"Is studying philosophy a waste of time for a physicist? What's the most important development in philosophy in the past 30 years?" It is not a waste of time because every physicist uses philosophy, whether he likes it or not. What happens is that the physicist is such a bad philosopher that he doesn't even realize his philosophy.
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb "That's a good point. I notice this when we use things like space warping and attractive forces, where it works on the large scale, it's a tool of simplicity..." 1- If you use something like a "tool of simplicity" you are already using a philosophical principle. Other virtues of a hypothesis (such as its explanatory power, less "ad hoc", etc.) are also philosophical. 2-The scientific method itself is a philosophical principle. 3-Since physics is ontologically and philosophically neutral (it does not tell you where it comes from or why it is like that and not otherwise): if you are a theist (a philosophical position) you will interpret its ontology and order according to theism, if you are a materialist/physicalist (another philosophical position), you will interpret physics according to that lens and the same if you are an idealist (like Kastrup). Everything being more or less equivalent in the grounds of physical theory, similar as are the "interpretations" of quantum mechanics. 4-A frequent error, almost exclusive to materialism/physicalism, is to think that they are outside of philosophy or superior to it precisely because of poor philosophical education. We then fall into scientism, which is a terrible philosophy. "He who has ears, let him hear"
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb I am not a philosopher or a physicist but doesn’t QM tell us that the substance we colloquially refer to as matter, doesn’t exist, unless observed or measured?
He just described my childhood in respect to religion . I was baptized a Catholic, but my parents didn’t want to force religion on myself and my brothers my father was a electrical engineer. My mom was a teacher. I feel the same way, and I don’t have anything against religion . It wasn’t until I was 55 and I found myself saying to myself “well the only thing that could give us everything in the universe ?the only answer that answers everything is there is a “god” what brought me to this was events that were utterly lacking in religion or religious teachings. I just smiled and said to myself this changes everything for the better, it feels fascinating
Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between mind and body in consciousness studies within the monadological framework. First, let's define our basic entities and relations: - Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities). - Let P be a set of "physical properties" or "material states." - Let Q be a set of "mental properties" or "conscious experiences." - Let Φ be a function from M to P, where Φ(m) represents the "physical aspect" or "material embodiment" of monad m. - Let Ψ be a function from M to Q, where Ψ(m) represents the "mental aspect" or "conscious experience" of monad m. Now, let's formalize the idea of the relationship between mind and body: - Dualism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) and Ψ(m) are ontologically distinct and independent. - Materialism: ∀m ∈ M, Ψ(m) is fully determined by or reducible to Φ(m). - Idealism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) is fully determined by or reducible to Ψ(m). - Neutral Monism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) and Ψ(m) are two aspects or manifestations of a single underlying reality. In other words, dualism posits that the mental and physical aspects of monads are fundamentally separate, materialism posits that the mental aspect is reducible to the physical aspect, idealism posits that the physical aspect is reducible to the mental aspect, and neutral monism posits that both aspects are equally real and irreducible. We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of category theory and dual-aspect monism: - Let C be a category, where the objects are monads and the morphisms are "psychophysical" transformations or interactions. - Let F : C → P and G : C → Q be functors, where F(m) represents the physical aspect of monad m and G(m) represents the mental aspect of monad m. - The relationship between mind and body can be expressed as: - Dualism: F and G are not naturally isomorphic. - Materialism: G is naturally isomorphic to a subfunctor of F. - Idealism: F is naturally isomorphic to a subfunctor of G. - Neutral Monism: F and G are two different representational functors of the same underlying category C. Here, the different positions on the mind-body problem are formalized in terms of the structural relationships between the functors representing the physical and mental aspects of monads. Finally, we can connect this to physics and neuroscience by noting that this formalism is compatible with empirical findings on the correlations between brain states and conscious experiences: - Neuroscientific studies have shown that there are systematic correspondences between specific patterns of neural activity and specific contents of consciousness. - However, the nature of the causal relationship between brain states and conscious experiences remains an open question, with different philosophical interpretations compatible with the empirical data. The monadological framework provides a way to integrate these empirical findings with a metaphysical framework that treats both the physical and the mental as equally real and fundamentally interconnected aspects of the same underlying reality. In summary, by using tools from logic, math (category theory and dual-aspect monism), physics, and neuroscience, we can formalize the relationship between mind and body in consciousness studies within the monadological framework: - Monads have both physical and mental aspects, which can be studied empirically through physics and neuroscience. - The relationship between these aspects can be understood in terms of different metaphysical positions, such as dualism, materialism, idealism, and neutral monism. - The monadological framework provides a way to integrate these metaphysical positions with the empirical findings of neuroscience and physics, by treating both the physical and the mental as equally real and fundamentally interconnected. This analysis showcases the potential of the monadological framework to provide a comprehensive and nuanced foundation for the study of consciousness, one that bridges the gap between the empirical sciences and the philosophical questions that have long puzzled us about the nature of mind and its place in the physical world. By embracing a both/and approach and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, physics, and neuroscience, we can develop a more integrated and satisfying understanding of the mystery of consciousness and its relationship to the fundamental structure of reality.
This is what mainstream science always does when trying to explain anything. "Explain - the act of making something plain not plain. To over complicate the simple to make it more difficult to understand". That's not science, it's socially engineered thought manipulation designed to dumb down the masses. Richard Feynman hit the nail on the head when he said "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". It's all YOU! If you want to understand anything, look within your Self. The harder you try to explain it in objective terms, the less understandable it becomes. The first thing to understand about "reality" is it's not real. The whole notion of this being "real life" is the fundamental flaw in our understanding. It's neither real, nor life :)
Another detailed and eye opening podcast from Dr. Brian........sending love and support from India...Huge fan of your work. Would love to do a podcast with you some day for my students
I have followed Bernardo for about 7 years. Anytime I feel any level of certainty about physicalism, I go back and read him and let him shatter my certainty, mashing it into a fine dust.
As the programmer of the Universe, I'm especially proud of black holes. The way growing gravity slows down time where much matter collect ... It is the perfect way to protect my CPUs from overheating when too many interactions in certain locations would otherwise threaten to.
how many lives have i lived sofar and how much data have i generated twords the whole? it'd be funny if this was how the actual creator of this universe chose to communicate with it's creations was via youtube comments
Great interview. BK is brilliant. -pleas let him speak and resist indulgent narratives. Many of us are here for his ideas, and he sometimes breaks new ground in these conversations
Way to go Brian I'm now a fan, well perhaps there's a few noblemen left.. fantastic conversation at whole heartedly agree see the real people behind these amazing minds you boys have heart warming to see you to how evidently you also value your wife and children...❤❤❤ Love your motivation...
My guess is that the reason why people like Sean Carroll like the "multiverse" theory is because it because the fine-tuning problem implies either a multiverse or a creator. If you want to remain atheist you must therefore believe in the multiverse. Which ironically is probably just another religion.
Wrong multiverse theory. The one relevant to the fine tuning problem is the eternal inflation multiverse theory. Sean advocates for the Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with fine tuning.
@@Thomas-gk42 I’ve not heard Sean comment on eternal inflation, or Andrei Linde on many worlds. We do know the eternal inflation multiverse idea was an accident, inflation was originally conceived to solve the cosmological smoothness problem. A year or two after it was published someone pointed out that combined with QM it would lead to regions with different physics.
@@simonhibbs887 Correct. Beyond the MW from OM and the eternal infaltion MV, there are some other concepts coming from string theory, I guess. And the philosophical finetuning point of view, the first commenter ´Greg´ refered to, kinda infaltion of MV-theories. I personally think, this is all unveriviable SF-stuff, you have to believe in. The believers try to make it more likeky by argueing, that different parts of physics give the same prediction, though, as you said, there´s no correation.
