement of charges and molecules in your brain (observable with EEGs and fMRIs), i.e. a novel state of your material brain, i.e. A NOVEL STATE OF THE UNIVERSE. to sum up: No thought, emotion, state of consciousness or an idea can exist non-physically, without a material substrate, it's absurd. It simply unfathomable. You cannot willy nilly instantiate non-physical world, that's just a mirage, hot air. There cannot be states of consciousness, or any form of thought, information without a physical expression. We will go from corpuscules to subatomic particles, to fields, to pilot waves, to hidden variables, to Wolfram's cell automata-like quantized states -- yet there will always be material record expressing the evolution of the Universe, i.e. Matter. Every state of consciousness is expressed as a physical state of the Universe. (BTW, the reason why Buddhism has to hypostasize Nothingness, is because it's the intellectual dead end you run into when trying to have one without the other, ideas without a material expression, where Nothing begets (expectedly) Nothing.) "Idealism" is to say that every configuration of matter is a distinct state of consciousness. "Materialism" is to say that every idea is a distinct configuration of the material world. Wisdom is to see that they are one and the same. P.S. The latest Bell Inequality experiments did away with Locality, not Realism. And Bell was the biggest fan of Bohmian mechanics and believer in hidden variables. Locality over spacelike separations is a true conundrum, but why everyone is concerned with Realism, I don't understand -- in a purest sense, a measurement disturbs the system, the state before the measurement is inaccessible anyway, so why worry about it, it's moot. What was the velocity and the vector of the bullet before the gun was fired? Who cares, it can only go where the barrel is pointing at the speed determined by the weight of the gunpowder. This interaction erases previous states of the bullet and they cannot be restored. Locality is another matter, much more intriguing. Perhaps higher-dimensional models can permit instant action at a distance -- for example an entangled pair is simply two points where one 4D string intersects our 3D space. It's like looking at two cross-sections of a rotating sausage -- one end will appear to spin clockwise and the other will appear to spin counter-clockwise (not my idea, some Russian physicist whose name I forgot). You can sample that sausage at two opposite ends of the Solar system and the result will be the same -- it's salami spinning in one direction at one end and salami spinning in the opposite direction at the other.
You can’t know the “arrangement of charges and molecules” without a mind to begin with. They are cognitions, not the thing in themselves. Our experiences are all we have to direct access to; physicality is a type of experience.
What's all this sophomoric nonsense about thoughts not having a weight or size. So what ? Vowels also don't smell, triangles are not more ethical than circles and bank accounts have no childhood memories . So what ? Do vowels and bank accounts become non-physical because they don't have weights ??? Saying that feelings have no weight commits the same basic category error as saying that they do would. The concepts that are invoked have no application to each other. It;'s not that feelings and bank accounts do not have weights in the sense that their weight is zero. ! It's that they are patterns and functions of physical things and patterns and functions cannot be put on a scale to measure their weights. So their weights are NEITHER zero NOR non-zero. . But that does not make the things that they are patterns or functions of weightless or non-physical. The bank has a weight, the bank-account does not. The printed letter 'A" is of some size the corresponding vowel isn;t. That does not make the bank account or language metaphysical novelties. And amazingly, this guy managed to get a Ph.D. in philosophy .....
Kastrup doesn't seem to realize that the very fact that he earns his living by running a foundation (the Essentia Foundation, the one related to dissemination of "analytic idealism") puts him in a murky position relative to honesty of thought, as murky as that of academic philosophers playing the publish-citation game.
Timestamps
00:00 Intro
00:38 Tim Maudlin, local realism, and physical realism
11:32 Michael Levin and re-association
20:35 Psychedelics and brain activity
35:00 Near-death experiences (NDE’s) and the body
43:02 Integrated information theory and defining consciousness
54:41 NDE’s and brain activity
58:00 NDE’s and the brain stem
01:11:15 Cremated vs. buried?
01:13:40 Gerard Woerlee and consciousness
01:20:42 Meditation, breathwork, and idealism
01:26:34 Nathan Hawkins’ objections to analytic idealism
01:43:44 Analytic idealism and closer to truth
01:52:23 “Stepping outside” of consciousness?
01:58:32 Illusionism and unconscious judgements
02:02:52 Illusionism and seeming
02:07:06 Do you accept Russellian monism?
02:19:30 Noam Chomsky and mysterianism
02:32:25 The importance of affirming idealism
02:35:24 Noam Chomsky and weak emergence
02:43:33 Intermission
02:44:02 The spacetime argument against idealism?
03:04:58 Impure idealism?
03:09:39 Philosophy and word games
03:14:41 Reductionism?
03:20:20 Philosophy and word games 2
03:31:54 Reducing spacetime
03:49:08 The spacetime gap?
03:56:02 The cognitive gap?
04:02:55 Close
It is uncanny to me how much of what Kastrup is saying about mind/nature resonates with what Alan Watts said back in the 60's. In his famous talk on "Man and Nature" given at SMU in 1965, Watts said - "...you are something the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is something that the whole ocean is doing..."
Kastrup seems to be carrying the torch that Alan Watts (and others) lit back then in a way that is truly challenging the materialist/physicalist framework at it's core, and opening the doors to think and act in better ways for us to function and survive in our changing world, in my opinion.
Maybe that’s why he irritates me. If one reads mysticism and listens to Watts, it makes Bernardo seem like he believes he is a trail blazer when he is riding in on the academic trail toward mysticism, but it’s not a wilderness he is cracking open. It’s well worn paths but in subject matter his camp isn’t familiar with. It’s a silo he is in. Can’t stand to listen to his top-down affect.
