Bernardo Kastrup's Small Theory of Everything
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2015
- This is a brief, idiot-proof, to-the-point overview of Bernardo's philosophical views; his 'theory of everything,' so to speak. It's "small" because it's based on one simple, straight-forward idea, on the basis of which the whole of reality can be explained without reference to any postulated universe outside mind. A corresponding essay touching on the same ideas can be found here:
www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/0...
The contents of this video are based on the book 'Brief Peeks Beyond,' which can be purchased here:
Amazon US: www.amazon.com/Brief-Peeks-Bey...
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-Peeks-B...
Publisher website: www.iff-books.com/books/brief-...
Author info:
www.bernardokastrup.com
/ bernardokastrup
/ bernardokastrup
/ bernardokastrup
www.amazon.com/author/bernardo...
Credits:
Photos of the Alzheimer Symposium: The Future of Brain Health 2015 by Roy Borghouts.
Background animation by clipcanvas.com.
Background music by Kevin MacLeod, incompetech.com.
Copyright © 2015 by Bernardo Kastrup. All rights reserved.
I've been a staunch materialist and a hard-line determinist for most of my life, but you've presented your argument in a nigh unassailable way here. Fair play, I feel much more open to this line of thought now.
@@@nickolasgaspar9660 you said: "Why do you jump from one extreme view to an other (materialist-idealist).?"
He did no such thing. He merely said he felt "much more open to this line of thought now.".
@@xs10z we're having a nice discussion over there: ruclips.net/video/mWzV2P3JpuU/видео.html&lc=UgwLVXehmLddqC5u3514AaABAg.98_DSKyKaDz98qn5UTPsAQ - I'm sorry but there is disproof of Idealism. Naturalism has won - we do have an explanation for consciousness.
@@question1235 Orch-Or theory has not been proven yet, but its showing great progress.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 You can test the fact that the universe is mental by observing how it responds to your thoughts. This becomes obvious when you apply clear ideation + intense desire + prolonged concentration.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I'm a naturalist (nothing is above nature, everything subject to nature) but see nature as the nature of mind.
WHY ON EARTH did it take the algorithm f***ing 6 years to suggest this video to me? Holy S**t, this may be the best video i've ever seen on RUclips. Guess I have to read, watch and listen to everything from you from now on. Thank you for your work! Truly brilliant.
@@nickolasgaspar9660
Correlation doesn’t mean causation
@@nickolasgaspar9660 and you can stop talking out of your ass and actually contribute with something of substance..
Weirdly the most beautiful, illuminating thing I’ve ever heard
@Nickolas Gaspar this comment is nonsense
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Why ?
To be fair, materialism/physicalism is every bit as much of an "unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation" as idealism at this point.
Only time will tell whether either of these assumed worldviews (as well as others, like dualism) will prove to be falsifiable. Until then, all we can do is make logical, informed speculations that do not contradict the data. That's basically how other major scientific theories, such as evolution by natural selection, got their start.
"Unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation" is also the current status of ALL of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, e.g. the Many Worlds Interpretation--they all fit the data, but are seemingly unfalsifiable at the present moment (but hopefully not forever).
Nickolas Gaspar - I’m not sure I’d say MWI is less out there than idealism. We KNOW conscious experience exists with 100% certainty, so Idealism requires the least number of assumptions under Occam’s Razor. MWI, on the other hand...
It seems that outlandish ideas like MWI are only considered “natural” (rather than supernatural) because it’s convenient to bring them under the umbrella of materialism/physicalism. Same for concepts like superposition and quantum entanglement, as well as the weirdness of the Double-Slit and Quantum Eraser results. Maybe that’s why many of the most prominent founders of QM were comfortable positing consciousness itself as the cause of wave function collapse (and many still do).
I suspect that panpsychism-which is kind of an intermediate step towards Idealism-will join that club one day. Everything that can affect the physical world will eventually be considered physical, and will fall under the umbrella of physicalism...even if Idealism turns out to be true...
Nickolas Gaspar - Consciousness was in fact taken seriously by a lot of the most prominent, well-known founders of QM as the cause of wave function collapse. This is not a controversial assertion. Just look it up.
And no one has the slightest inkling at this point of how a purely physical system can produce subjective, first-person experiences, nor how those experiences can include _purely qualitative_ aspects, like the redness of red (which literally doesn’t exist outside of consciousness). The explanation you gave might work for explaining how the brain processes information and then spits out behavior, but not experience itself. There is, in fact, a “Hard Problem”, “Explanatory Gap”, “Mind-Body Problem”, what have you.