Part 2 Understanding this, allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the eternal reflective existence (of all accumulated experience) that accents all resulted experiences, as well that experience always being added to as it is rightfully sewn and essentially supported. Studies related to Pyramid religion, psychics, quantum reality’s etc usually end up suggesting, that they themselves present existence as not being a psychical reality. Even though equating infinity is an aspect that is largely incomprehensible to mankind, because it struggles to detach its own nature from its capacity to learn. For example, due to the certified awe, the continued path of riddled failure uses time signatures on it’s simulators, processors, equations and theory’s, that are all formed from a localised perceived time that is based off an ecliptic equation, that misrepresents Universal spacetime. If a Universal cycle is a 360’ cycle then a Earth day is noted from the time at which a particular star passes the celestial meridian (i.e. directly overhead) on two sucessive nights, which marks a sidereal day of 23 hours 56 minutes & 4.091 seconds, which is not at all aligned to Hipparchus’s equation of time. Meaning that a severe miscalculation has already occurred (in this time) at the most basic level of each of the equators of reality that were used to equate forms of - Pyramid religions, psychics, quantum theories and mathematical reality’s, if the basic division is unbalanced, as the riddle is, the load failure can only ever increase, how could it ever equate Universal balances and differences? This is why the riddles script always uses its inability to understand difference against its own scripted environment. Realising this means that you should be able to at least recognise that a theory of a simulated reality has already been broadcast across your time lines future paths. Suggesting that the beings responsible for the promotion of this structured mistake, do indeed place themselves as successors of direction (control) at the cost of all others that could ever be correct. Whats also interesting is that often alternate realities are mentioned, but usually limited to X amount of numbers, because of the human reflective process of thought, that could only structure these off the measurements they equate of their understanding (or lack of) related to the distance and time of their times Universal Mass. This is a common mistake, because mankind fails to recognise that time, distance and reflection are irrelevant as soon as you are able to understand the actual meaning of’ what an infinite existence is, including the removal of biological function that is enacted as a corrective restrictor. If you are able to do this, you can understand why the reality of all existence is the functionality of all eternal growth. For mass the experience of’ reflects as its interaction (inclusive of others mass based) not their reaction (singular to them) as choice, keeping in mind what I said about Hipparchus, and understanding that infinity as being ‘time is all at once’ of which masses interactions reflect off. The only reason Mass believes in a disconnection from the totality is because of its reflective biological limitations. When sub atomic cycles and other associated conscious layers are falsely introduced to a species that reflects on time as being linear, they would find it extremely difficult to understand how expansive time could be cycled into their past’ because of their reflective biology. It’s significantly easier if one tries to establish, if the paths for all failure and success can still exist with or without its mass, perhaps you can try grabbing your left hand and without letting go’ try grabbing it again, obviously you can not’ knowing that cycle has already reflectively occurred, even if you simply thought it through’ you were aware that the reflective cycle would have already past once you enacted it, so the cycle exists reflectively as you enacted it but without the mass you used to reflect it, from here your current mass of reflection would be understood as it being your centre (and that prior actions centre) because your pinnacled to your form that only changed in the moment because of that cycle, meaning that the possibility that your reflective pinnacled center can be moved by changing your reflective memories of your past can easily change the perception of your centred reflection, I.e as in Slaves built the Pyramids to Company process built the Pyramids….meaning that your reflective center is also relative to the past that’s reflected of it, which also includes, if this changed state was broadcast to you (even deceitfully) then your center was changed by a broadcast created for you, in your future, from any point prior to your change (but for you, only understood in that moment as your experience) At this point It’s extremely important that you understand the nature of reflective thought’ as masses production of time, that reveals itself relative to the speed of the mind the processes it, that actually contains many precursor layers well before the slower mind recognises them as a thought. It’s readily understood (or it should be) that your actions mostly occur prior to your conscious mind perceiving them, and if they don’t for you then you’re not paying close enough attention, to yourself and the environment that constantly try’s to control your surroundings. Knowing that all balance is achieved from opposites is the key indicator of masses reflective “sleeping form” It can be used to identify mass as an equated form to the infinite existence of all. When a manipulation of a masses future occurs (as a mimicked form) it will always present itself “as a forced tyrannical center” whilst ironically also proving, that its past paths of existence (attempted cycles) have always been “failure” or have been failed. From this stand point you should address the mindset of the cavemen to fire as it is to you, because the caveman also thought of itself as it’s times pinnacle. The false mimic/s is the reason that religion was formed here on Earth as a search for the truth, and it exists because of the corrections made by the (bloodline) anchor between times, which was a predetermined necessity - corrective balance, due to the failures created by “typed mistakes” here on Earth, mistakes made by those that reversed live. Unknowingly to them though, they played an essential part in the balancing of all of masses infinity, as the ever failing and diminishing opposite. Keeping it simple, If you still struggle to grasp the separation between eternal cycles (the super consciousness) and reflective mass, then Imagine multiple people grabbing their left hand, following that simple instruction of “grab your left hand and don’t let it go” but now across time and distance. Ask anyone of them to grab their hand again without them letting go and again none of them are able to, each of them completing the cycle as the cycle (to them) continues remain the same. Each of them believes that it happened because they can reflect on the result of that cycle passing through them, and experienced it as the result of that cycle, without noticing that the cycle started the same way before it finished and knew the result of its experience because that cycle is that experience. Additionally as it includes each individual it’s cycle grew, as it gained experience of all other correct differences, that were individually but additionally cycled to it along it’s way (again without the cycle requiring mass) The successful result of each individual grabbing their left hand, continued its cycle as a succession of its cumulative perfection, and still each person involved exists in that same individually centred reflective state and only believes they did this because they restrictively reflected as it. As an opposite failure wouldn’t be able to do so, as it fails to reflect truthfully in all cycles, because of its corruptive make up. Which is why every single state of tyranny relies on false advertisements and podiums of its markers of short term relevance, but always later incudes them in it’s displacement of its own blame in the false cycling of failure. Exposed to the point where each individual through fear of their individual knowledge of it’s scripted failure, are forced to knowingly push its way of mandated cancer further. Often this is achieved by failure stereotyping the poverty it causes, as a disease bought about by the instability it created for itself to profit from. Obviously there’s a whole lot more……but that’s another time. ORION The Hunter (time is all at once)
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini
@@NondescriptMammal wow that doesn’t surprise me at all… To claim consciousness is not generated by our brains is a huuuuuge claim and requires some extraordinary evidence
@@lando9238 Yes, and this is what Kastrup claims, in his roundabout way. And he presents his opinions as if they were strongly supported scientifically, when they have no such foundation. Probably less so than the competing philosophies that he pretends to discredit.
Kastrup grinds my gears. I’ve erased the diatribe. Brian, at least you’re engaging with the hallucinations of LLMs. There’s an entire field of study there and eventually it will be far more revealing than anyone expected. I don’t think the hallucinations should be dismissed, they need to be analyzed.
Yep, BK annoying and he´s biased about everything in science that he is afraid could be in conflict with his panpsychistic ideas. I figure it ridiculous that he can´t stop, equal of the topic, to shoot against what he calls superdeterminism, which is an mathematical approach to solve the measument problem in QM and has nothing to do with his so called philosophy.
I disagree that it is not pleasurable. The pleasure is in the realization of being itself. Finding oneself in a mystery itself while also being one themselves. The breaking of crystallized perceptual frameworks. Even in very intense or fearful circumstances there is the thrill of meeting it head on and attempting to perceive "deeper" and/or more holistically. This being said one must bear in mind that prolonged exposure or intense abuse will affect the nervous system as will doing the same with most any chemical. Its a great tool if used correctly but indulgence must be avoided. These states can also be attained without using the chemicals. It just takes a lot longer.
Is it possible, that the universe contains two fundamental parts to it, 3D infinite empty space and materia in it? Could EVERYTHING else be properties of materia? Thanks!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Also, with a bit of philosophy, one can understand thermodynamics better(infinite continuous balancing act between self-organisation and increasing entropy, as force creates symmetry and for ex. explosions increase entropy), but on the other hand, physicist have proven an absolute creation of materia, which again complicated thermodynamics, or that is what they are claiming based on actually what?
Kastrup misrepresents the many wolds interpretation. It's only tangentially to do with the unpredictability of measurements. It's mainly about taking superposition seriously. We have measurements that show that particles, when we directly measure them, have a single state, nevertheless actually must have had multiple states when unobserved because the fact that they had multiple states has physical consequences. I'm not personally a MWI fan, but lets at least get the claim right.
I want to know what all this micro tubuals is about and how it creates a quantum process which creates consciousness. I've not heard anyone from the idealism front commenting on what this could mean?
Could it be, that the quantum leap is explained by such a speed, that is so great, that we today don't have the capability to detect/measure the time? If not, why not? Thanks!
Bernardo you are like the men of old, the kind that have gone extinct, the ones in fairy stories: humble, brave, bold, honourable, wise, I'm a Celt you embody the values of our wise ones( ¡¡¡ )This symbolises the 3 pillars of our way, wisdom - service - creativity... And best of all you love honour and value your Mrs... ❤❤❤ What are your thoughts on neuro diversitys such as autism/Asperger's. Love to see you talk to ogi ogas... Do you do requests... And grand master wolf whose just lovely too... Bless UZ all...
The sensorial and perceptual veil is a part of reality, it limits our access to the hypothetical qualia. Be satisfied with this and leave hubris aside ;-)
This is such a wild guess but I’m tapping into the Feynman in me. I feel like since there are so many planets in solar systems, so many stars and star systems forming galaxies. Then we have all these galaxies , maybe the universe is a “loaf of bread, or bubble “ a part of something greater. But can we experience it in any way im not even sure that is possible. Also the something from nothing could just mean something so small we can’t conceptualize it. Maybe there is more microscopic levels we can’t detect that have whacky physics. It’s the growth of something so small into something so big that’s amazing I also wish DrBernardo and ProfTimMaud would grab a beer and squash the beef. You guys are both too valuable to us and I wish to see you guys Duke it out again it’s very enjoyable. We all want the same thing to better our planet ❤
Part 1 I’ve heard so many quote different dimensions, realities, simulations, species etc like they have been there, well “I AM” To put this into perspective you need to imagine if reality could be called a digitised reality in 1000 years. Obviously you know it will not. A basic scope of that perception tells you that your digital association would be as relevant as a caveman to fire is to you. When one scopes for meaning of his own existence he/she does so based from human understandings (learnt from their environment/experience) Existing as reflective matter they base the measurement of their perception from their limitation of understanding. Mostly not realising that they are scoping their reflection of, not the delivery of. In recent day many people have given examples of simulations etc using labels NPC’s and PC’s as examples in their scenarios, but usually without addressing the nature of it’s programming. In that scenario the typical objective is for the gamer to succeed at the ‘game’ that’s exclusively designed to assist the PC’s in their journey, only made relevant because the difference in time, effort and programming used to present the scripted illusion of choice thats inherited by the PC as being far superior to script given to remaining NPC’s. Keeping this in mind, presents as a major issue in the simulation reality theory that feeds off physical collection as the failure or stunting of its actual equal others (without the lie of the script) This would mean that by design some labels were pre-chosen as the controllers of others (perhaps like a Royalty) Meaning that they could only succeed at cost to the players their script disadvantages. If one was to assume this as its design, then what would be its point and how could this simulation ever evolve, when it’s design leads to conclusive failure through stupidity? Would it not still be reliant on the singularity layered above it? Why does the landscape of this design still fail to address and understand the singularity? Is it because its always defined from and as a form of falsely pinnacled positioned reflective Mass? When you speak of a singularity that increases exponentially shouldn’t you scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist? and from an understanding that it already has the capacity to include everything (in this time) including everything perceptional to it’s environment? Would it not be able to prove that the importance of existence is balanced by the eternal growth of existence? that obviously could only be achieved successively from a production of freedom from the cumulative experience of all interactions that are right. Understanding this allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the reflective eternal existence that accents every resulted experience. As well that experience being added to and essentially supported. When religion, psychics, quantum reality’s are studied it’s usually suggested that they themselves eventually present as there being no psychical basis for reality, however one could also conclude that this is because these are all formations of the same faulty mimicked design (looped by failure) that till now existed as a riddle that sat right in front of the “Worlds greatest minds” That riddle exists time and time again as ‘It’s own Failure’ even when it’s failure is detected, it usually gets promoted again and goes unnoticed, as the cause of failure, because of the prior certifications attached to its relative forms. It then instead is presented as a possible new direction for yet another overlay (by its minds mimicked) to discover because of it’s certified awe associated to them. Really, to simplify that riddle all should concentrate more on the influence Cerns LHC had on the flower of life and all other ancient awe attached to it. Including why their energy signatures match their presentation and the Company riddle, that also fails mankind as a lesser product. The line of ‘enchanted fools’ is very long and truth be known, well not a very distinguished one either. When a conclusion is formed, it should always be factual and not shrouded in the flowers awe. If forms must be equated dimensionally, they MUST be equated from the perspective consciousness that lays above that times conscious state, as it’s infinite existence, as though its the Source of “?” that’s anchored between all forms - NOT SIMPLY ANCHORED TO ONE. For example, the basis and understanding of all wasted calculations, theorising and man made principles becomes ABSOLUTE when it’s riddle is known to be its ever conclusive failures, that are bound in its attachment to the mistakes of its enslaved servers - AT THE TIME OF CREATION (in the 2ks) As is the understanding of measurement that’s achieved by those certified in its dimensionally riddled and time stumped environment. All of which is based on the belly crawlers attempts to enslave life, with the fantasy of one day eventually harnessing technology that enables them to escape the Hell they deserve (nope that’s what you get for MAPPING kids) When a singularity that increases exponentially in an instant is studied, you must scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist, from the understanding,,that it already has the capacity to include life (in this time) and everything perceptional to its environment, understanding that the absolute importance of existence is above all the eternal growth of all existence.,This can obviously only ever be achieved successively from an infinite dimension of freedom thats survived by the cumulative resulted experience of all interactions that are were and could be ever correct.
