What Can We Learn From Bizarre Phenomena? with Bernardo Kastrup
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июн 2024
- Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, is a computer scientist. He is author of Rationalist Spirituality, Why Materialism is Baloney, Dreamed Up Reality, Meaning in Absurdity, Brief Peeks Beyond, More Than Allegory, and The Idea of the World. He has published several papers in Scientific American arguing for metaphysical idealism.
Bernardo is launching a new organization, #EssentiaFoundation, and has produced some wonderful short videos that can be viewed at • New Science About the ... and • Why Our Reality Is Not... .
Here he reviews a number of nonsensical events ranging from bizarre UFO encounters to religious miracles to psychedelic visions and dreams. He suggests that there are certain common themes that run through dreams, fantasies, and reports of paranormal occurrences -- and that they all speak to us symbolically. He also proposes that the deep archetypes of the Jungian collective unconscious can manifest in what we think of as the physical world.
New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in "parapsychology" ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is past-vice-president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, and is the recipient of the Pathfinder Award from that association for his contributions to the study of consciousness.
(Recorded on January 3, 2019)
For a complete, updated list with links to all of our videos, see newthinkingallowed.com/Listin....
For opportunities to engage with and support the New Thinking Allowed video channel -- please visit the New Thinking Allowed Foundation at www.newthinkingallowed.org.
To join the NTA Psi Experience Community on Facebook, see / 1953031791426543 .
To download and listen to audio versions of the New Thinking Allowed videos, please visit our new podcast at itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/n....
You can help support our ongoing video production while enjoying a book. To order Meaning in Absurdity: What Bizarre Phenomena Can Tell Us About the Nature of Reality, by Bernardo Kastrup, please visit amzn.to/2C77xGy.
You can help support our ongoing video production while enjoying a book. To order Meaning in Absurdity: What Bizarre Phenomena Can Tell Us About the Nature of Reality, by Bernardo Kastrup, please visit amzn.to/2C77xGy.
Would you like to contribute non-English, closed caption subtitles for this video? Please visit ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?v=tWpKB7n4dRs&ref=share. Here is a link to a short video explaining how this feature works: ruclips.net/video/LCZ-cxfxzvk/видео.html.
Really enjoyed this one Jeffrey!
Bernardo is such an articulate heavyweight in this field. He's got to be making huge differences in the field.
This is one of my all time favorite interviews from Bernardo. It has got me thinking in new ways.
Out of all my subscriptions to my you tube videos, Jeffery yours are my favorite! You have amazing guests and the way you interview is superb ! Your smiling face is also refreshing ! 🙂
I am just getting into the whole idealism concept towards consciousness. Today I had a weird experience. When I came home, I heard my cat meowing quietly but really close to me somewhere and in a split second i saw only half of my cat moving under my legs. Just the head and half her body. It was like my brain decided that the cat is under my feet and started rendering it, but then it realised that the cat is not there and stopped the render. The cat was close to me, but in a room next to me, behind a closed door. It felt really weird. So was it my consciousness that was tricked and almost rendered a cat under my feet ?
This channel is quickly becoming my favorite RUclips channel. The videos make my day, thank you.
Yes, especially after I suggested to Jeffrey to go Skype-Interview & easily meet other RUclipsrs! Parapsychology will soon have a global comeback!
@@DavidJeromePutnam you are awesome for that suggestion
Once again I quote David R Hawkins and his awesome book "Power vs Force", I quote him as follows - "The fallacy of logical empiricism is clear from its essential premise. To say that nothing is real unless it's measurable is already an abstract position , is it not? This proposition itself isn't tangible, visible, or measurable, the argument of tangibility is itself created from the intangible."
I've got this book and it is dope.
Bernardo, my favorite engineer, scientist and philosopher. Thank you Jeffery for these interviews!
One of the best interviews recently conducted by Jeffrey Misholve with innovative philosopher and computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup. Though one need not be familiar with any of the Western and Eastern traditions he draws on to follow his claims, his insights range from constructivist logic, metaontology, to the foundations of quantum theory. Kastrup suggests a relationalist perspective which Buddhists will immediately recognize as Sunyata, drawing from the insights of Carl Jung, with implicit references William James's neutral monism and the process philosophy and phenomenology of A.N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.