It’s uncanny to me to come across this comment because that Watts lecture has always delighted me but did not become clear to me until stumbling upon Kastrup a few months ago.
My late fiancé and I connected on this front: he was a materialist with idealist notions about ridding self of ego while I was becoming more an analytic idealist who saw value in ego. Over 10 years online and then 8 years together we circled back to these discussions - he’d become a Sam Harris fan while I went into Watts.
Anyway - I wish he’d been able to listen and read Kastrup. My ego says he would have told me I was right :)
I am delighted to read your reply. I am an engineer (retired) whose started out a strict materialist/physicalist based upon my scientific leanings and educational background.
I originally became disillusioned with the limited reductionist "clockwork machine/billiard ball/pavlovian behaviorist/determinist" mentality that many scientists portray (basically "scientism" - science as their religion) after having read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig.
That led to Watts, followed by deeper readings into Jung, and then finally last year I discovered Kastrup, Michael Levin, and others, who have helped solidify my views.
To be fair, I followed Sam Harris quite regularly as he is quite lucid and convincing on many scholarly and timely issues, but he is out touch that current science seems to be veering away from materialism, and out of his depth on idealism, in my opinion. @@jenmdawg
I can’t get enough of Bernardo, thanks for the interview.
You're interviews with Kastrup are the best. Other youtubers just keep asking the same questions which make me feel bad for Bernardo. Keep up the great work!
BK is the most brilliant mind of our times, thanks for the work guys!!!
LMFAO
Dude, Kastrup is an idiot. Notice he doesn't debate anyone without running away, he just goes on these little podcasts where he gets softballs.
Bernardo is a Star..."In Other Words" ..Bernardo is a Star..
Ahah, in other words you know your BK !
Constantly impressed by Kastrup’s meticulous reasoning and by the way he encourages respectful dialogue with diverse thinkers. A great pleasure to listen to BK always ❤
Excellent interview and while I don’t possess that cast of mind that can easily digest philosophical endeavours, after listening to a lot of BK, I’m much further down the road than I was pre BK. Such an authoritative and erudite man, many thanks.
i love the intermission video and the music. made me smile. thanks.
we are it.
We are facing one of the most clever living person of our times. I'm really scared by his cleverness and intelligence. I can't even get closer to understand most of the things he states. One thing I've understood: it was 30 years that science stuck with its own quantum dilemmas and consciousness hard problems. Materialist science had come to an end, had hit the wall was going towards, and a new science was needed. My gut feeling could have been "not so new". After all, positive science came along only 300 years ago from alchemic and philosophic ways of knowledge, perhaps it was time to step back. Many people thought that. Then he comes Bernardo. And blew my mind...
Bernardo kastrup is way in front for sure👌💯 top man
Fuck yes! I love every collab between you and Kastrup. No punches pulled, we basically get to see Kastrup unplugged and untamed 😂
The back and forth between you guys is top tier
Thank you! I'm proud to be the platform where Bernardo doesn't hold his punches
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my RUclips accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
Who are you to criticise bernardo???
@@clivejenkins4033what does it matter “who”?
The idea that someone’s opinion is worthwhile because of who they are runs contrary to civilization since the Enlightenment. And I fear that’s the sort of “intellectual” environment that Kastrup invites-those who are impressed by his swindling rhetoric.
@@TheWorldTeacher The 1st part was a strawman & LOL at the true/correct/unflawed metaphysics for the enlightened ones, thats religion. Good luck with thinking that growth is something you reach & then you're finished.
So soon after the last one! Just finished it yesterday, this is great 😊😊
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
how you would describe telekinesis or ghosts "typical" activity(self open doors,or flying stuff without physical reason?) under analytic idealism?.when you experience absurdal non-rational physical event? maybe there's some explanation?
@@polishsandman I am in no way coherent enough to offer a "Kastrup" quality explanation for these specific activities, but I would suggest that these and similar psi type phenomenon, including UAP's are a leaking over across dissociative boundaries - a metaphor would be while the dissociated "whirlpool" considers itself a separate and distinct entity from the "lake" of universal mind, occasionally a ripple from a pebble thrown far from the dissociated whirlpool can cross it's boundary and appear "out of nowhere", and without any physical "reason" it can account for, if you will. My best explanation.
I haven't watched the first yet, but I love Bernardo ❤️
And Michael Levin, and Dr. Iian McGilchrist books and lectures, Rupbert Sheldrake , Krishnamurti, and C.J.Jung, "The Redbook," Libra Novus edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani and
Dr. Mate Gabor with his compassion with wisdom.
I have to return to this, be back shortly.
I am back now 😊
I once drowned in a river at the age of 5, and I held my breath as long as I could, and at the bottom of the river were pebbles, and fishes were looking at me back? I started inhaling water and I was laughing.
Does that make any sense of consciousness?
Thankfully, my grandpa who was Cherokee Indian was running down the banks of boulders of rocks and jumped into the river and pulled me out and gave me mouth to resistatation, and the water came out of my mouth and I started breathing again, I was laughing.
Grandpa asked me, "Where you afraid?"No, Grandpa, I saw this light pulling me up, and I was around and and twirling there you were grabbing me , those whirlpools pulled me under,
I am enjoying these......