@@jasonwilliams9922 Wow. That’s a lot of words. Kastrup would love that since he also enjoys saying a lot of words. Somehow, in 2024 over a century after Wittgenstein taught us how to cull this nonsense out of philosophy, it’s still being done,
Watch his last episode with Bernardo Kastrup “skeptical about superdeterminism it’s about a year old. check out the comments you’ll see that more people appreciated his case for idealism than people that thought he was just full of a-bolony. You better get used to seeing this guy especially if you’re stuck on ontology.
My answer in that other thread got lost, so I try it here again: 1. I recently got a three hours surgery. I got the anesthesia and, in my perception, I woke up immediately as if spacetime not even exited for this period. 2. "An emergent property... you mean like magic!" - No! In SHs brilliant book "Existential Physics", I highly recommend to read, she differs between weak and strong emergence. The latter is magic indeed,coming from elsewhere "outside", but without any relevance for science, it's a faith. Weak emergence she defines as coming from the interactions of the lower components (particles, molecules, neurons, whatever). So clearly it's in principle verifiable, how human consciousness is a weak emergent property of the cooperation of neurons and the biochemical and electromagnetic interaction, even if more research can be done in that field. Nothing magical about it. It's like life, that seems to be a bit magical too, but clearly, the biology of a living cell is understandable from the organic chemistry, it's based on.
@@Thomas-gk42 Physicalist: "Don't bring in people we can't refute, we need to continue with our blind faith and dogma. Also our worldview is true by default and we don't need to justify it."
Every NDE and psychedelic experience is a data point that can be integrated into a proof of the simulation multiverse and it's minimalist-maximalist creative process, which was designed by the best of spiritual scientists.
Irresp0nsible expl0itation is Karmic ssin. Tyrannny can often seem like a "good" idea to the tyrannt. Placebos may seem to heal, but could merely put a pirate patch on a bad bug
Fine tuning is only a problem if looking from the bottom up. It becomes less meaningful if viewing reality from the top down. The macro scale imposes an order on the micro, to allow the macro to exist. This, to me, implies order and a plan. It does not mean a God. It also does not mean, no God. A block-time notion implies no time, in the sense of a defined present, a remembered past and a predicted future. Does that mean no upward emergence? Or does it imply a defined end goal and that the components of the universe are the way the way they are because they can be no other way?
you need a first causation for something to be there. And without any kind of intelligence that something (there by chance and without any causation...) had to have the possibility within itself to create a complex, stable and meaningful reality.
I´m really positively surprised about that conversation, cause I´m absolutly not a fan of BK. It was very interesting to hear something about professor Keating here, namely his religious developement and positions. I even agree with BK´s opinion about AI, might be because that´s the topic of what he is really an expert about? I like the hidden hints to the book "Lost in Math, how beauty leads Physics astray" (Sabine Hossenfelder, 2018), seems, BK has read it meanwhile. Sadly, at last BK can´t stop his constant hits against so called superdeterminism, which is a mathematical approach to solve the measurement problem and has nothing to do with "metaphysics". Obiviously he refuses to learn something about what he doesn´t understand, because he is to biased about it, though great minds like G. T´Hooft, S. Donadi, S. Hossenfelder, T. Palmer... hold on to it and haven´t given up to research what physically happens in a QM measurement, like mainstream physics has. A ridiculous argument to say, "..we made 45years of experiments to solve it, so it´s unsolvable." Also ridiculous is his analogy of placebo-effect to justify his philosphical ideas.
If you’re using theories in physics to support physicalism, you’re doing metaphysics. If you’re a physicalist, you still need to contend with the hard problem of consciousness, regardless of what theory you choose to describe reality
Superdeterminism is not a “mathematical approach” to solve anything. It’s an incredibly broken interpretation which has no explanatory power whatsoever.
Almost anyone I see on the internet claiming to support Superdeterminism do so for only two reasons: 1.) because Hossenfelder thinks it’s a good idea (yet she’s never quite willing to actually sit down and work out any actual explanation) 2.) because they think it’s a good way to “solve” quantum mechanics while remaining local. They think removing measurement independence is harmless, and to a man they don’t grasp that the implication is that probabilities are irreversibly broken, and causal explanations are impossible. And nearly everyone hand-waves away the false notion that the absence of free will is why anyone has a problem with superdeterminism
@@chriscurry2496 1. Of course SD can solve the measurement problem. To solve it can bring progress in science, philosophy and technology. Which "explanatory power" has standard QM or MW? If you think, the problem doesn´t exist, ask Schrödinger´s cat, it´s still sitting in the box, waiting for you, to set it free. 2. The accusation of ´being SH-fan-guy´ is a bit boring meanwhile. She´s not a godess, but as I said, she´s not the only one, who refers to SD, noble-prize winner Gerard T´Hooft is among them. Perhaps you watch the new vid of Arvin Ash, if you didn´t. 3. Ok, the abscence of statisitcal independence harms people, destroys science, brakes philosophy? QM is about hundred years old now, how could humanity survive before, when we just had determinstic ´classical´ physics to explain what´s happening?
I'm of the strong opinion that science and/or philosophy are too logical, too mental, too physical. Too much importance is given to our thinking capabilities. This existence, is not made of logical factors only. This is a fact. Like non existent (non physical) things that still exist. Consciousness is just one little example if dark matter and energy weren't enough. (95% of everything ahah). Yes, I hear it, they may be physical too, but surely in a different way in which science sees them today, otherwise it would have found some kind of answer to what it could be made of. But no. No idea whatsoever. "Just" philosophycal assumptions, created by logical reasonings inside our brains. And... however, the scientific method IS limited to physical reality, so it really just can't get there. Philosophy and science use logic to reach their conclusions. Which, I'm saying, it's a fantastic way to understand what sorrounds us, but terrible to understand what we are. I'm saying, this reality is not just logical. Quantum physics proves it. The cat? Is it alive or not? It is always alive. Life and death are the same thing. They are both present in every moment in this existence. Every cell in your body, every atom, dies continuosly. Every cell, every atom, is also reborn. Are you dead or alive? Mmmh Both? Somewhere in between? It is a too logical question to be asked. Reality demands to put 1+1 logic behind, and relax some assumptions. "Common sense" is, in my opinion, what science lacks. Common sense is quantum physics. The cat is neither dead or alive. It is in a superposition. To be realizing the idea of a superposition, is a great step into the non just logical world in which we live. There are cultures which explored consciousness. Shall we try to embrace them, or even just see what they have done? Yoga makes people climb mount everest bearfooted... BEARFOOTED. You don't do that with physical or mental training (yes also with those, but without yoga you just don't do it). Or even just divers, to make another and simplier example. They change their chemical status to face these otherwise impossible feats. So it actually works! It's striking how similar is the culture of yoga is with quantum physics. They developed their techniques thousands of years ago. They reached these conclusions that we can measure today, way before we did it with our scientific method. Shall we give a look? Is it just coincidence? It works, it says the same things, and we discard it. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not religious, spiritual, and... I LOVE science. This is why I like to explore even if it challenges "normal", or we should better say in this case, accepted ways of thinking. Consciousness is part of this reality. Science almost completely excluded it from research because it can't research it with its method. Question: is reality wrong or the method? To me, this existence is telling us: "look, there are existent things and non existent(non physical), but they both exist. If you explore physical things, that's the only thing you'll understand." Again, to me, it's so simple that it's striking. Good luck!
And just to render the question even more clear: If you want a theory of everything, and in this "everything" there's also consciousness, why would you leave it aside from the start? Say that you want a theory of only a part of this existence, the external and physical one, and then it would make sense to me. But to be wanting a theory of everything without something(consciousness), makes no sense to me. Nature sets the logic, not us. This logic is relaxed, not made of certainties. You have to embrace this "illogical" (not logical for us) way of thinking of this universe. Some cultures did it way before us. I'm just urging to give it a look. So I'm not saying it is the only and correct way. I'm just saying, let's embrace it because it could open the door to new ways of thinking, both in science and philosophy. I think we need a physical, non physical and experiencial approach to get a theory of everything. That's what the universe is made of. I didn't decide it, the universe did. Experience is unfortunately part of it. We must deal with it every second. It's absurd to leave this approach behind. I wish I could say that science is the only way, so that I could praise your wonderful efforts (because they really are wonderful... I love science!). But the universe is telling you to relax your assumptions and try something new if you want to go deeper into the rabbithole! Love you all, wonderful minds. Thank you for the videos. So lucky I always feel when watching these discussions. 20 years ago very few humans could enjoy these talks. No human before us today could hear science like this. Sosososo lucky we are. Thank you thank you thank you!!!
The question after one has processed philosophy science and religion through this contemporary distillery is what becomes a good practice for everyday life. After we come back to a new normal after all this intoxicating rhetoric how exactly is ones life any different. I would like to see a big shift here from simply stirring the pot to what constitutes effective action. The existentialists faced this head on so lets hear it
Neuroplasticity can connect you with some pretty strange plastic Jesuses, eh? Unless you're pretty well acquainted with the switchboard operator, Karma, and have built some useful entanglements
Stephen Hawking and Sagan both believe in Aliens. Thus, Stephen Hawking's make it further to believe in multi-verses. Those are indeed philosophies- it it not strictly grounded from empirical evidence but it makes sense and it is logical if you know how other things works (that you can piece out). This speculative tendency should always grounded from reasoning, creativity and reverence if you're open-minded. It doesn't build you a rocket but as a human- it satisfied you're world view (which is obviously open to another debate). However, I believe that we should rebel from ancient philosophers method of rational speculation. It need radical shift in Epistemology and Logic. The rise of modern formal logic by Frege and other tantamount figures in philosophy, logic and mathematics have indeed revolutionized our logical framework- not only the natural, linguistics and social sciences- but philosophy itself esp. Epistemology, Metaphysics, philosophy of mind etc. Likewise emerging sub-fields like formal epistemology, formal metaphysics, formal semantics and so forth bring forth new ways of inquiry, strategy and knowing things. I don't necessarily believe at scientific advancements par to the philosophical advancement- but I do believe they are complementary- however, philosophy is much concerned and centered to human as a basic proposition- how it try to know the world without strictly adhering to mind-independent objective explanation of nature and *our place in it.*
The psychedelic "experience" is not an experience at all. Experiences are filtered through concepts. The event, (which it is also not) occurs and it becomes immediately obvious that no description can ever be expressed. People support the idea and people hate the idea because neither of those perspectives are relevant to the event. Suffice to say, that whenever you hear someone attempting to define, describe or judge this very unique, and unlikely event, they are "understanding" in reverse. You can learn nothing about it even if you have been there. Whatever you can imagine, that's not it Peace.