As for your other points-agree to disagree.
Thank you Bernardo. This is the first explanation of " who we are" that matches my NDE experience 6 years ago.
Mystical experiences, while undeniable in their subjectivity, unhinge the whole scientific research framework, but whatever floats your boat.
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet
NEVER FEAR GOD
Genius
This makes far more sense than the present "mainstream" material views of reality. A paradigm shift is sure to follow!
AnduinX BYM so shall we hope! ;)
Be careful to avoid long walls of text, without scientific equations.
See Carl Sagan's bullshit detector.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Identify the failed idea here.
@@g0d182 Be careful when you pretend you understand the very first line in a wall of text. Be it a short wall far less a long wall.
@@g0d182 @Nickolas Gaspar Below is some more "long walls of text and failed ideas". He can defend his failed ideas at the highest level and walk away with his PHD in philosophy to add to his resume' of having worked at CERN along with his PHD in computer engineering from Eindhoven University of Technology as he also specializes in artificial intelligence ...
Somehow i don't think he needs to impress you "two authorities".
You can debate this between yourselves too.
Good luck...
ruclips.net/user/results?search_query=Bernado+Kastrup+defends+his+doctorate
Wow! This theory brings so much meaning to life! THERE SHOULD BE A MOVIE ABOUT THIS!
It Would be cooler then The Matrix
This is a movie. You mean a Holywood movie?
Amazing work! Thank you Bernardo. I’ve seen in my own life and friends that physical activity, getting in shape over many months can give great mental benefits. The idea that physical activity could improve mental activity seems like an inconspicuous benefit and evidence for your theory.
Bernardo Kastrup “complements” Tom Campbell, Rupert Sheldrake, and Bruce Lipton, to name some of today’s leading guiding lights. Each has a unique presentation of essentially similar discoveries - both theoretical and experiential. So glad to recently learn of Dr Kastrup!
ALL: I cannot comment on philosophical content via RUclips comments anymore, due to limited time and redundancy with other places where I do discuss my philosophical system. So if you like to engage on philosophical discussions, please post in my Discussion Forum at: groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/metaphysical-speculations. You can find more useful links about my philosophical system here: www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/04/social-media-policy-and-useful-links.html. I count on your understanding!
I'm French, I understood 90% of the video, that's enough to keep me awake for the next few weeks.
I have severe DID to the point that I have seizures for hours daily .. but I only turn into very young (newborn to about four) versions of myself. I did not show any sign except vague memories of hiding in closets till age 38.
This makes me think that the manifestation of alters is secondary.. that there is a point to it. I believe that the alters provide a way to view and then shift perception, but very slowly and with help or other perspectives of surrounding people ..
by extension then, life is being formed in order to see where consciousness is ( expression or birth of alters), and then shift it( change understanding about linear and possibly no longer useful line of thought )to find a more
Inclusive perspective/paradigm with the aid of the fresh information provided by the existence/expression of new people and their feedback
I see Bernado Kastrup and Rupert Sheldrake as the two most important thinkers in science today - although this may not be fully appreciated until many more years to come. Really interesting I see this explanation now as I had a sort of "aha" moment a few days ago where I saw the universe as being one large neural network and now it just seems so plainly obvious that I can't believe western science hasn't even respectfully entertained the idea yet! I feel that we are still stuck in this human centricity complex that first said the earth is the centre of the universe and nature was essentially built for the OUR experience. Then we said our solar system was the centre and which also was built for OUR experience. Now what we have done is propose that the entire universe has no purpose apart from the fact that WE are the only way in which the universe can experience, observe and know itself! This is perhaps the most egocentric and arrogant stance of all three! Not to mention painfully ignorant. I feel like it's the exact type of claim that in 200 years from now people will look back upon in awe at the sheer ignorance and arrogance of such a ludicrous idea. Thank God we do have thinkers like Bernado that allow for the growth of scientific thought and philosophical endeavour - even though it will invariably encounter a lot of resistance along the way, the alternative would simply lead us in a painful circular road to nowhere.
Blue Lotus Thanks! And the resistance makes it more fun ;)
"I see Bernado Kastrup and Rupert Sheldrake as the two most important thinkers in science today." - Thinkers, as implying those with more intelligence than most. The problem with thinkers is that they think too much, instead of letting the clear essence of min d shine forth, beyond all intellectual though.
You list three human-centered propositions which you call preposterous but did not articulate a clear alternative, as fas as I can see. Would you care to elaborate further?