My question to Bernardo. I've asked it before in a different way, but I am still not seeing an answer clearly, so I'll pose it again here. Does the One Subject *assimilate* the perspectives it obtains down the many lanes (individual dissociated identities) of itself, or is it simply a kind of bag of different perspectives? Because if it assimilates, that suggests that the One Subject is in a sense independently active (from me, even if it may be identified, ultimately, with me). In other words, it is doing something which I (as my human self) cannot do, which is assimilate the contents and experiences of different 'lanes', which I don't (appear to) have access to. Now if it is involved in such active assimilation, what does Bernardo see or interpret as the actual symptoms of this activity, the symptoms of the One Subject learning through the many lanes, as it were, and acting upon this experience or learning? And if it doesn't do this, if the One Subject is in effect passive, aside from its actions as "experiencers" in the many lanes, if it does not cross reference and assimilate experience, what then is really the nature of this One Subject? It doesn't seem like it would be a mind as we understand it, because those are mind-like things to do. Is it then a kind of passive field of consciousness in which any activity can emerge, but it has no "perspective" (in a Gestalt sense) of its own on those experiences? When a particular lane closes, do the experiences formed or found in that lane, during its lifetime, change or influence the One Subject, or do they just exist timelessly within it, like beautiful but otherwise pointless doodles on the ground of being? I hope my question makes sense and, as always, thanks for listening.
Wow, thanks for sharing 🙏🙏🙏
Great, I was hoping for a part two!
Great one. Thanks!
The most basic and rudimentary lesson of Idealism is that it imposes strict epistemological limits on our understanding. You can never get to the inner nature of reality along the path of objective analysis. Knowledge itself presupposes representation.
This gentleman should be on the next Holberg debate
Yess, there ia a part 2, amazing!
thx for work.I press play.
I once dreamed that I died and everything got darker, more confusing and more frightening. So this experience even if accounted by an NDE indeed could be more of an expectation what death is than the reality.
A person I know who was schizoid for 74 years had mind reunite spontaneously. The split off parts had apparently healed and could be safely assimilated. The mind is an amazing thing. It self-protects. The same may be true of cells as intelligence and consciousness is everywhere.
Anyone have a link to or know the name of that Documentary Bernardo kept referring to ?
1:26:34 My criticism of Kastrup that was put to him here was not well-posed. I argued that using evolution to justify the dashboard metaphor conflicts with his anti-realist view of science which he has put forward elsewhere (see my video for where). But in reply to Monistic in this video BK says that we _can_ construct coherent theories about 'whats going on', like evolutionary theory, even without direct access to it because the dashboard must correlate sufficiently with it to enable survival as per evolutionary theory (this seems like circular reasoning to me, but it is not clearly an _inconsistent_ position, which would be worse).
But there _is_ inconsistency between this claim and the anti-realist perspective of science that says scientific theories merely relate the behavior of the dials to each other (i.e. explain and predict perceptual experience). He seems, here at least, to be a 'semi-realist' about science. Some things about scientific theory correlate with reality, but not all. And he should not then say the dashboard is the physical world, otherwise evolution and entropy tell us things about... what... the nature of universal consciousness? I think would be news to Darwin and the entropy physicists. And would Kastrup say universal consciousness is entropic?
Also, Kastrup is walking a tightrope here. The dials tell us _something_ about reality (enough to use scientific theories to justify his metaphyiscs), but not what reality is like (enough to speculate about the realm beyond the dashboard). I think he really needs to justify a principled basis for doing so, otherwise it seems like an _ad hoc_ pick'n'mix position.
Note too that my argument was not Plantinga's one that says evolution is self-defeating, since it would mean we ought not to trust our reasoning faculties (not perceptions as BK suggests here). Nor am I suggesting that BK's position of accepting both the dashboard and evolution is necessarily self-defeating (as I said it is not an inconsistent position). The point is that evolution (or entropy etc.) cannot be what justifies the dashboard metaphor if the dashboard metaphor is what in turn justifies the truth of evolutionary theory (or entropy etc.).
Thanks for your clarifications. I ended up wording the question in ways that Pessimistic Idealism and myself have worded it before out of habit (I kind of lumped us all together), and if that's what you mean by not well-posed then that's my bad. However, in substance you and I seem to be saying the same thing here: using evolution to justify the dashboard metaphor seems epistemologically self-undermining. That's what I was getting at there, and that's also what you're getting as you've said in your clarification here.
Hopefully Bernardo is able to read your comment here. I bet you guys would have a nice, constructive back and forth if given the opportunity.
@@MonisticIdealism Thanks Monistic. On re-listening I think what you said initially was correct by mentioning that the _justification_ is undermined. But BK certainly seemed to interpret it as the idea that evolution as a theory is itself, self-defeating. But honestly, I think I'm done giving any more attention to this because BK seems to be very slippery concerning these matters. I want to know what he thinks science tells us about the nature of ultimate reality (i.e. universal consciousness) and what it doesn't. And on what basis we can know the difference. When pressed he too often appeals to his own metaphors and presents half-way barely-sketched positions that are very frustrating. I didn't mention _Materialism is Baloney_ in my video critique because there he is even more prone to crafting grand metaphors, reading results from them as though they were scientific models, but then saying 'its only a metaphor' whenever it suits him to.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy You're welcome, and I'm glad we can come to an agreement. I understand if you'd rather not pay more attention to this, but for what it's worth: I think you're bringing up excellent points here and I think even fellow supporters of Bernardo would agree.