Watch Tim Maudlin vs Bernardo Kastrup on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal and see Bernardo be butthurt and leave the conversation in unjustified anger.
@@richardatkinson4710 Hi. TM was crass but that's his demeanour. He has debated other intellectuals quite successfully despite that; for instance, Tim Palmer. Am I saying TM's intellect or ideas or knowledge is superior to BK's? No wayyy. But 12:04 mins into this podcast he says "I don't back off from a debate if it presents itself". So I had to mention it.
"Watch Tim Maudlin vs Bernardo Kastrup on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal and see Bernardo be butthurt and leave the conversation in unjustified anger." Nice try from the field of materialist bigotry. Point out an exact time in the video where Mauldin tries to interact with Kastrup's ideas... Let me guess... a great silence approaches.
@@nemrodx2185 Thank you for assuming I am a materialistic bigot. 😂 First, see my reply to @richardatkinson4710 . I don't take sides but materialism has got us very far. Unless you live deep inside the Amazon rainforest, everything around you right now has been made possible by it, including YT, the internet, every part of the phone you are using, the power supply you used to charge it etc. So I find deep meaning in the fact that every object around me right now has such deep and complex histories, that it will take me a few lifetimes to learn it all. Coming to analytic idealism, Bernardo Kastrup's ideas are very old. They come from Advaita Vendanta origins of Hinduism. I was indoctrinated into Hinduism as a kid and I still have to publicly identify as one. I have seen religious bigotry in my country to safely say that being an analytic idealist doesn't automatically make you morally superior. But I have deep respect and veneration for someone like Bernardo Kastrup, though his fondness for Advaita Vendanta and it's teachers like Swami Priyananda irks me. My life in my country has taught me to be extremely weary of robe-wearing gurus. Coming to TM vs BK, I was really looking forward to the debate. BK just left because TM used the word 'silly'. I liked him slightly less since then, but that doesn't discourage my curiosity. I just watched BK talk to Christoph Koch for 2 hours on philosophy babble recently. So 🤷🏻♀️ You seem like a smart person. Maybe don't assume things about people on the internet from one comment
Yes you need philosophy but more importantly you need to always need to have a rational Metaphysics across fields and Experience. The Big Bang and Standard Models are no more rational than a God creating the Heaven and the Earth mythology.
I love all the pointed, direct and succinct questions from mr Keating. lol.. he talks and talks and talks, I don't think he needed Bernardo at all. Super annoying.
10D? Nonsense. Every universe has it's own time-space. Each quanta of consciousness has an individually coherent 12D experience, but never the exact same 12D, though at low consciousness, the experiences may seem identical, which is why so many NPC numby gumbies try to democratize reality. That's an easily deduced characteristic of quantum consciousness from available observations in the simulation multiverse.
Bernardo is stuck believing that intelligence and consciousness means being able to pee. Yet his work on philosophy of mind is so inclusive, emphasizing the oneness and connectedness of a universe experiencing through multiple vessels... Why not extend that experience to a computer, once it starts to show that it can reason, or express itself creatively? Concerning Brian's pain/pleasure example, an entity being able to experience pain is not a very good standard for relation, for determining whether to respect something as intelligent or conscious. I think it's best to try and extend empathy and relation as far as possible, while keeping true to human virtues.
You "have" to believe in God. Why? Because, according to Heisenberg, if you could see God you could interfere with God. In other words if God were subject to science then you wouldn't have to believe. God would be provable: interferable. So, by definition, you have to believe. Just as you have to believe in numbers? Maybe. You don't have to believe in physics, do you? Increasingly I think you do.
There are a lot of 'if' statements in there. If you could see god. If god were subject to science. Suppose they are all false, then we don't have to believe in god. If god cannot be sensed or interacted with, if there was no god to interact with or sense, if what we interacted with or sensed was not actually god. What should be believe given all these cases?
@@simonhibbs887 A lot of skepticism in there. Not a lot of suspicion. I believe the suspicious soul has more going for him than the skeptical soul. What the suspicious one believes or what the skeptical one doubts? Who has more ...skin in the game? Whose outlook tends towards validating what's correct and invalidating what's incorrect? Whose attitude tends towards validating what's incorrect and invalidating what's correct? There are less ways to suspect than there are ways to doubt, I think. 🤔. The domain of our knowledge is less than the domain of our ignorance. Not so?
It’s important to recognise that physicalism is a philosophical axiom that we just smuggle into science. We should all be more neutral here, it’s really not obvious that matter makes consciousness, or that consciousness makes matter. The immersive intuition is that the matter exists without us, but we don’t use our ape intuitions to accurately grasp reality. Add in the work done in Predictive Processing and Free Energy by Friston, Seth, Chandaria, Clark etc, and you end up with us inhabiting a mental approximation of some complex “external” quantum reality, we seem to be living in our minds generative, constructed reality, our minds best hypothesis about what’s going on. This view is more idealism than physicalism, and predictive processing and Bayesian cognition is about the best scientific account of sense making we have so far. Let’s keep exploring and being open minded and actually work out what’s going on here, because it’s not simple or obvious. And the idea that the rippling patterns and excitations in waves are more like something mental than physical, isn’t ridiculous or implausible, it’s just counter to current orthodoxy that isn’t often challenged. Quantum mechanical physics isn’t actually quantised, mechanical or physical. It’s continuous outside of the equations and has no mechanical properties (“spin” is just a useful analogy), and it’s some invisible force of fundamental “stuff”.
Idealism vs. physicalism? No, what one can ask is: fit our observations with our theories, if yes, we go a step forward. This isn´t called physicalism, but scientific method. How far brought us thousands of years of philosophy? Human Life changed fundamentally since we use the scientific method about 300years now. The technology we developed works, because its based on the scientific understanding of nature, and that´s a strong hint, that this method makes valid statements about the characteristics of nature.
@@sxsmith44 You obviously make a statement without any reasoning. Consciousness is obviously an emergent property of the brain functions or where is your consciousness under anesthesia during a surgery when the brain functions are chemical switched off?
just watch on youtube the video from " kraut" about him..." Why Noam Chomsky is garbage " ... i did make a comment here allready but it seems youtube deleted it . just watch the video and tell me if you understand it now
God is a Trinity of pearsons, but same holy ghost, uncreated energies, inteligent kind that united them. Uncreated but persons. În ortodoxy you can find them. I belive that catolics are abandoned by GOD until fixed some problems. We are also persons, created, but în surch of White peble, i e our perfect ego, but only Hristos can give US and unfortenly only în ortodox churches. Apocalipsa tell about White peble. Surch and find.
![What is Time? Stephen Wolfram’s Groundbreaking New Theory [Ep. 468]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-879Tbn5Ww/mqdefault.jpg)
Is studying philosophy a waste of time for a physicist? What's the most important development in philosophy in the past 30 years?
waste of time if you don't come up with something new that can be tested.
"Is studying philosophy a waste of time for a physicist? What's the most important development in philosophy in the past 30 years?"
It is not a waste of time because every physicist uses philosophy, whether he likes it or not. What happens is that the physicist is such a bad philosopher that he doesn't even realize his philosophy.
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb "That's a good point. I notice this when we use things like space warping and attractive forces, where it works on the large scale, it's a tool of simplicity..."
1- If you use something like a "tool of simplicity" you are already using a philosophical principle. Other virtues of a hypothesis (such as its explanatory power, less "ad hoc", etc.) are also philosophical.
2-The scientific method itself is a philosophical principle.
3-Since physics is ontologically and philosophically neutral (it does not tell you where it comes from or why it is like that and not otherwise): if you are a theist (a philosophical position) you will interpret its ontology and order according to theism, if you are a materialist/physicalist (another philosophical position), you will interpret physics according to that lens and the same if you are an idealist (like Kastrup). Everything being more or less equivalent in the grounds of physical theory, similar as are the "interpretations" of quantum mechanics.
4-A frequent error, almost exclusive to materialism/physicalism, is to think that they are outside of philosophy or superior to it precisely because of poor philosophical education. We then fall into scientism, which is a terrible philosophy.
"He who has ears, let him hear"
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb I am not a philosopher or a physicist but doesn’t QM tell us that the substance we colloquially refer to as matter, doesn’t exist, unless observed or measured?
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb OK. Doesn’t uncertainty of measurement indicate uncertainty of matter?
Help get Kastrup on JRE too 😊
I want this SO BADLY
@@patrickl6932 Why so he can go home and cry to momma when Rogan pushes back?
There's almost nothing I would like more than that.
Rogan follows Bernardo on X... it could happen
Kastrup was invited a couple years ago. Scheduling issue. Hope it happens soon.
He just described my childhood in respect to religion . I was baptized a Catholic, but my parents didn’t want to force religion on myself and my brothers my father was a electrical engineer. My mom was a teacher. I feel the same way, and I don’t have anything against religion . It wasn’t until I was 55 and I found myself saying to myself “well the only thing that could give us everything in the universe ?the only answer that answers everything is there is a “god” what brought me to this was events that were utterly lacking in religion or religious teachings. I just smiled and said to myself this changes everything for the better, it feels fascinating
Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between mind and body in consciousness studies within the monadological framework.
First, let's define our basic entities and relations:
- Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities).
- Let P be a set of "physical properties" or "material states."
- Let Q be a set of "mental properties" or "conscious experiences."
- Let Φ be a function from M to P, where Φ(m) represents the "physical aspect" or "material embodiment" of monad m.
- Let Ψ be a function from M to Q, where Ψ(m) represents the "mental aspect" or "conscious experience" of monad m.
Now, let's formalize the idea of the relationship between mind and body:
- Dualism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) and Ψ(m) are ontologically distinct and independent.