@@lobmathundrup8076 if we can fully and seriously grasp the no-mind that's much more common in the east, and at the same time value the gems that the western intellect give us, a rarely seen and greatly powerful take on existence and its' vicissitudes can take place.
@@markriva4259in the example of the dissociated individual, it's not clear how one would infer a global purpose from each personality's having a purpose. Likewise if we try to make the inference from individual minds to the universe's mind
This mind-at-large or general consciousness seems to me to be what Hinduism calls "Brahman".
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Do people find it comforting? Nobody says it's "heaven" or even that you maintain a sense of personal identity or memory. In fact, Kastrup has said in other places that his view is MORE scary than materialist views. The materialist says "when I die, it's over. Nothing to worry about." But if there is some sort of universal consciousness... who knows what is after this?
Now THAT is scary!
@Nickolas Gaspar how can you be so sure of "existential annihilation " if you know nothing about your existentialism itself. You don't KNOW how it came to be yet you are somehow an expert on its demise. I think you are actually protecting your own fear or horror. Your comment is a reflection of your inner experience. You are terrified of your own existential reality!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you claim to be a skeptic yet you make a great big assumption! Skeptics don’t make assumptions. The CORRELATION between the brain and experience is just that a CORRELATION. Your big assumption is that the brain is produces experience. Show me a single piece of evidence, show me a single coherent theory with clear causal links as to how the brain produces consciousness... then go get your Nobel prize. You claim to be a skeptic but you are NOT. Correlation does not equal causation. A skeptic would acknowledge that
@@nickolasgaspar9660 your pathetic need to vomit 🤮words like “beliefs and magical “ is testament to your maturity and lack of introspection. Your position is so naive it’s laughable. nobody knows if the brain produces consciousness you are a 🤥. All we have are strong correlations with conscious experience. That’s it mate. You talk of a mechanism no body can point one out.There is not even a single established theory on that. So to say brain “produces “ consciousness/experience is an ASSUMPTION. Until empirically PROVEN. You try to hide behind a smoke mirror💨 🪞 by using the word emerges... as if matter has some magical hidden properties when arranged in a complex way consciousness / experience somehow arises. 🪄 🎩 🐇 the “mechanism” one day we will figure out. You are pathetic appeal to magic or abstract Fantasy just as much as a religious guy. You are as pathetic.
@@nickolasgaspar9660you can image the 🧠 you can scan it and create more images, technically you could simulate my 🧠 down to quantum fields then atoms then molecules then cells tissue 🧠... you could look inside out of it what ever you like. You could label 🏷 parts bits and bobs... HOW WOULD YOU DEDUCE what a belly ache feels like..? Or what it feels like to drink ☕️ . ?
Why oh why would you put distracting music on a presentation of this kind????
Thanks, Bernardo, for another valiant attempt to explain this world view. A universe in which there is ultimately only one mind, and nothing else, really makes it possible to look at a long list of bizarre phenomena and check them off one at a time, saying, "Ah, yes, not so bizarre, really."
disposium there you go :)
I have OCD and it also feels like I'm dissociated sometimes. In many times I caught myself engaged in a regular task while at the time I was having a compulsive behavior. ... The sensation of being two within the same consciousness was crystal clear
Funny, reminded me of a favorite quote from, Ben Franklin.
While my attention was taken up in guarding against one fault I was often surprised by another, habit took advantage of inattention, inclination was sometimes too strong for reason.