@@MonisticIdealism Thanks. You are very kind Monistic. But right now I'm working on my own case for Idealism that I hope to release soon. And I'd be interested on your feedback for that. Let's keep talking!
@@AbsolutePhilosophy You are very kind as well, and I appreciate that. Indeed, let's stay in touch! I'm excited for your case to come out and I'll be happy to promote it when it does (and share my feedback too).
There are two ways to break down programming which we all experience, meditation or psychedelics. Meditation is the best way to do it.
BK is a hero of humanity
Bernardo’s right, the hyper-intellectuals and hyper-rationalists of the world seem to have the most difficulty with the immediacy of consciousness. If you’re disconnected from your feelings and live solely in the land of the intellect, you lose sight of what it’s like to be you. Chomsky, as brilliant as he is, seems to be a good example of this; he seems devoid of any emotion!
It is bizarre to criticize someone who reasons without emotions. Listen to Bernardo's emotionally-laden rant on Chomsky and ask yourself whether that becoming for a man of philosophy and science. And you're dead wrong: no human is devoid of any emotion
@@playtonicDsI agree no human is without emotions. But some humans are experts at suppressing/repressing their emotions, and it often shows up in their philosophy
N. Chomsky championed the first amongst us in the western world for calling out the Vietnam War. And he’s written over 100 books.... I would simply stay away from this hype.
@@srgleporedoesn’t mean he’s got consciousness figured out
this is such a bizarre take. to, first off, exclude Kastrup from the "hyper-intellectuals and hyper-rationalists", as if idealism doesn't itself posit an irreducible disconnect between experience and existence.
and then to criticise Chomsky based on his affect during speech, when he's 95 years old. when it no doubt takes him an incredible effort just to engage in speaking, your criticism is that his rhetoric doesn't have enough emotion?
I think Kastrup needs more explanation regarding re-association. He accepts The Reassociation Thesis too quickly. "If xenobots can de-associate, then they can re-associate." No, that is false (I allege; this is just the internet). There may be separate mechanisms for re-association & de-association. Those mechanisms might emerge independently & in different orders, such that something can re-associate before it can de-associate & something can de-associate before it can re-associate.
There is nothing tangible , physical behind matter. Abstract mathematics,pure information
One flaw in Bernardo's dissociation analogy is that in those humans who have the psychological disorder, only one personality can emerge at one time. In nature, on the other hand, there are billions of dissociated alters existing simultaneously. I wish someone would ask him about that distinction.
I wish I could remember which video, but I did see one where he was asked about this. In his reply, he mentioned studies on dissociative identity disorder where the patients’ various alters interacted in their dreams.
@@paulnoth1281 Yes, he has mentioned that in several of his videos. It is a powerful analogy. However, the dream state is highly distinctive from our normal waking state, so I wish he would address that more directly.
Not sure how Bernardo's NDE perception theory accounts for many aspects of some NDEs
Analytical Idealism is the scientific backbone to the spiritual world we cannot prove at the current level of consciousness.
interesting new stuff!
Hello fellow Kastrupians!
I think Chomsky's position on the mind body problem is very clear, Newton through his theory of gravitation showed that the universe/matter is not mechanical in the classical sense and there has not been a consistent account of the physical and hence of the body since Newton, therefore the mind-body problem can not be formulated consistently. Kastrup ignores/misrepresents Chomsky's position completely and even accuses him of not following the literature...
Kastrup ignores and misrepresents many, MANY thinkers. Just listening to him sit there and lie and spout bullshit pisses me off, and knowing that people actual take him seriously is depressing.
Haaah right out the gate, asking about dr maudlin. This is going to be another cool interview. BK didnt have much patience for maudlin when they tried to have a dialogue.
TIM Maudlin? Did that guy actually try to debate Tim Maudlin?
The dude is a total whackjob. His idealism is a silly belief, and here he is trying to talk nonsense about a guy who understands Bell’s theorem quite well. Kastrup doesn’t even know what the award was for-he says “entanglement,” but this is just completely mistaken. It’s non-localism-NOT entanglement! The two things are distinct
Perhaps you should debate bernardo? I can't wait for that one
@@clivejenkins4033yeah? What would get out of that? Can you imagine anything anyone could say which would refute Kastrup’s views?
Why can’t you wait? What sort of pleasure would you get out of such a debate?
And for the record, I absolutely would.
@@chriscurry2496 Wait wait - you seem to know your stuff. If this stuff interests you, look at bernardo's bio and you'll see he's an intellectual heavyweight. It's just very easy to misunderstand idealism.
@@chriscurry2496 If nonlocalism is true, then local objects in time and space are untrue. If local objects are untrue, the whole universe is one entangled whole. Seems logical. How do you see it?
I Always fly from Kastrup (CPH)!
Kastrup has absolutely destroyed materialism. But has he destroyed free will under idealism? There is a big debate going on amongst idealists, and it has been sparked in many Idealist groups on FB by philisophers like Richard Oxenburg, who recently had an article published on the Essentia Foundation about how evolutionary theory does not account for the drive to survive and the pursuit of behaviours that don't confer survival advantage, like the appreciation of music and artistic creativity. Anyway, I will soon do a video on my channel about this. My friend Claudio Soprano of @thenonphysical also interview Oxenburg recently so look out for that. He disagrees with Kastrup on free will and reckons it's an ontological primitive.
"Kastrup has absolutely destroyed materialism."