- Materialism: ∀m ∈ M, Ψ(m) is fully determined by or reducible to Φ(m).
- Idealism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) is fully determined by or reducible to Ψ(m).
- Neutral Monism: ∀m ∈ M, Φ(m) and Ψ(m) are two aspects or manifestations of a single underlying reality.
In other words, dualism posits that the mental and physical aspects of monads are fundamentally separate, materialism posits that the mental aspect is reducible to the physical aspect, idealism posits that the physical aspect is reducible to the mental aspect, and neutral monism posits that both aspects are equally real and irreducible.
We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of category theory and dual-aspect monism:
- Let C be a category, where the objects are monads and the morphisms are "psychophysical" transformations or interactions.
- Let F : C → P and G : C → Q be functors, where F(m) represents the physical aspect of monad m and G(m) represents the mental aspect of monad m.
- The relationship between mind and body can be expressed as:
- Dualism: F and G are not naturally isomorphic.
- Materialism: G is naturally isomorphic to a subfunctor of F.
- Idealism: F is naturally isomorphic to a subfunctor of G.
- Neutral Monism: F and G are two different representational functors of the same underlying category C.
Here, the different positions on the mind-body problem are formalized in terms of the structural relationships between the functors representing the physical and mental aspects of monads.
Finally, we can connect this to physics and neuroscience by noting that this formalism is compatible with empirical findings on the correlations between brain states and conscious experiences:
- Neuroscientific studies have shown that there are systematic correspondences between specific patterns of neural activity and specific contents of consciousness.
- However, the nature of the causal relationship between brain states and conscious experiences remains an open question, with different philosophical interpretations compatible with the empirical data.
The monadological framework provides a way to integrate these empirical findings with a metaphysical framework that treats both the physical and the mental as equally real and fundamentally interconnected aspects of the same underlying reality.
In summary, by using tools from logic, math (category theory and dual-aspect monism), physics, and neuroscience, we can formalize the relationship between mind and body in consciousness studies within the monadological framework:
- Monads have both physical and mental aspects, which can be studied empirically through physics and neuroscience.
- The relationship between these aspects can be understood in terms of different metaphysical positions, such as dualism, materialism, idealism, and neutral monism.
- The monadological framework provides a way to integrate these metaphysical positions with the empirical findings of neuroscience and physics, by treating both the physical and the mental as equally real and fundamentally interconnected.
This analysis showcases the potential of the monadological framework to provide a comprehensive and nuanced foundation for the study of consciousness, one that bridges the gap between the empirical sciences and the philosophical questions that have long puzzled us about the nature of mind and its place in the physical world. By embracing a both/and approach and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, physics, and neuroscience, we can develop a more integrated and satisfying understanding of the mystery of consciousness and its relationship to the fundamental structure of reality.
Very nice.
Golly
This is what mainstream science always does when trying to explain anything. "Explain - the act of making something plain not plain. To over complicate the simple to make it more difficult to understand". That's not science, it's socially engineered thought manipulation designed to dumb down the masses. Richard Feynman hit the nail on the head when he said "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". It's all YOU! If you want to understand anything, look within your Self. The harder you try to explain it in objective terms, the less understandable it becomes. The first thing to understand about "reality" is it's not real. The whole notion of this being "real life" is the fundamental flaw in our understanding. It's neither real, nor life :)
Kastrup is always super interesting.
This is an extremely important conversation
Another detailed and eye opening podcast from Dr. Brian........sending love and support from India...Huge fan of your work. Would love to do a podcast with you some day for my students
I have followed Bernardo for about 7 years. Anytime I feel any level of certainty about physicalism, I go back and read him and let him shatter my certainty, mashing it into a fine dust.
After listening to BK the other thinkers pale into I significance…this man is a breath of fresh air . Love to hear him reason with Ra Un Nefer
I am so stoked for this. These are the 2 minds I want to hear work together.
Another enlightening interview with bernardo kastrup 💯👌
Enjoyed the conversation!
As the programmer of the Universe, I'm especially proud of black holes.
The way growing gravity slows down time where much matter collect ... It is the perfect way to protect my CPUs from overheating when too many interactions in certain locations would otherwise threaten to.
Where is your donation box 😅
@@Thomas-gk42 Don't worry about that.
Your donation is the data generated while you live.
I'll use that for polishing the next universe.
how many lives have i lived sofar and how much data have i generated twords the whole? it'd be funny if this was how the actual creator of this universe chose to communicate with it's creations was via youtube comments
Consciousness is all that actually exists. We experience Perception In Consciousness as partitioned bits of a Consciousness Singularity.
Great interview. BK is brilliant. -pleas let him speak and resist indulgent narratives. Many of us are here for his ideas, and he sometimes breaks new ground in these conversations
Way to go Brian I'm now a fan, well perhaps there's a few noblemen left.. fantastic conversation at whole heartedly agree see the real people behind these amazing minds you boys have heart warming to see you to how evidently you also value your wife and children...❤❤❤ Love your motivation...
stunning - thanks 🙂
Amazing talk, great minds working hard.....
My guess is that the reason why people like Sean Carroll like the "multiverse" theory is because it because the fine-tuning problem implies either a multiverse or a creator. If you want to remain atheist you must therefore believe in the multiverse. Which ironically is probably just another religion.
Exactly!
Wrong multiverse theory. The one relevant to the fine tuning problem is the eternal inflation multiverse theory. Sean advocates for the Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has nothing to do with fine tuning.
@@simonhibbs887 Right, but all these "many realities"-guys support each other.
@@Thomas-gk42 I’ve not heard Sean comment on eternal inflation, or Andrei Linde on many worlds. We do know the eternal inflation multiverse idea was an accident, inflation was originally conceived to solve the cosmological smoothness problem. A year or two after it was published someone pointed out that combined with QM it would lead to regions with different physics.
@@simonhibbs887 Correct. Beyond the MW from OM and the eternal infaltion MV, there are some other concepts coming from string theory, I guess. And the philosophical finetuning point of view, the first commenter ´Greg´ refered to, kinda infaltion of MV-theories. I personally think, this is all unveriviable SF-stuff, you have to believe in. The believers try to make it more likeky by argueing, that different parts of physics give the same prediction, though, as you said, there´s no correation.
Part 2
Understanding this, allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the eternal reflective existence (of all accumulated experience) that accents all resulted experiences, as well that experience always being added to as it is rightfully sewn and essentially supported. Studies related to Pyramid religion, psychics, quantum reality’s etc usually end up suggesting, that they themselves present existence as not being a psychical reality. Even though equating infinity is an aspect that is largely incomprehensible to mankind, because it struggles to detach its own nature from its capacity to learn. For example, due to the certified awe, the continued path of riddled failure uses time signatures on it’s simulators, processors, equations and theory’s, that are all formed from a localised perceived time that is based off an ecliptic equation, that misrepresents Universal spacetime. If a Universal cycle is a 360’ cycle then a Earth day is noted from the time at which a particular star passes the celestial meridian (i.e. directly overhead) on two sucessive nights, which marks a sidereal day of 23 hours 56 minutes & 4.091 seconds, which is not at all aligned to Hipparchus’s equation of time. Meaning that a severe miscalculation has already occurred (in this time) at the most basic level of each of the equators of reality that were used to equate forms of - Pyramid religions, psychics, quantum theories and mathematical reality’s, if the basic division is unbalanced, as the riddle is, the load failure can only ever increase, how could it ever equate Universal balances and differences? This is why the riddles script always uses its inability to understand difference against its own scripted environment. Realising this means that you should be able to at least recognise that a theory of a simulated reality has already been broadcast across your time lines future paths. Suggesting that the beings responsible for the promotion of this structured mistake, do indeed place themselves as successors of direction (control) at the cost of all others that could ever be correct. Whats also interesting is that often alternate realities are mentioned, but usually limited to X amount of numbers, because of the human reflective process of thought, that could only structure these off the measurements they equate of their understanding (or lack of) related to the distance and time of their times Universal Mass. This is a common mistake, because mankind fails to recognise that time, distance and reflection are irrelevant as soon as you are able to understand the actual meaning of’ what an infinite existence is, including the removal of biological function that is enacted as a corrective restrictor. If you are able to do this, you can understand why the reality of all existence is the functionality of all eternal growth. For mass the experience of’ reflects as its interaction (inclusive of others mass based) not their reaction (singular to them) as choice, keeping in mind what I said about Hipparchus, and understanding that infinity as being ‘time is all at once’ of which masses interactions reflect off. The only reason Mass believes in a disconnection from the totality is because of its reflective biological limitations.
When sub atomic cycles and other associated conscious layers are falsely introduced to a species that reflects on time as being linear, they would find it extremely difficult to understand how expansive time could be cycled into their past’ because of their reflective biology. It’s significantly easier if one tries to establish, if the paths for all failure and success can still exist with or without its mass, perhaps you can try grabbing your left hand and without letting go’ try grabbing it again, obviously you can not’ knowing that cycle has already reflectively occurred, even if you simply thought it through’ you were aware that the reflective cycle would have already past once you enacted it, so the cycle exists reflectively as you enacted it but without the mass you used to reflect it, from here your current mass of reflection would be understood as it being your centre (and that prior actions centre) because your pinnacled to your form that only changed in the moment because of that cycle, meaning that the possibility that your reflective pinnacled center can be moved by changing your reflective memories of your past can easily change the perception of your centred reflection, I.e as in Slaves built the Pyramids to Company process built the Pyramids….meaning that your reflective center is also relative to the past that’s reflected of it, which also includes, if this changed state was broadcast to you (even deceitfully) then your center was changed by a broadcast created for you, in your future, from any point prior to your change (but for you, only understood in that moment as your experience) At this point It’s extremely important that you understand the nature of reflective thought’ as masses production of time, that reveals itself relative to the speed of the mind the processes it, that actually contains many precursor layers well before the slower mind recognises them as a thought. It’s readily understood (or it should be) that your actions mostly occur prior to your conscious mind perceiving them, and if they don’t for you then you’re not paying close enough attention, to yourself and the environment that constantly try’s to control your surroundings.
Knowing that all balance is achieved from opposites is the key indicator of masses reflective “sleeping form” It can be used to identify mass as an equated form to the infinite existence of all. When a manipulation of a masses future occurs (as a mimicked form) it will always present itself “as a forced tyrannical center” whilst ironically also proving, that its past paths of existence (attempted cycles) have always been “failure” or have been failed. From this stand point you should address the mindset of the cavemen to fire as it is to you, because the caveman also thought of itself as it’s times pinnacle.