-Ben Franklin
Thank you, Bernardo. I love your hypotheses. I saw your talk in London at Conway Hall, but we never got a chance to meet. I hope we do one day! You and I will have extraordinary conversations... I'd just like to point out here, for the sake of greater completeness, and in the hope that viewers of this video may have certain questions answered, that this is a brief summary of Bernardo's working hypothesis. I have read some of his books but not the one mentioned here yet. However, there are clearly a few things missing from this summary. That's no criticism of Bernardo or his hypothesis, but I'll just throw them into the mix to help people along with their understanding of the ideas presented here. Two essential points that are missing here, IMHO, are memory and attention. Identity cannot be understood, let alone experienced, without memory. The 'I' that observes needs no memory, but separate Identities need a narrative of memories. When that narrative is the focus of conscious attention, it outshines any other possible identity, large or small, that it might be part of. Speaking in terms of psychology, we all have sub-personalities that can be very unaware of each other, and that conflict with each other eg. when trying to stick to a diet, or trying to overcome procrastination. Additionally, every nerve end in our body is a separate 'I'. There is something it is like to be the top of my right forefinger, and that is very different to what it is like to be the tip of my left forefinger. One could be in pain from being hit by a hammer held in my right hand, yet the larger 'I' can be experiencing both. If I climbed into my comfortable bed and switched the light out in a dark quiet room, the sensation of pain in my left forefinger would outshine all the sensations from my other nerves and senses. At that time, I would be predominantly identified with my left forefinger, and unaware of the millions of other, less perturbed 'I's throughout the rest of my body. So consciousness itself is fractal... Fractals, of course, are the infinite yet bounded image of a very small, very finite seed when viewed from the perspective of that seed expressed as a repetitive process of existential self-relation. Sorry. Bit of a mouthful. But if this idea is new to you, do have a think about it and see what comes up in your own direct non-conceptual experience. Every brain/nervous system is a multi-input multi-output feedback system, inseparable from its environment from which it has grown. Analogous to such a feedback system with multiple inputs and outputs is a video camera pointing at its own monitor. I speculate that the physical Universe is equivalent of the 2-D mandala image produced by the metaphysically higher dimensional camera/monitor. Isn't this all such fascinating stuff..? :) [Disclaimer: I wrote this in bed on a Sunday morning on my smartphone with predictive texting, and only 4 lines of text visible at any time so please excuse any typos or nonsensical words as it's really difficult to edit this. Just I hope it's all reasonably comprehensible.]
Bro, this is awesome. Thanks a lot for bringing clarity to some of the points. Pls, keep writing and sharing your wisdom. We dont know which button lights up whose mind.
Bernardo: Here revealing Daniel Dennett to be an average intelligent adolescent who has discovered the charm of logic and reason without actual insight, relevance or understanding. Thanks Bernardo. Just purely brilliant - but don't let it go to your head...so to speak! LOL And, as an artist, I do look forward to your developed/articulated thoughts about art soon.
My "small theory of everything"... you will like this; it sums it all up, should be quite easy to understand, and discusses key implications regarding healthcare.
ruclips.net/video/iDW2V-fH6SY/видео.html
Thank you, Bernardo. I found this very interesting indeed, and I will be purchasing your books very soon. One thing that struck me is that as things like talk therapy, meditation, prayer, placebo etc can have a positive effect on a person's health, the reverse is true with regard to negative mental input, and it appears to be the case that we can make ourselves ill by mentally ingesting negativity. I know I haven't worded that particularly well (v tired), but I think it makes sense. :)
Thanks Mr Kastrup! Basically your view is very similar to that of a NASA physicist, namely, Tom Campbell. You both, among many others, including John Wheeler, Edward Fredkin and Brian Whitworth, are basically saying the universe is a virtual reality, generated from information processing in a universal consciousness, not unlike a video game world.
Is there a version of this amazing talk without distracting background music?
Hi Bernardo, Today, December 11th 2017, I wathced your video for the first time. Ever since I can remember, the subject on which you so directly speak have the words that go with what I already knew. Your words are sometimes almost the same as the words I heard me speak when this ongoing "satsang" in my head was going on while working in the garden. Thank you for putting words to this intuitive knowledge!!
Waiting for a part II.
Thank you.
Very intersting perspective, very powerful ! But there is a specific point (at the beginning of the video) upon which you build the theory that seems a bit shaky to me and please correct me if I'm wrong. If the brain is correlated to a "first person experience of consciousness", nothing allows us to say that it is the same case for the universe and all its components. It might be true of course, but it also might be true that the brain of living creatures is so specific in its nature with just the perfect right structure that we can not expect the same "first person experience of consciousness" with the other components of the universe.
Glad to see these ideas circulating so strongly in recent years. One point where you seem to make an interesting logical "leap" is around 25:35 where you say "I contend that the image of those subconscious dissociated mental processes [the image of the subconscious] is the physical body...it's the 2nd person perspective of our subconscious mental activities." This seems somewhat more speculative than the other strongly argued positions in the video.
Yes there is a huge flaw here and coming away from true perception unfortunately
Another great talk, but why the music? It only distracts from what you say.
One of the most astounding expositions on reality I've ever heard. Thank you for this, Bernardo!
Very very interesting ideas!
I would like to mention other two phenomena which could be tied to the overall possible explanation: 1) fractal structures (on all scales) and the behavior of nonlinear dynamic systems.
From your argument, one can intuit a self-similar pattern and behavior in the "Whole" and as in each human being.
I feel like now ( after a couple thousand years) we are on the right path
Very interesting, I’m a panpsychist physicalist and Id like to see you engage more panpsychists like you did wth Goth. I really enjoyed your presentation.