LMFAO. Only among his minority of his adoring followers. Like all believers of idealism, he's leaning farther into cult leader status, and avoiding any scrutiny that his weak and fragile ego can't take.
@@chriscurry2496I disagree. Have you read his book 'Why Materialism Is Baloney?' If you want to refute someone's arguments, steelman them first and then cogently explain why he's wrong. Starting with ad hominems, like claiming he's slowly becoming a cult leader, is usually a red herring and the hallmark of a debate loser. I want you to explain to me where, precisely, BK went wrong in the basics of idealism.
How does he destroy materialism. What exactly is his argument?
@@johnhausmann2391
Step one: buy into a bunch of Eastern boloney about consciousness
Step two: conjecture that consciousness is “all there is”, while relying on it’s vague and essentially useless definition (because if you can’t even properly define something, and you claim it’s what everything “is,” you’re forever insulated from falsification because you’re never clear enough in any formulation of your theory to even achieve falsifiability
Step three (critical for Kastrup): COMPLETELY misunderstand (or simply lie) about what Bell’s Theorem asserts and what subsequent tests show
Step four: go on a ton of little podcasts with claims about your “theory” while literally running away from the one individual who provided any serious critique of your bullshit claims
Step five: profit
@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist look, none of Kastrup’s arguments have any merit. They are not only wrong, but they aren’t even original. It literally makes no sense to claim everything is “consciousness.” There’s zero reasons to think that.
So stop with this “use good arguments” nonsense-if you can present a reasonable theory to use reason against, I’ll be happy to do it. But reading Hegel and taking drugs to theorize “all is consciousness” is not science. I’m sorry.
Can I get a link to the discord server dude, thanks 😊 the only in the bio is invalid.
Chomsky doesn’t say the mind/body problem was solved with newton he says the problem doesn’t exist since newton showed we have no notion of body. So we can’t ask how can the body give rise to the mind, if we have no notion of body. If we have a notion of body which cannot account for the mind then there is a mind body problem. We have no clear understanding of what matter (body) is, so how can the mind being a property of the brain be unexplainable? He goes on to say i think that this is an example of our ‘materialism’ lacking. I think hes arguing that we mistakenly think we know what the world is consitituded of when in fact we don’t know
A very sensible and nuanced position that Kastrup does not get, but nevertheless feels entitled to talk down (listen to his condescending tone) to Chomsky like righteous sophist.
Does one not see without eyes when dreaming?
🤯
The physical body returns to the elements from which it came. Read below about the two bodies that remain.
Bernardo's suggestion that the corpse is an image in consciousness and so still sort of conscious (hope i'm not butchering the theory?) reminds me of a horror film starring Liam Neason where the just arrived (corpse) in Liams mortuary is still conscious, and is talking, but trapped in the corpse, and asking to be released but Liam Neason shuts them in the coffin while they scream. So when the body eventually vanishes into the elements we are released back into source. So does this mean mummys are being tortured cos they cant leave to the afterlife😮
Yoooo!!!! 4 more hours!!
Here's what Chomsky meant when he referred to "what's-it-like" questions as "impossible interrogatives" that are "meaningless." He means that the answers to such questions cannot be scientifically determined. So take a question like, "What's it like to eat poo?" This question is meaningless in the sense that it cannot be formulated into a scientific investigation capable of yielding objective and verifiable answers. This concept of meaninglessness is similar to Wittgenstein's usage in the Tractatus, saying that metaphysical questions are nonsense or meaningless because they cannot be addressed scientifically. Kastrup should be less smug responding to Chomsky, who is quite meticulous in this thinking. I’m not sure I could say the same about Kastrup.
I think the question "What's it like to eat poo?" is not meaningless.
It can be scientifically determined by investigating what kind of modfications of consciousness that experiences it thru assuming the perspective of fly or any kind of insects that swarm it.
Yeah, that’s not science. Again, it won’t yield objective and verifiable answers. You and i will never know what it’s like to be a fly, much less what it’s like to be a fly eating poo. Hence the question’s meaninglessness
@@jedserAre you making a scientific claim that we can never know what it's like to be a fly?
@@Cpt_Guirk it’s not a scientific claim because it can’t be investigated scientifically. It’s an impossible interrogative. If you disagree, then show us how to formulate the question into a testable hypothesis
Chomsky (in one of the videos on the TOE channel) has dismissed phenomenology (& the Eastern Contemplatives) as a viable method for studying & understanding consciousness. The only was to fully understand any phenomena is to study it directly & the only way to study consciousness is via the first-person perspective (aka phenomenology).
Whatever Chomsky has to say about consciousness should be ignored if he’s gonna dismiss phenomenology. Alan Wallace & his organizations are trying to have contemplatives collaborate with neuroscientists & cognitive scientists in understanding consciousness via reinvigorating William James’ introspection methodology. That’s way more productive & conducive to the topic of consciousness than anything Chomsky has to say (I admire Chomsky for his political views & knowledge, however, he should stay in his lane if he’s not even gonna entertain serious consciousness studies).
I found it humourous when Bernardo said Goethe would not have a clue in understanding analytic idealism, and indeed quantum physics, when a young bratty Arthur Schopenheur handed him a book some 150 years ahead of his time. Schopenhauer writes that Goethe read his book. But he probably skim read it like we all do😅
No. What about Heraclitus and down throughout centuries to Spinoza and Nietzche writings? I liked Dawkins to speak, but I loved Carl Sagan's depth of meanings of universe of galaxies, black holes and daek matter, Who created Qutamm mechanics? And the string theory? Who was Albert Enistein ?❤I had other other writings about what happened to me as child drowning. What happened? Where did that go?