The false mimic/s is the reason that religion was formed here on Earth as a search for the truth, and it exists because of the corrections made by the (bloodline) anchor between times, which was a predetermined necessity - corrective balance, due to the failures created by “typed mistakes” here on Earth, mistakes made by those that reversed live. Unknowingly to them though, they played an essential part in the balancing of all of masses infinity, as the ever failing and diminishing opposite.
Keeping it simple, If you still struggle to grasp the separation between eternal cycles (the super consciousness) and reflective mass, then Imagine multiple people grabbing their left hand, following that simple instruction of “grab your left hand and don’t let it go” but now across time and distance. Ask anyone of them to grab their hand again without them letting go and again none of them are able to, each of them completing the cycle as the cycle (to them) continues remain the same. Each of them believes that it happened because they can reflect on the result of that cycle passing through them, and experienced it as the result of that cycle, without noticing that the cycle started the same way before it finished and knew the result of its experience because that cycle is that experience. Additionally as it includes each individual it’s cycle grew, as it gained experience of all other correct differences, that were individually but additionally cycled to it along it’s way (again without the cycle requiring mass) The successful result of each individual grabbing their left hand, continued its cycle as a succession of its cumulative perfection, and still each person involved exists in that same individually centred reflective state and only believes they did this because they restrictively reflected as it. As an opposite failure wouldn’t be able to do so, as it fails to reflect truthfully in all cycles, because of its corruptive make up. Which is why every single state of tyranny relies on false advertisements and podiums of its markers of short term relevance, but always later incudes them in it’s displacement of its own blame in the false cycling of failure. Exposed to the point where each individual through fear of their individual knowledge of it’s scripted failure, are forced to knowingly push its way of mandated cancer further. Often this is achieved by failure stereotyping the poverty it causes, as a disease bought about by the instability it created for itself to profit from.
Obviously there’s a whole lot more……but that’s another time.
ORION The Hunter (time is all at once)
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Hard to an imagine a real physicist would be wasting so much time writing nonsense in a RUclips comment thread….
@@lando9238
I can imagine it but if this is what it looks like I'd rather imagine almost anything else.
@@lando9238 I doubt this is an actual physicist too. I have seen this exact same comment cut and pasted at other comment sections for similar videos.
@@NondescriptMammal wow that doesn’t surprise me at all… To claim consciousness is not generated by our brains is a huuuuuge claim and requires some extraordinary evidence
@@lando9238 Yes, and this is what Kastrup claims, in his roundabout way. And he presents his opinions as if they were strongly supported scientifically, when they have no such foundation. Probably less so than the competing philosophies that he pretends to discredit.
Kastrup grinds my gears. I’ve erased the diatribe.
Brian, at least you’re engaging with the hallucinations of LLMs. There’s an entire field of study there and eventually it will be far more revealing than anyone expected. I don’t think the hallucinations should be dismissed, they need to be analyzed.
Yep, BK annoying and he´s biased about everything in science that he is afraid could be in conflict with his panpsychistic ideas. I figure it ridiculous that he can´t stop, equal of the topic, to shoot against what he calls superdeterminism, which is an mathematical approach to solve the measument problem in QM and has nothing to do with his so called philosophy.
Study of LLMs will be revealing of what?
Kastrup is an arrogant man who has many words and a lot of nothing to say.
I disagree that it is not pleasurable. The pleasure is in the realization of being itself. Finding oneself in a mystery itself while also being one themselves. The breaking of crystallized perceptual frameworks.
Even in very intense or fearful circumstances there is the thrill of meeting it head on and attempting to perceive "deeper" and/or more holistically.
This being said one must bear in mind that prolonged exposure or intense abuse will affect the nervous system as will doing the same with most any chemical. Its a great tool if used correctly but indulgence must be avoided. These states can also be attained without using the chemicals. It just takes a lot longer.
If you can make the long full episodes more obvious, I like these full videos
Thanks a lot🙏🙏🙏
Not even sure if it is a re-upload
All Sunday episodes are new 🙏
Labeled also with episode number
Is it possible, that the universe contains two fundamental parts to it, 3D infinite empty space and materia in it? Could EVERYTHING else be properties of materia? Thanks!
Thank you!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
thank you this was insightful and hilarious
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I saw this 6 months ago. How is it new?
If I don’t get my dose of Kastrup at least once a week I get out of sorts.
Deja vu on this podcast. A repost?
Wow i was impressed with your education but i see its your brain thats the real asset
"But only in their dreams can men be truly free. 'Twas always thus, and always thus will be."
- Keating
If we think physics and philosophy collide, rather than dovetail seamlessly, then we don't understand one, the other or both.
Also, with a bit of philosophy, one can understand thermodynamics better(infinite continuous balancing act between self-organisation and increasing entropy, as force creates symmetry and for ex. explosions increase entropy), but on the other hand, physicist have proven an absolute creation of materia, which again complicated thermodynamics, or that is what they are claiming based on actually what?
Kastrup misrepresents the many wolds interpretation. It's only tangentially to do with the unpredictability of measurements. It's mainly about taking superposition seriously. We have measurements that show that particles, when we directly measure them, have a single state, nevertheless actually must have had multiple states when unobserved because the fact that they had multiple states has physical consequences. I'm not personally a MWI fan, but lets at least get the claim right.
I want to know what all this micro tubuals is about and how it creates a quantum process which creates consciousness. I've not heard anyone from the idealism front commenting on what this could mean?
49:32 so funny lol, better than netflix!
55:17 lmao another one
Could it be, that the quantum leap is explained by such a speed, that is so great, that we today don't have the capability to detect/measure the time? If not, why not? Thanks!
Isn't this just a restream of guy in blue hoodie channel? I think Ive already seen this. Can you do a new show with Bernardo?
Bernardo you are like the men of old, the kind that have gone extinct, the ones in fairy stories: humble, brave, bold, honourable, wise, I'm a Celt you embody the values of our wise ones( ¡¡¡ )This symbolises the 3 pillars of our way, wisdom - service - creativity...
And best of all you love honour and value your Mrs... ❤❤❤
What are your thoughts on neuro diversitys such as autism/Asperger's. Love to see you talk to ogi ogas... Do you do requests... And grand master wolf whose just lovely too... Bless UZ all...
The sensorial and perceptual veil is a part of reality, it limits our access to the hypothetical qualia. Be satisfied with this and leave hubris aside ;-)
That last bit from Kastrup makes me think he really enjoys dialetheism
This is such a wild guess but I’m tapping into the Feynman in me. I feel like since there are so many planets in solar systems, so many stars and star systems forming galaxies. Then we have all these galaxies , maybe the universe is a “loaf of bread, or bubble “ a part of something greater. But can we experience it in any way im not even sure that is possible.
Also the something from nothing could just mean something so small we can’t conceptualize it. Maybe there is more microscopic levels we can’t detect that have whacky physics. It’s the growth of something so small into something so big that’s amazing
I also wish DrBernardo and ProfTimMaud would grab a beer and squash the beef. You guys are both too valuable to us and I wish to see you guys Duke it out again it’s very enjoyable. We all want the same thing to better our planet ❤
Please Look at the Work of Thad Roberts. He has resolved the fine Tuning constante
the contact epistemological imperitive - the antidote to metasticising metaphysics
Reality is def mental right now.
BRIAN TALKING ENDLESSLY
but this time, really interesting, in contradiction to the most, his guests had to say.
Between the interviewer talking more than his guest, and the constant annoyance of his own self promotion, this is impossible to watch :)
Part 1
I’ve heard so many quote different dimensions, realities, simulations, species etc like they have been there, well “I AM” To put this into perspective you need to imagine if reality could be called a digitised reality in 1000 years. Obviously you know it will not. A basic scope of that perception tells you that your digital association would be as relevant as a caveman to fire is to you. When one scopes for meaning of his own existence he/she does so based from human understandings (learnt from their environment/experience) Existing as reflective matter they base the measurement of their perception from their limitation of understanding. Mostly not realising that they are scoping their reflection of, not the delivery of. In recent day many people have given examples of simulations etc using labels NPC’s and PC’s as examples in their scenarios, but usually without addressing the nature of it’s programming. In that scenario the typical objective is for the gamer to succeed at the ‘game’ that’s exclusively designed to assist the PC’s in their journey, only made relevant because the difference in time, effort and programming used to present the scripted illusion of choice thats inherited by the PC as being far superior to script given to remaining NPC’s. Keeping this in mind, presents as a major issue in the simulation reality theory that feeds off physical collection as the failure or stunting of its actual equal others (without the lie of the script) This would mean that by design some labels were pre-chosen as the controllers of others (perhaps like a Royalty) Meaning that they could only succeed at cost to the players their script disadvantages. If one was to assume this as its design, then what would be its point and how could this simulation ever evolve, when it’s design leads to conclusive failure through stupidity? Would it not still be reliant on the singularity layered above it? Why does the landscape of this design still fail to address and understand the singularity? Is it because its always defined from and as a form of falsely pinnacled positioned reflective Mass? When you speak of a singularity that increases exponentially shouldn’t you scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist? and from an understanding that it already has the capacity to include everything (in this time) including everything perceptional to it’s environment? Would it not be able to prove that the importance of existence is balanced by the eternal growth of existence? that obviously could only be achieved successively from a production of freedom from the cumulative experience of all interactions that are right. Understanding this allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the reflective eternal existence that accents every resulted experience. As well that experience being added to and essentially supported. When religion, psychics, quantum reality’s are studied it’s usually suggested that they themselves eventually present as there being no psychical basis for reality, however one could also conclude that this is because these are all formations of the same faulty mimicked design (looped by failure) that till now existed as a riddle that sat right in front of the “Worlds greatest minds”
That riddle exists time and time again as ‘It’s own Failure’ even when it’s failure is detected, it usually gets promoted again and goes unnoticed, as the cause of failure, because of the prior certifications attached to its relative forms. It then instead is presented as a possible new direction for yet another overlay (by its minds mimicked) to discover because of it’s certified awe associated to them. Really, to simplify that riddle all should concentrate more on the influence Cerns LHC had on the flower of life and all other ancient awe attached to it. Including why their energy signatures match their presentation and the Company riddle, that also fails mankind as a lesser product. The line of ‘enchanted fools’ is very long and truth be known, well not a very distinguished one either.
When a conclusion is formed, it should always be factual and not shrouded in the flowers awe. If forms must be equated dimensionally, they MUST be equated from the perspective consciousness that lays above that times conscious state, as it’s infinite existence, as though its the Source of “?” that’s anchored between all forms - NOT SIMPLY ANCHORED TO ONE.