Rupert Spira
Rupert recommended to check you out and wow, this is mind blowing! Excellent presentation and inline with a lot of the "spiritual" thought processes.
Ok everyone, once you finish this clip, look up for Rupert Spira. You’ll need him to iron the bumps.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Educate ourselves for what exactly? To win technical debates on a RUclips comments section or to understand ourselves better as human beings?
“Mind at large” as *HUXLEY* likes to call it.
Fascinating. I was left with questions though
Wow. Mind blown (in the most joyful way). I love that point: "Emergence is an appeal to magic". Fantastic!
Bernardo, I love your ideas and your clear exposition of them. Also, your use of the title, "Small Theory of Everything" I took to be a humorous jab at Tom Campbell's so-called "Big TOE" that I enjoyed very much!
P.S. I enjoyed the jab, not Campbell's theory.
;-)
@@bernardokastrup It sure has merit, I'll give it that. & I'm still contemplating some aspects & investigating it further, but so far imho a purely idealistic VR model such as Campbell's BT seems considerably more comprehensive with essentially the same(& same # of) assumptions. How would you explain PSI(at large) with it ? I'm not saying it can't. I've got some Ideas but they're sketchy still. Just curious.
Well done! Bravo! Another “must read” for everyone and anyone.
Certain conscious agents will not appreciate the beauty of consciousness until it is too late. They will then realize that the questions were more valuable than the answers. Instead of obsessing over control, they will regret having not appreciated the experience of chaos
Great video. Have you checked out Chris Langan's CTMU TOE?
Wow... that music really raises my defenses!
Dear Bernardo, thank you 🙏 I am a little more than ignorant, but have been a “seeker” for very long time. What you say here makes sense and “materializes” what I feel about Consciousness and “conciousnesses”. I have been listening to your interviews and lessons, and I’m reading “Decoding Jung’s Metaphysics”. Please go on! Learning is fantastic and you are a brilliant teacher.
I haven't been restful enough to read for a long time, but when I find a way to be, I'll buy your book. Looks very interesting.
HammertownWins cheers!
Gratefully sent here by Rupert Spira 💙👍🏼
Me also.
This describes with precision very thoughts I've had wondering about the problem, and solves lots of unfinished thoughts I've also had.
bernardo, you are amazing and so smart. i am so glad i discovered you and all your teachings. you have changed my life! i resonate with your theory 100% thank you for the youtube page and videos and please please make more! i could listen to you talk about your ideas all day! thank you!
+David Ulmer Thanks David! Glad to hear it is resonating with you.
***** wow bernardo, thank you so much for responding personaly, i ment every word i said, keep up the great work! very exited to get and read your book!
+David Ulmer
How can a single awareness have multiple points of view with none of them aware of each other?
Exactly this question is explained extensively in my latest two books.
+Bernardo Kastrup
You talked of obfuscation and magnification through self reflectiveness but why is mind/witness not aware of all its self reflective magnified aspects all at once?
You also used various metaphors such as the whirlpool which also does not explain why mind would not bring all whirlpools together by witnessing them all simultaneously. Our 'I' should be that simultaneous witness, not the very limited perspectives we have.
Well explained and concise perspectives. Thanks! 👍
@@nickolasgaspar9660 _"Unfalsifiable metaphysics. Nothing of interest or epistemically useful.
They can be dismissed without evidence since they are supported by zero evidence..plus its a self refuting idea."_
Which specific point made in this video did you logically or "epistemically" dismiss? Care to identify it?
good point Bernardo, there is "no universe" outside consciousness! when you said: "inferring a universe outside consciousness which is an abstraction of the universe itself, and then trying to explain consciousness from that abstraction of consciousness", I really started to laugh so loud! in fact my crazy laugh comes from what is know as "insight" in psychology. Of course I did not laugh about your clever comment, but instead about we humans beings that are so limited in knowledge and that we are being fooled by our minds, believing that reality is our abstractions about it.
Would love to see a conversation between you and Rupert Spira
Does anyone knows which software was used to create this video?
Where can I go to participate current discussion groups addressing this content?
Is "wetness" considered an emergent property of water molecules? If so, is it deducible?
Robert Monroe’s book Journeys Out of The Body sheds a lot of light on this topic
This is so profound. I would love to hear a rebuttal from Mr. De Grasse Tyson. Thanks Bernardo!
I find the sounds in the background to be chaotic and distracting, to the point where I can't remember what was just saida moment before. They don't seem to enhance anything, but only to detract from it detract from it. Is this talk available without the background audio? Could you provide a link, if so?
I really enjoyed that perspective, thank you.