What are the primary colors, what is blue and white combined?
Poem: Hypathes Pupiis? Meaning her eyes?What happened to the first woman of astrology and she created instruments? Who was her father?What happened to her?
The Christains tore her flesh off her because she was a pagan. Pardon me, I can't write fast enough, I left many wonders out.
My papa gave me books at a very young age. I loved reading books, I came out of my mama's womb of water, the umbilical cord was cut, and I took my first breath and cried, as we all do.
I am skipping over Noam Chomsky , he was really intelligent, I loved Professor Michael Parenti better. Did one ever hear those two debate? Professor Michael Parenti won, hands down!!!!
Did one ever see Noam Chomsky and Foucault debate. I go with Foucault "Method or Madness, he made good arguments about shadows governments. I could name many others, I am out of breath now for I have up 24 hours writing non- stop.
When one knows, one doesn't know and when one doesn't know, then and only then one may. What does accumulated knowledge mean? Where does awarness and insights come from? What is perception?
My papa made an iconoclast? I can't help but enqiure deeply. Krishnamurti and Alan Watts.
I am not good with technology , in fact, I don't cell phones, just like Dr. iain McGilchrist, Rupbert Sheldrake, who also knew and David Bohm, Physicist. , Krishnamurti. Plus, the late Harold Bloom of Yale University who taught literature. He did like cellphones either. I never have Facebook, Instagram or tic took, just RUclips, I am stubborn, I haven't ever learned how to do an e-mail. I love philosophy and art and literature, sciences, and religious divisions for centuries.
I loved Dr. Sugrue, philosophy and history, and literature . He just passed away recently. I love the Essentialists Philosophy and Dr. Wes Cecil. Professor Rick from Texas also passed away philosophy and political science, so RUclips has its advantages. FIilip Horn, "Let's Talk Religion and John Sledge, "Esoterica." America History on all sides and Howard Zinn is a good starter, "A People's History of the United States of America and and Sheldon Wollin's books and journalists John Pilger Rip🙏❤️ And Chris Hedges books, so many great independent journalists, in addition if I may I also add Dr Gerald Horne's Books, historian of Afro-American studies here in America and Central America and Africa who has over fifty books written and still is writing. Will, "Stoics" Julius Ceasars Meditations , Seneca, and Epicurus, and others, I have all these books, Fiction Beast on RUclips again, Philosophy and literature.
My papa left me over 150 first edition books of years past, and I grew up in libraries at a very young age, and I did not like to read Heidi, either. Is that normal? I still go to libraries and I buy book from them and then donate back to the library and go to book stores, old and new, and still go back and to the Libraries. No one is at my local library in my rural town hardly.
I know I may lack an education, but I do read great books of various kinds over my youthful years. I am not good with physics, but I love to listen to those who have gorilla minds of enormous energy and calcutions and concepts.
I will listen to this again about 4 times over and over again.
I thank all of you for this extraordinary discussion.
Thank all of you again.
I can write and listen at the same time, even through space and time.
Albert Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge.
What is ultimate truth? Have we discovered it yet? Does it evolve as histories lies come fruition as generations evolve and sciences evolve? May I ask how languages do all of you speak? Noam Chomsky does well at that.and he is an elder statesmen now, years of writing books and teaching. MIT, wow!!!
Nietzche spoke seven, and Spinoza also, and many others languages, and so did Krishnamurti? I read where one of our ambassadors spoke 12 languages, and he resigned from his position.
What will happen to all of us in 2024 election season? I am not voting either way unless Cornel West brings the ships home of miracles. We need a new education for humanity. what do they teach at those higher universities of knowledge anyway, unless someone layers uncharted boundaries with thinking outside of the box no matter what one field one is in. We are walking in seas of madness, and all societies and human beings are tramatized by psychopaths of greed and powers of governments? Human nature 101.
Just by listening, all of you are not like that. You are respectful of your critical analysis and each others papers written and what you have learned.
This is sanity. 😊
I also have an enormous love of all genras of music dating as far as Mesopotamia and further back of hunter gatherers as they picked up sticks and banged each over the head and the women had to separate them with clinking sounds.
A generalized definition of civilization: a civilized society is exhibiting the fine qualities of truth, beauty, art, and peace.
Alfred North Whitehead
I love creative arts in every field of dance, painting, and poetry.
May I also thank my reading group of CJ.Jung's "The Redbook" Libra Novus edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani and many other books in his Jungian field of writers.
Also , all documentaries are animal life and insects.
Kevin, the cat whisperer of South Africa and his team.
Subsequently, i also found out recently we have a wonderful man in Denver Colorado, who a sanctuaries of cats, he evolved in that by trial and error for he had no schooling work, he received old animals who had been abused in zoo"s and by abusive people.
Jacque Cousteau for his example of marine biology and all those who followed in his footsteps and there are many.
PIus David Hoffman, editor and filmmaker for many years of real people and music, 16 milimenter film.
Lastly, Dr. Gabor Mate and his wisdom and compassion in the psychiatristry field, alas Dr Fraad, hers also, She is married to Professor Richard Wolff and thanks to Dr. Michael Hudson, Yanis Varoufakis and many great independent journalists of news organizations with persistence for the real news our to the World. We have many!!
Archeologists , all of them, and everyone else I search for to acquire more wisdom.