For example, the basis and understanding of all wasted calculations, theorising and man made principles becomes ABSOLUTE when it’s riddle is known to be its ever conclusive failures, that are bound in its attachment to the mistakes of its enslaved servers - AT THE TIME OF CREATION (in the 2ks) As is the understanding of measurement that’s achieved by those certified in its dimensionally riddled and time stumped environment. All of which is based on the belly crawlers attempts to enslave life, with the fantasy of one day eventually harnessing technology that enables them to escape the Hell they deserve (nope that’s what you get for MAPPING kids)
When a singularity that increases exponentially in an instant is studied, you must scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist, from the understanding,,that it already has the capacity to include life (in this time) and everything perceptional to its environment, understanding that the absolute importance of existence is above all the eternal growth of all existence.,This can obviously only ever be achieved successively from an infinite dimension of freedom thats survived by the cumulative resulted experience of all interactions that are were and could be ever correct.
@@jasonwilliams9922 Wow. That’s a lot of words. Kastrup would love that since he also enjoys saying a lot of words.
Somehow, in 2024 over a century after Wittgenstein taught us how to cull this nonsense out of philosophy, it’s still being done,
Brian talk to Dr Deepak Chopra he's one of the best in my opinion on the mind body connection.
Watch his last episode with Bernardo Kastrup “skeptical about superdeterminism it’s about a year old. check out the comments you’ll see that more people appreciated his case for idealism than people that thought he was just full of a-bolony. You better get used to seeing this guy especially if you’re stuck on ontology.
Yes, because the comment section there was an echo chamber. Kastrup told scientific nonsense and lies about Sabine´s statements there.
My answer in that other thread got lost, so I try it here again:
1. I recently got a three hours surgery. I got the anesthesia and, in my perception, I woke up immediately as if spacetime not even exited for this period.
2. "An emergent property... you mean like magic!" - No! In SHs brilliant book "Existential Physics", I highly recommend to read, she differs between weak and strong emergence. The latter is magic indeed,coming from elsewhere "outside", but without any relevance for science, it's a faith. Weak emergence she defines as coming from the interactions of the lower components (particles, molecules, neurons, whatever). So clearly it's in principle verifiable, how human consciousness is a weak emergent property of the cooperation of neurons and the biochemical and electromagnetic interaction, even if more research can be done in that field. Nothing magical about it. It's like life, that seems to be a bit magical too, but clearly, the biology of a living cell is understandable from the organic chemistry, it's based on.
@@Thomas-gk42 Physicalist: "Don't bring in people we can't refute, we need to continue with our blind faith and dogma. Also our worldview is true by default and we don't need to justify it."
Bernardo was completely humiliated by Tim Maudlin so much so that he ran off the show in the middle of the interview and went home to cry to momma!
@@ricomajestic Do you have a link? Maudlin can be razor sharp, that's right.
Every NDE and psychedelic experience is a data point that can be integrated into a proof of the simulation multiverse and it's minimalist-maximalist creative process, which was designed by the best of spiritual scientists.
Irresp0nsible expl0itation is Karmic ssin. Tyrannny can often seem like a "good" idea to the tyrannt. Placebos may seem to heal, but could merely put a pirate patch on a bad bug
I think we need a reckoning with observation
Enjoyable conversation even for this non-scientist
Fine tuning is only a problem if looking from the bottom up. It becomes less meaningful if viewing reality from the top down. The macro scale imposes an order on the micro, to allow the macro to exist. This, to me, implies order and a plan. It does not mean a God. It also does not mean, no God. A block-time notion implies no time, in the sense of a defined present, a remembered past and a predicted future. Does that mean no upward emergence? Or does it imply a defined end goal and that the components of the universe are the way the way they are because they can be no other way?
you need a first causation for something to be there. And without any kind of intelligence that something (there by chance and without any causation...) had to have the possibility within itself to create a complex, stable and meaningful reality.
Physic cannot go beyond physical.... it cannot follow physical rules... philosphy can go beyond logic...
I´m really positively surprised about that conversation, cause I´m absolutly not a fan of BK. It was very interesting to hear something about professor Keating here, namely his religious developement and positions. I even agree with BK´s opinion about AI, might be because that´s the topic of what he is really an expert about? I like the hidden hints to the book "Lost in Math, how beauty leads Physics astray" (Sabine Hossenfelder, 2018), seems, BK has read it meanwhile. Sadly, at last BK can´t stop his constant hits against so called superdeterminism, which is a mathematical approach to solve the measurement problem and has nothing to do with "metaphysics". Obiviously he refuses to learn something about what he doesn´t understand, because he is to biased about it, though great minds like G. T´Hooft, S. Donadi, S. Hossenfelder, T. Palmer... hold on to it and haven´t given up to research what physically happens in a QM measurement, like mainstream physics has. A ridiculous argument to say, "..we made 45years of experiments to solve it, so it´s unsolvable." Also ridiculous is his analogy of placebo-effect to justify his philosphical ideas.
too bias. Your welcome
If you’re using theories in physics to support physicalism, you’re doing metaphysics. If you’re a physicalist, you still need to contend with the hard problem of consciousness, regardless of what theory you choose to describe reality
Superdeterminism is not a “mathematical approach” to solve anything. It’s an incredibly broken interpretation which has no explanatory power whatsoever.
Almost anyone I see on the internet claiming to support Superdeterminism do so for only two reasons:
1.) because Hossenfelder thinks it’s a good idea (yet she’s never quite willing to actually sit down and work out any actual explanation)
2.) because they think it’s a good way to “solve” quantum mechanics while remaining local. They think removing measurement independence is harmless, and to a man they don’t grasp that the implication is that probabilities are irreversibly broken, and causal explanations are impossible.
And nearly everyone hand-waves away the false notion that the absence of free will is why anyone has a problem with superdeterminism
@@chriscurry2496 1. Of course SD can solve the measurement problem. To solve it can bring progress in science, philosophy and technology. Which "explanatory power" has standard QM or MW? If you think, the problem doesn´t exist, ask Schrödinger´s cat, it´s still sitting in the box, waiting for you, to set it free.
2. The accusation of ´being SH-fan-guy´ is a bit boring meanwhile. She´s not a godess, but as I said, she´s not the only one, who refers to SD, noble-prize winner Gerard T´Hooft is among them. Perhaps you watch the new vid of Arvin Ash, if you didn´t.
3. Ok, the abscence of statisitcal independence harms people, destroys science, brakes philosophy? QM is about hundred years old now, how could humanity survive before, when we just had determinstic ´classical´ physics to explain what´s happening?
Philosophy informs physicists more than physics.
I'm of the strong opinion that science and/or philosophy are too logical, too mental, too physical.
Too much importance is given to our thinking capabilities.
This existence, is not made of logical factors only. This is a fact.
Like non existent (non physical) things that still exist.
Consciousness is just one little example if dark matter and energy weren't enough.
(95% of everything ahah).
Yes, I hear it, they may be physical too, but surely in a different way in which science sees them today, otherwise it would have found some kind of answer to what it could be made of.
But no. No idea whatsoever.
"Just" philosophycal assumptions, created by logical reasonings inside our brains.
And... however, the scientific method IS limited to physical reality, so it really just can't get there.
Philosophy and science use logic to reach their conclusions.
Which, I'm saying, it's a fantastic way to understand what sorrounds us, but terrible to understand what we are.
I'm saying, this reality is not just logical.
Quantum physics proves it.
The cat?
Is it alive or not?
It is always alive.
Life and death are the same thing. They are both present in every moment in this existence.
Every cell in your body, every atom, dies continuosly.
Every cell, every atom, is also reborn.
Are you dead or alive? Mmmh Both? Somewhere in between?
It is a too logical question to be asked.
Reality demands to put 1+1 logic behind, and relax some assumptions.
"Common sense" is, in my opinion, what science lacks.
Common sense is quantum physics.
The cat is neither dead or alive. It is in a superposition.
To be realizing the idea of a superposition, is a great step into the non just logical world in which we live.
There are cultures which explored consciousness.
Shall we try to embrace them, or even just see what they have done?
Yoga makes people climb mount everest bearfooted... BEARFOOTED.
You don't do that with physical or mental training (yes also with those, but without yoga you just don't do it).
Or even just divers, to make another and simplier example.
They change their chemical status to face these otherwise impossible feats.
So it actually works!
It's striking how similar is the culture of yoga is with quantum physics.
They developed their techniques thousands of years ago.
They reached these conclusions that we can measure today, way before we did it with our scientific method.
Shall we give a look?
Is it just coincidence?
It works, it says the same things, and we discard it.
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm not religious, spiritual, and... I LOVE science.
This is why I like to explore even if it challenges "normal", or we should better say in this case, accepted ways of thinking.
Consciousness is part of this reality.
Science almost completely excluded it from research because it can't research it with its method.
Question: is reality wrong or the method?
To me, this existence is telling us: "look, there are existent things and non existent(non physical), but they both exist.
If you explore physical things, that's the only thing you'll understand."
Again, to me, it's so simple that it's striking.
Good luck!
And just to render the question even more clear:
If you want a theory of everything, and in this "everything" there's also consciousness, why would you leave it aside from the start?
Say that you want a theory of only a part of this existence, the external and physical one, and then it would make sense to me.
But to be wanting a theory of everything without something(consciousness), makes no sense to me.
Nature sets the logic, not us.
This logic is relaxed, not made of certainties.
You have to embrace this "illogical" (not logical for us) way of thinking of this universe.
Some cultures did it way before us. I'm just urging to give it a look.
So I'm not saying it is the only and correct way.
I'm just saying, let's embrace it because it could open the door to new ways of thinking, both in science and philosophy.
I think we need a physical, non physical and experiencial approach to get a theory of everything.
That's what the universe is made of.
I didn't decide it, the universe did. Experience is unfortunately part of it. We must deal with it every second. It's absurd to leave this approach behind.
I wish I could say that science is the only way, so that I could praise your wonderful efforts (because they really are wonderful... I love science!).
But the universe is telling you to relax your assumptions and try something new if you want to go deeper into the rabbithole!
Love you all, wonderful minds.
Thank you for the videos. So lucky I always feel when watching these discussions.
20 years ago very few humans could enjoy these talks.
No human before us today could hear science like this.
Sosososo lucky we are.
Thank you thank you thank you!!!
God has the hardest time picking out his favorite children in a crowd.