It seems disassociation is a learned process.
“Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them.”
-Nikola Tesla
If you're intrigued or even persuaded by Bernardo's view, you may enjoy an upcoming course where we've invited him to expound on what it means for how we understand our lives, relationships, death and mystical experiences - hope to see some of you there :) dandelion.earth/events/5f4aa8fb38d1ae00164c91ee
Dear Bernardo, some small minor remarks:
1. On the "lets stick to what we know" slide, i would have suggested "brain activity" instead of "brain" for what you were mentioning. The brain is the second person view or the space-time localization of your individual psyche/fragment of consciousness, and the brain processes/activity are the second person view to your personal experience.
2.Smolin's argument is some sort of panpsychism. It entails realism and consciousness as an intrinsic property of the physical systems which both brains and the universe are. While it is as close as the mainstream gets to idealism, I would be careful with the way that quote is interpreted.
3. While i do understand that everything was framed as follow-up to the healthcare conference, it is a pity that in such a cornerstone work as a "theory of everything", you did not focused more on some of YOUR strongest arguments coming from the interpretation of quantum mechanics, for example.While you did mentioned some towards the end of the video, you focused largely on noetics and phenomenology, and personally i feel that you neglected your metaphysical interpretations of current physics (and the underlying ontological inferences), logic, complex math, and the other amazing arguments you shared with us throughout your books, from Dreamed up reality, Why Materialism is Baloney and Meaning in absurdity. This is not a critic per se, just a personal remark, sorry if it sounds otherwise. And, well, I understand the time limits...
4. when it comes to the last part... “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” - Buddha.
Cheers, Adrian
Adrian Stratulat Yes, Adrian, correct in both cases. But to keep it simple I let both points pass without dwelling on them. On 1, I'd say the brain _plus its activity_ is the second-person perspective. A distinction between brain and its activity is a linguistic, conceptual distinction we invented. On 2, I'd say Smolin leaves it open to both bottom-up panpsychism ("smallism" in Strawson's terms) and proper idealism. Cheers, B.
Regarding 4 (Buddha) - That's a poor early translation. The original did not have "think" or "thoughts".
see
fakebuddhaquotes.com/we-are-what-we-think-all-that-we-are-arises-with-our-thoughts/
and
fakebuddhaquotes.com/we-are-shaped-by-our-thoughts-we-become-what-we-think/
The actual text is better translated as:
“All experiences (dhammā) are preceded by mind (manopubbaṅgamā), having mind as their master (manoseṭṭhā) created by mind (manomayā).”
The jigsaw that passes now and then during the video is great!
Life is the image of dissociative processes in mind at large.. I love it.
Brilhante. Gratidão Bernardo por suas contribuições.
Bichão é brabo né? Martelada na Consciência. Flertando forte com as Tradições Não Duais.
Here's a disassociative symbolic image from one first person disassociative process to another: ♥
Hello Bernardo, do you think that it is okay to cite and reference to your videoessays, or you would rather recommend to do such things on the basis of your written works?
Bernardo, Dissociative Identity Disorder is explicitly present in living tissue. We don't need philosophy for it. Consider an embryonic cell. When it initially starts to replicate, the cells are virtually identical to each other, until, they start differentiating into kidney cells, neural cells, heart cells etc. The point is the very process of multi-cellular life shows characteristics of deviation where they have the same underlying genetic code.
Interesting view. The loss of differentiation in cancer cells is what makes them dangerous and ultimately kills the organism. On the reverse, undifferentiated stem cells in the body go to where they are needed for healing.
I recently discovered you, your books, your RUclips videos and your thinking which I find extremely helpful and insightful. This thought system you espouse seems entirely in keeping with this man's philosophy: No Birth No Death | Thich Nhat Hanh - RUclips His "continuation" (passing) happened less than a week ago. If there is any discord in his message with your Idealism, I'd love to hear what you think. I just noted (by scrolling down a bit) that you can't reply here. I'm guessing others may choose to answer.
I would like to hear/read Bernardo's detailed explanation of how a pair of minds interact.
18:00 Is it my imagination or did the universe just get a DSM-5 diagnosis?
Not justthe universe but actually good did... 😳😘
The problem is , that Bernardo was going much to fast for my slow mind :) Reading Brief Peaks now , slowly and slowly, and now it makes much more sense. ( and without the distracting space sounds)
Engraçado não conhecia o teu trabalho mas pensamos da mesma forma mas ainda existem algumas áreas que podias acrescentar a tua teoria ,gostaria de explorar o teu trabalho e aprofundar o mesmo podias ser meu orientador de Tese?