Wheeeoh!!! Where there light may join together to the stars of galaxies and solar sun's, stars fading out and gathering forces again. How many billions years since bursts of the universe began? I don't know, that is definitely unknown to me.
.I am so fortunate to listen to people who are living examples of what they have learned without contempt for one another and jealousy and hate. There are some guiding lights of lighthouses guiding all our ships home to safe harbors of loving and living withoutt wars with families and parents, children running in all directions in fear and being murdered. We can do better than this. As , I ponder these ideas and concepts over and always with narrowing down to facts, well, I don't know physics and biology, I was good in geometry
Enough said , I have to watch this again and again. At least I am interested and not walking in self-defeat and self- pity Dark and light matter.
The gold resides in all of us.❤
🙏❤️🌏🌿🎵🎶🎵 Whatever you do and wherever you are don't listen jazz clubs especially NYC.
Oh, I am only being humorous . I forgive most all of them, well, I have a few I'm now letting go finally. It is a journey unfolding with seconds and inches to restore my anger, to wisdom and sanity. We are only human and on this earth for minutes, hours, days, nights, just be in it and walk through all of it's tragedies and joys and know we are love and reach a hand out for all our brothers and sisters.
🙏❤️🌏🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
Meditation is all good. No bad side effects.
20:30 Why is it assumed that we start off as one? Do the two cells that combined previously have nothing to do with the Zygotes internal structure?
It's assumed because it sounds good to Bernardo and his ridiculous ancient scrolls of wisdom or whatever.
What is the quality of Thy experience? While concerning unto our OWN experience. Is like...remind nevertheless will visit some will say who is visiting? Heirs and our Beautiful will say why are these hide us from HIM? Who love with patience, mercy, and grace!
Students how can activities even to move an inch?
The Bernardo's interpretation off near-death experiences cannot be refuted like just the spaghetti monster can't. there is NDE with precognition, for example.
I thought sperm and egg were dissasociated alters, doesn't that mean if they reassociate it would be into mind at large? I know I'm not understanding something could someone please help me?
Why wouldn NDEers not be able to see a random number shown anywhere in the room if they are indeed able to hear what doctors & nurses are saying, let alone thinking, in real time ,in that same room!?
I don't know if Bernardo will look at these comments, but regarding word games:
1) they're awful and have no place in productive discourse.
2) being able to sit in the privacy of your own bedroom to watch yourself get a rise out of yourself remotely really makes you appreciate the utility of the dissociative barrier.
Sorry if this is a stupid question but if we need eyes to see then how do we see in dreams? Or even the imagination
We do indeed have eyes when we dream
10:14 - Fried air! Is the Dutch expression. 👍🏻😃
Definitely disagree with the "NDEers cant see anything" theory
The Hardest Problem of Consciousness
We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur?
Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one.
Billions showed up after this one.
None of them seem to have created my existence.
This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others
All bodies are made of the same elements.
All brains have the same basic anatomy.
If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously.
A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once.
I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different.
Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs?
When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room?
According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence.
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
How could pure awareness even be individualized?
Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure.
There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that.
Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized.
My blender uses electricity.
Is it a genius?
Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is.
As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual.
One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case.
In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
This is an excellent example of how idealism can confuse and delude an individual to such an extent that even the simplest questions with the most obvious answers become intractable and perplexing. Even as far back as the 1700's, Kant was writing about the fundamental nature of one's perception of space and time, making the localization of things fundamental to human perception, and realists such as myself (and perhaps Kant) would argue that this is fundamental to reality as well. So asking why your consciousness resides "here" and "now" is just as obvious as why a particular rock exists here and now rather than different rock that exists "there" perhaps now, or perhaps later.
If the "outcome of measurement is physical" but "what is being measured is not ", how on Earth does the non-physical gets converted into the physical ? In fact what does it mean that something is "not physical" ? Just saying that a thing is not physical states absolutely nothing without explaining what aspect of physicality does not apply to the "non-physical". Of course this would then expose Kastrup to having to explain how making a measurement expands/replaces/transforms the non-physical so that it becomes "physical". Obviously he is not going into this because he has absolutely nothing to say other then a vague science fiction story in which the world is made of "something ELSE". Oh good. Now we know how the world works. Moving on...
Not just one body. Three bodies make up the human: causal body (ideational body); astral: (energy body); physical (elemental body).. After the death of the physical or element body two bodies are left. According to the person’s advancement the soul with its two remaining bodies goes to the causal or astral dimension for a duration of time until it is time to reincarnate again. Liberation is having passed all tests and being released into Spirit.
Bernardo shows a clear misunderstanding of the effects of oxygen on the brain, and the mechanics of hyperventilation. I wonder what else he's wrong about :)
Chomsky rocks
What's it like to be me? What is your experience of red, and such questions are argued as nonsensical in pms hacker's, the intellectual powers, 2013, Blackwell, chapter 1, and other places.
I need to give this a read. But Many philosophers and cognitive scientists over-privilege the intellectual/cognitive aspects of mind and ignore feeling/intuition.
So is the ultimate mind, that we all are just disassociated pieces, a personal mind? Doesn’t God cover what Bernard is taking about?
Swear to G-d J.R Tolkien's imagination pales in comparison to that of BK's
J.R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings wasn't just a movie, it was a documentary.