I also stopped Twitter because it's fruitless…but that was 12 years ago. I see nothing has changed and likely only gotten worse.
The question after one has processed philosophy science and religion through this contemporary distillery is what becomes a good practice for everyday life. After we come back to a new normal after all this intoxicating rhetoric how exactly is ones life any different. I would like to see a big shift here from simply stirring the pot to what constitutes effective action. The existentialists faced this head on so lets hear it
Neuroplasticity can connect you with some pretty strange plastic Jesuses, eh? Unless you're pretty well acquainted with the switchboard operator, Karma, and have built some useful entanglements
Stephen Hawking and Sagan both believe in Aliens. Thus, Stephen Hawking's make it further to believe in multi-verses. Those are indeed philosophies- it it not strictly grounded from empirical evidence but it makes sense and it is logical if you know how other things works (that you can piece out). This speculative tendency should always grounded from reasoning, creativity and reverence if you're open-minded. It doesn't build you a rocket but as a human- it satisfied you're world view (which is obviously open to another debate).
However, I believe that we should rebel from ancient philosophers method of rational speculation. It need radical shift in Epistemology and Logic.
The rise of modern formal logic by Frege and other tantamount figures in philosophy, logic and mathematics have indeed revolutionized our logical framework- not only the natural, linguistics and social sciences- but philosophy itself esp. Epistemology, Metaphysics, philosophy of mind etc. Likewise emerging sub-fields like formal epistemology, formal metaphysics, formal semantics and so forth bring forth new ways of inquiry, strategy and knowing things.
I don't necessarily believe at scientific advancements par to the philosophical advancement- but I do believe they are complementary- however, philosophy is much concerned and centered to human as a basic proposition- how it try to know the world without strictly adhering to mind-independent objective explanation of nature and *our place in it.*
So scientific proof that Brian’s head has increased in size since doing the podcast? :)
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
The psychedelic "experience" is not an experience at all. Experiences are filtered through concepts.
The event, (which it is also not) occurs and it becomes immediately obvious that no description can ever be expressed. People support the idea and people hate the idea because neither of those perspectives are relevant to the event.
Suffice to say, that whenever you hear someone attempting to define, describe or judge this very unique, and unlikely event, they are "understanding" in reverse. You can learn nothing about it even if you have been there.
Whatever you can imagine, that's not it
Peace.
I ain't got no body. Early God haiku
Philosophically, (1 to 1.5) typical surface resistivities of dry human skin = ((30/(cm^2)/millisiemens)) reproves Wolfram's Rule 30.
Gpt 4o is truly multimodal or so they say…
Watch Tim Maudlin vs Bernardo Kastrup on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal and see Bernardo be butthurt and leave the conversation in unjustified anger.
Haha! Yea he ran off and went home to cry to momma!
You think TM’s language was rational debate? Sarcastic innuendo? Something else?
@@richardatkinson4710 Hi. TM was crass but that's his demeanour. He has debated other intellectuals quite successfully despite that; for instance, Tim Palmer. Am I saying TM's intellect or ideas or knowledge is superior to BK's? No wayyy. But 12:04 mins into this podcast he says "I don't back off from a debate if it presents itself". So I had to mention it.
"Watch Tim Maudlin vs Bernardo Kastrup on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal and see Bernardo be butthurt and leave the conversation in unjustified anger."
Nice try from the field of materialist bigotry. Point out an exact time in the video where Mauldin tries to interact with Kastrup's ideas... Let me guess... a great silence approaches.
@@nemrodx2185 Thank you for assuming I am a materialistic bigot. 😂 First, see my reply to @richardatkinson4710 . I don't take sides but materialism has got us very far. Unless you live deep inside the Amazon rainforest, everything around you right now has been made possible by it, including YT, the internet, every part of the phone you are using, the power supply you used to charge it etc. So I find deep meaning in the fact that every object around me right now has such deep and complex histories, that it will take me a few lifetimes to learn it all. Coming to analytic idealism, Bernardo Kastrup's ideas are very old. They come from Advaita Vendanta origins of Hinduism. I was indoctrinated into Hinduism as a kid and I still have to publicly identify as one. I have seen religious bigotry in my country to safely say that being an analytic idealist doesn't automatically make you morally superior. But I have deep respect and veneration for someone like Bernardo Kastrup, though his fondness for Advaita Vendanta and it's teachers like Swami Priyananda irks me. My life in my country has taught me to be extremely weary of robe-wearing gurus.
Coming to TM vs BK, I was really looking forward to the debate. BK just left because TM used the word 'silly'. I liked him slightly less since then, but that doesn't discourage my curiosity. I just watched BK talk to Christoph Koch for 2 hours on philosophy babble recently. So 🤷🏻♀️
You seem like a smart person. Maybe don't assume things about people on the internet from one comment
Organic AI arguing about whether AI will ever be conscious? Precious!
Stop re-uploading the same stuff man...
Yes you need philosophy but more importantly you need to always need to have a rational Metaphysics across fields and Experience. The Big Bang and Standard Models are no more rational than a God creating the Heaven and the Earth mythology.
Ok, Burger King. Have it your way
YES! BERNARDO
I love all the pointed, direct and succinct questions from mr Keating. lol.. he talks and talks and talks, I don't think he needed Bernardo at all. Super annoying.
So Galileo made Brian Jewish again? Remarkable
10D? Nonsense. Every universe has it's own time-space. Each quanta of consciousness has an individually coherent 12D experience, but never the exact same 12D, though at low consciousness, the experiences may seem identical, which is why so many NPC numby gumbies try to democratize reality. That's an easily deduced characteristic of quantum consciousness from available observations in the simulation multiverse.
Bernardo is stuck believing that intelligence and consciousness means being able to pee. Yet his work on philosophy of mind is so inclusive, emphasizing the oneness and connectedness of a universe experiencing through multiple vessels... Why not extend that experience to a computer, once it starts to show that it can reason, or express itself creatively?
Concerning Brian's pain/pleasure example, an entity being able to experience pain is not a very good standard for relation, for determining whether to respect something as intelligent or conscious.
I think it's best to try and extend empathy and relation as far as possible, while keeping true to human virtues.
LOL, Kastrup is such a hack. But I guess nonsense sells these days, so good on him for exploiting this flaw in the human intellect.
Science doesn't depend on metaphysics? You don't understand fine tuning at all.
You "have" to believe in God. Why? Because, according to Heisenberg, if you could see God you could interfere with God.
In other words if God were subject to science then you wouldn't have to believe. God would be provable: interferable. So, by definition, you have to believe. Just as you have to believe in numbers? Maybe.
You don't have to believe in physics, do you? Increasingly I think you do.
There are a lot of 'if' statements in there. If you could see god. If god were subject to science. Suppose they are all false, then we don't have to believe in god. If god cannot be sensed or interacted with, if there was no god to interact with or sense, if what we interacted with or sensed was not actually god. What should be believe given all these cases?
@@simonhibbs887 A lot of skepticism in there. Not a lot of suspicion.
I believe the suspicious soul has more going for him than the skeptical soul. What the suspicious one believes or what the skeptical one doubts? Who has more ...skin in the game? Whose outlook tends towards validating what's correct and invalidating what's incorrect? Whose attitude tends towards validating what's incorrect and invalidating what's correct?
There are less ways to suspect than there are ways to doubt, I think. 🤔.
The domain of our knowledge is less than the domain of our ignorance. Not so?
@@kallianpublico7517 All I did was point out that your conclusion does not follow from your line of reasoning.
That guy is so annoying please get rid of him
woo woo goofball
You interrupting the conversation to beg me to subscribe to your channel only makes it less likely that I will.
Every time I listen to Bernardo speak the less and less sense he makes
If he talks about physics, it will become ridiculous
Why Bernardo Kastrup? Who's next-Deepak Chopra?
It’s important to recognise that physicalism is a philosophical axiom that we just smuggle into science. We should all be more neutral here, it’s really not obvious that matter makes consciousness, or that consciousness makes matter. The immersive intuition is that the matter exists without us, but we don’t use our ape intuitions to accurately grasp reality.
Add in the work done in Predictive Processing and Free Energy by Friston, Seth, Chandaria, Clark etc, and you end up with us inhabiting a mental approximation of some complex “external” quantum reality, we seem to be living in our minds generative, constructed reality, our minds best hypothesis about what’s going on. This view is more idealism than physicalism, and predictive processing and Bayesian cognition is about the best scientific account of sense making we have so far.
Let’s keep exploring and being open minded and actually work out what’s going on here, because it’s not simple or obvious. And the idea that the rippling patterns and excitations in waves are more like something mental than physical, isn’t ridiculous or implausible, it’s just counter to current orthodoxy that isn’t often challenged.
Quantum mechanical physics isn’t actually quantised, mechanical or physical. It’s continuous outside of the equations and has no mechanical properties (“spin” is just a useful analogy), and it’s some invisible force of fundamental “stuff”.
Idealism vs. physicalism? No, what one can ask is: fit our observations with our theories, if yes, we go a step forward. This isn´t called physicalism, but scientific method. How far brought us thousands of years of philosophy? Human Life changed fundamentally since we use the scientific method about 300years now. The technology we developed works, because its based on the scientific understanding of nature, and that´s a strong hint, that this method makes valid statements about the characteristics of nature.
Consciousness is obviously mental. The fact is the scientific method falls short for consciousness.
@@sxsmith44 You obviously make a statement without any reasoning. Consciousness is obviously an emergent property of the brain functions or where is your consciousness under anesthesia during a surgery when the brain functions are chemical switched off?
@@Thomas-gk42 Physicalism is metaphysics not a scientific method
I would never Liste to that horrible person Noam Chomsky .. he is also highly overrated
HOw is he horrible? Explain yourself. Why because he doesn't agree with your views?
just watch on youtube the video from " kraut" about him..." Why Noam Chomsky is garbage " ... i did make a comment here allready but it seems youtube deleted it . just watch the video and tell me if you understand it now
Yup. With his wordiness he gives intellectual justification to the Left, and that's all he does.
God is a Trinity of pearsons, but same holy ghost, uncreated energies, inteligent kind that united them. Uncreated but persons. În ortodoxy you can find them. I belive that catolics are abandoned by GOD until fixed some problems. We are also persons, created, but în surch of White peble, i e our perfect ego, but only Hristos can give US and unfortenly only în ortodox churches. Apocalipsa tell about White peble. Surch and find.
Kastrup is a layman with PhD. Insufferable ignorance is his game
Nice gotcha. Boosted our egos and made us feel morally superior.
Idealism is a Grotesque Theoretical Fantasy