Couple of questions. 1. When you were talking about our mind and brain why did you extrapolate to the entire universe? - were you trying to explain the connection as well or simply address consciousness? 2. Is there any reason for drugs being NON-DIDs other then them having to be? and finally (and most interestingly) 3. So are we then a mental illness of a higher being or are we a higher being? And would enlightenment mean death to our own consciousness? And if we are an illness and not simple creation is our existence justified?
Why does the structure of the cosmos resemble neural networks, which resemble mycelial networks? According to Adrian Brian’s Constructal Law, all dynamic systems self organize in such a way as to maximize throughput. The above-mentioned networks have similar structures because they are all expressions of maximized flow.
omg Bernardo pls make an animation about reality how you present it, logically we may understand but we need to experience it.
How do we distinguish between the influence upon the mind caused by modifications to the brain versus modifications to other areas of the body and senses?
I have DID in a very extreme form .. my body has seizures all day that repeat the past. When it’s done about half the time I can get up
And move around or sleep
It kinda sucks . The goal is to integrate .i have great regret about things I’ve done before integrating parts of myself .. it’s a slow slow painful process
This is an holarchic approach to health as opposed to a hiarchic approach. Very well stated theory using fractal universe on the micro and macro levels of connectivity. Perhaps the new age philosophy was onto something after all.
The zelda temple background music did it for me.
Would something like a tornado be a non-dissociative aspect of the universal mind, or a dissociative one?
Complimentary health care. Amazing! Thanks for sharing this 🙏🏼
Would love to have a Bernardo Kastrup for Dummies version :)
Amazing stuff, man. Thank you!
Nice. Your theory reminds me of the Principles of Hermeticism. The first principle is "The Universe is mental", the second is "As above - so below, as below - so above". In fact, these are the 2 original principles from the early Hermetic texts, the other 5 principles were added much later. If you keep exploring with an open mind you'll find out that there's a branch of astrology that actually seems to "work" - sidereal astrology. Also, in fact it doesn't matter whether we state that everything is mental or that everything is material, as long as we're talking about everything. If everything is material, then even the thoughts in our heads are material (which they are - they are electric impulses, ion exchanges, etc.). If everything is mental, then even the glass of water in front of me is mental (which it is - it appears out of "nothingness" when it's observed). The material and the mental are one and the same thing.
Bennett says consciousness is an Ilusion. Without knowing any of his work I figured out the same, but I thought shortly afterwards, hang on a minute, i can accurately predict shapes and distance of things, ect. So, I thought, if, for instance, I can accurately see and taste an orange, then I'm actually truly experience the orange. I am, in fact, fully conscious of the orange, so I soon gave up on this nutty theory. What I mean is that if through. Ilusion I accurately and fully experience the world, then I am conscious of it and its not an Ilusion.
Illusion itself is a state of consciousness...lol
Matter: Mass + Momentum + Charge + Spin
Great video
I am currently breaking the Matrix
MrNiceHk - So you procured yourself some 5meo-dmt... Nice 👍
From an eco-psychological perspective what an object/thing/entity “affords” (J.J. Gibson)- namely “opportunities for interaction ”- is pretty much the be all and end all significance that object has for you as an agent. So a chair is something you can sit on, use as an improvised step ladder, hang your coat over, stack books on, use as fire wood, etc- this is commonly referred to as “what the chair affords”. If someone told me the chair was made out of “mental stuff ”or “physical/material stuff ”, I would say that tells me nothing about what the chair affords, so it has no implications for my chair related agency. So what difference exactly does having idealist assumptions about the make-up of the world/reality/environment confer on one's ecologically pertinent agency? What is it that you can do, that a materialist/physicalist can't?
Materialism is holding us back so much. Only this quality of discourse has any chance of breaking the wall. Has certainly shifted me, made me stronger in seeing better what marvelous Being we are a part of. . Like the Ancients have been saying, different imaginals. Great vid, Scientists who watch this, please try and get it out into the field. It does not undo science, it advances it.
This is so freeing, a revelation, yet rartionally solid and sound!!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 _" In order to be aware of anything , something must exists in the first place."_
Yeah...and to eat anything nutritious, something nutritious must be in your mouth. Stating the obvious is your hallmark. Try going a tad deeper than being puerile & superficial...
Awareness exists even if "something to be aware of" is not currently within the sphere of awareness...
Joker!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 we are awareness. States of awareness cannot exist without "we".
Prove that we are not awareness...