@@JulianH-co7qg by comparison, I'd say it was raw cctv camera footage with 0 postprocessing
Gonzalez Timothy Moore Steven Thompson Daniel
Refer Tibetian book of the Dead ..E vens Wence ... take a larger Dose ...Feed your Head ...center of brain.....Idont think you are ever going to IT .....sad luck ......eh
Instead of 4 hours interview with Kastrup you need to interview Chomsky for 30 minutes but please don’t talk after you ask your question…,
you're going into another extreme now, generating additional realities and entities in total contradiction to the Occam's principle.
Now you have a world of consciousness, another non-physical world that somehow is free from having a physical substrate or materiality and a "dashbord" metaphor that mediates the two. And all this so you can poopoo materialism.
This is a passion that could've been better applied elsewhere.
Pure physicalism is idiotic, and any attempt to hide behind "oh, it's a mystery, an epiphenomena" etc is simply not serious, I will readily grant you that.
However, "how much my thought weighs" is just bad faith rhetoric and shows why you can't reconcile idealism with materialism and see that they are one and the same.
In a billiard-ball model universe, let's inspect two arrangements, one with stripes to the left of some imaginary line (say, an observer's 12 o'clock) and solids on the right, and the second one with balls mixed evenly on both sides. How much does the arrangement 1 weigh vs. arrangement 2? Precisely the same. Are these arrangements informationtheoretically equal? Is their Kolmogorov complexity/algorythmic compression of balls' positions/system's entropy the same? Hell no!
So no, of course your thought doesn't weigh anything, but a distinct thought is a novel arrangement of charges and molecules in your brain (observable with EEGs and fMRIs), i.e. a novel state of your material brain, i.e. A NOVEL STATE OF THE UNIVERSE.
to sum up:
No thought, emotion, state of consciousness or an idea can exist non-physically, without a material substrate, it's absurd. It simply unfathomable. You cannot willy nilly instantiate non-physical world, that's just a mirage, hot air. There cannot be states of consciousness, or any form of thought, information without a physical expression. We will go from corpuscules to subatomic particles, to fields, to pilot waves, to hidden variables, to Wolfram's cell automata-like quantized states -- yet there will always be material record expressing the evolution of the Universe, i.e. Matter. Every state of consciousness is expressed as a physical state of the Universe.
(BTW, the reason why Buddhism has to hypostasize Nothingness, is because it's the intellectual dead end you run into when trying to have one without the other, ideas without a material expression, where Nothing begets (expectedly) Nothing.)
"Idealism" is to say that every configuration of matter is a distinct state of consciousness. "Materialism" is to say that every idea is a distinct configuration of the material world. Wisdom is to see that they are one and the same.
P.S. The latest Bell Inequality experiments did away with Locality, not Realism. And Bell was the biggest fan of Bohmian mechanics and believer in hidden variables. Locality over spacelike separations is a true conundrum, but why everyone is concerned with Realism, I don't understand -- in a purest sense, a measurement disturbs the system, the state before the measurement is inaccessible anyway, so why worry about it, it's moot. What was the velocity and the vector of the bullet before the gun was fired? Who cares, it can only go where the barrel is pointing at the speed determined by the weight of the gunpowder. This interaction erases previous states of the bullet and they cannot be restored.
Locality is another matter, much more intriguing. Perhaps higher-dimensional models can permit instant action at a distance -- for example an entangled pair is simply two points where one 4D string intersects our 3D space. It's like looking at two cross-sections of a rotating sausage -- one end will appear to spin clockwise and the other will appear to spin counter-clockwise (not my idea, some Russian physicist whose name I forgot). You can sample that sausage at two opposite ends of the Solar system and the result will be the same -- it's salami spinning in one direction at one end and salami spinning in the opposite direction at the other.
Masterful use of chat gpt
@@jedser thank you for implying I have access to infinite knowledge
You can’t know the “arrangement of charges and molecules” without a mind to begin with. They are cognitions, not the thing in themselves. Our experiences are all we have to direct access to; physicality is a type of experience.
@@CJ-cd5cd Exactly! And said with brevity.
@@mentalitydesignvideo thank you for admitting it.
What's all this sophomoric nonsense about thoughts not having a weight or size. So what ? Vowels also don't smell, triangles are not more ethical than circles and bank accounts have no childhood memories . So what ? Do vowels and bank accounts become non-physical because they don't have weights ??? Saying that feelings have no weight commits the same basic category error as saying that they do would. The concepts that are invoked have no application to each other. It;'s not that feelings and bank accounts do not have weights in the sense that their weight is zero. ! It's that they are patterns and functions of physical things and patterns and functions cannot be put on a scale to measure their weights. So their weights are NEITHER zero NOR non-zero. . But that does not make the things that they are patterns or functions of weightless or non-physical. The bank has a weight, the bank-account does not. The printed letter 'A" is of some size the corresponding vowel isn;t. That does not make the bank account or language metaphysical novelties. And amazingly, this guy managed to get a Ph.D. in philosophy .....
Kastrup doesn't seem to realize that the very fact that he earns his living by running a foundation (the Essentia Foundation, the one related to dissemination of "analytic idealism") puts him in a murky position relative to honesty of thought, as murky as that of academic philosophers playing the publish-citation game.
Except his position can pivot with new evidence and not cost him the foundation.
He made a lot of money in the corporate world, the last thing he’s worried about is trying to make a buck off this stuff.
Lol
You only have to listen to him for a while to see that his dedication to logic and ‘higher’ discovery is doubtless far in excess to his careerism
You dont seem to realize that this statment is incoreect. No, he doesnt earn for his living via Essentia Fundation. 😂