@@nickolasgaspar9660 _"so you agree that an agent(me and you) our organic and environmental stimuli must for first exist"_
Yeah ..that *specific agent* is awareness itself, and the environmental stimuli didn't give awareness its powers of awareness. The capability of awareness is there IRRESPECTIVE of environmental stimuli...prove otherwise.
_"But then you go bananas and you claim that our states of awareness can exist without us existing.....lol ok"_ ???
I never said that....i clearly said that *_we, the agent_* ..must exist BEFORE "our----->(meaning belonging to the agent) --->"states of awareness" can possibly exist. Don't try twisting my words bruh...
Go ahead and prove that "states of awareness" can exist in the absence of awareness...
_"Did you suffer and brain injuries when you were a kid mate?lol"_
Try not to project your cataleptic states unto others. You have my sympathy that you had the condition since childhood...
Mate.
Great video i vouche for this containing pure information of divine nature much love
I agree with what the points taken with one exception that I noticed: if a computer were to compute somehow that it were conscious, how do we know that the calculation is incorrect since, indeed, consciousness is a first person phenomenon and credence is given to my assessment that I am conscious. I think Gazzaniga make a similar point, but I may be mistaken in that. If the point is that my self assessment is not a calculation but a perception then I think that changes the discussion.
Brilliant video Bernardo, Thank you.
When emergence stops cutting it we can always call it "strong emergence" & feel fuzzy all over again.
How do you account for decaying and deterioration of matter if everything is just consciousness. Illness, and the death of our material bodies doesn't seem to be accounted for. Also, how can we all be conscious and experience the same illusions of matter being configured in specific configurations. If I have no preconceived notions of a certain building in another state or country and I travel there and I see that building, how am I able to see the exact same configuration as everyone else? If there is no physicality to it.
How can you prove others perceive the same reality as you?
@@thalenagundersen259 They agree to meet in a specific building at a certain address for example.
Thank you, Bernardo.
HammertownWins cheers!
I need to listen to this multiple t times before I grasp the meaning. Anyone else do this?
Brilliant, I love it!
absolutely amazing presentation. my mind was originally blown in 1991 when i discovered and read the book “seth speaks” by jane roberts, where seth teaches about the true nature of reality. its the book that’s impacted me the most. so to find this presentation is beyond exciting, especially your connection between each of us as a separate brain having a first person experience, and the universe having a “first-person” experience. wow! “if all there is is consciousness then consciousness is the ontological primitive, and the entirety of reality can be explained as just modulations; excitations; vibrations of consciousness alone.” YES! YES! YES! if you or any of you, have never heard of seth (books published in the 70’s), he explains exactly this and even goes further to explain his own experience as a non-physical entity, (jane roberts channels him). i do not read any other ‘channeled’ material but seth and the seth material was so highly regarded it was put into the archives at yale university. before the topic became popular, seth explained that indeed we create our reality with our thoughts combined with intensity of feeling, which via coordinate points on a grid of sorts, coalesce into matter as what we call “reality” and circumstances. that underneath the “invisible” are incipient “particles” that together with the electromagnetic energy of our thoughts then come into existence. i cannot recommend the book “seth speaks” enough and most definitely i am now a big fan of your work bernardo. i am excited to follow you. thank you.
I was also changed, reading Seth and now 40 yrs later I'm excited having found Bernardo. It explains so much of what the world calls woowoo
@@normanshadow1 just seeing your reply to my comment now! ha! 7 months later! always nice to meet someone familiar with the seth material and now bernardo kastrup! :)
Excellent presentation. I am sure you have heard this before but this is what Advaita philosophy claims.
incredible video. now I understand why people scare me. They are the strongest type of dissociative process I could ever come face to face to. Insects tend to be my favorite because of they are mostly unable to harm.
Are there scientific studies proving that consciousness has a role in influencing the behavior of the particle and the breakdown of the wave function in quantum physics, or does it have no role in that
I do not believe there are any scientific studies that say anything about consciousness at all. We don't even have a scientific means to detect consciousness.
A question, when one accepts that the borderless and timeless boundaries were illusory and that all-inclusive awareness is our experience are we then in alignment with reality?
Just a suggestions,ancients spiritual masters have use meditation or awareness to self observe feelings,thoughts ,postures our physical body to say the same thing that bernado claims.Personally i have tried it and i have a paradigm shift of 'so called'myself.🙂
Well Bernardo, I guess I'm just gonna have to get your book. That was excellent.
I suppose I might be tempted to argue that you rely a bit too much on your analogies... if they weren't so damned good!
Bernardo, can you please let your audience know where you stand on the Block Universe Theory.