I always look forward to any appearance of Bernado on RUclips. Sometimes I lose the thread with him, over my head so to speak, but I generally understand a minute or two later because he uses terms very similar to Paul Brunton. Reading "The Wisdom of The Overself" over 20 years ago has set me up to be able to follow Bernado's ideas. I can highly recommend the above book - the chapter titles alone are intriguing. I think he's a very important and beautiful writer on Vedanta and I hope he doesn't get forgotten.
Really great book! Bernardo is filling the gaps in consensus meta-reality... Just what we need to shift the paradigm.
The double-slit experiment (DSE) within quantum mechanics suggesting that there is no world out there independent of "observation" is haunting.
But also liberating in a way.
It truly is Katherine. The total alienness and strangeness of that possibility sends one into bottomless chasms of giddiness.
not really; when you realize that time is three dimensional, you suddenly have a whole realm -- called time-space -- where the wave reality exists, and a whole realm -- called space-time -- where the particle reality exists. Time cubed divided by 1 dimension of space is the Wave Nature, this is consciousness. Space cubed divided by 1 dimension of time is the physical world (matter). It's not haunting, it's literally the most common place thing in existence.
We, incarnated, are in space-time, where we have 3 dim of space, but time is fixed in one scalar dimension. When you die, or meditate profoundly, you are in time-space, where you have 3 dim of time, but space is scalar and fixed in one dimension.
You must picture the existence of two worlds at once. Matter is collapsed (frozen) consciousness. The objects you see -- matter -- are made of time. In one dimension. Space is what is in between the objects. For instance, your body. You contain the entire history of the galaxy in you. You also contain the future; your Soul pulls you forward. The Soul is in the future. All this is "wave" mechanics. Like a wave on the ocean which moves the boat in the direction of the port.
what is haunting is the lack of understanding the QM physicists have of their own science. All of this goes back to the fact that they are using an incorrect reference system for measuring reality. TIME IS THREE DIMENSIONAL, being the reciprocal of space. One coin, two sides. Always. Our universe is a universe of motion. Motion has two aspects, space and time. Electricity and Magnetism. Everything is light. Everything WE SEE is light. We are light. When you are in time-space, you access time in a way that is locked to us here, except when you meditate etc.
@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 but with imagination,( a key word here) and also an essential of the human condition, the whole thing is still haunting and wonderful. Sorry if this term of appraisal of the wonders of reality irks you somewhat.
@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 If you choose to believe in time. My hunch is that time is merely a mental construct. There appears to only be unfolding experience and change, and time is a way for the human mind to make sense of it. It may sound hokey, but there is only now, which is forever unfolding. One might say that time is just another side of the coin, with change on the other side. Again, that's just the mind finding a way to explain what is perceives.
I've never visited the past, I'll never see the future, but the now is ever present. When the past was happening, it was now. When the future arrives, it will be here and now.
I love seeing Bernado! =D he's deffo in my top 3 favourite guests of yours EVER.
Bernardo Kastrup, jeffrey mishlove, dr bruce greyson, sam parnia, dr. pim van lommel, dra Luján comas, hospice nurse julie, julie beischel, marjorie woollacott, …. Just to name a few people who completely turned my worldview upside down. These videos are truly life changing.
Bernardo's ideas are so fresh and logical. What lies beyond our perception and capacity to grasp reality is a conundrum. Maybe we will never know, but it is worth trying to solve this puzzle. Thank you, Jeffrey and Bernardo!
Stunning! Brilliant! Thanks so much for this Jeff and Bernardo.
Really interesting...I get about 15% of this but it’s fun struggling.
Exceptional!
Excellent chat!
I'll have to listen to this one later, and more than once.
Thanks. Excellent.
After thousands of hours of talks on theories of everything..finally mr kastrup ties it all together...thankyou
Many thanks for another great interview with Bernardo Kastrup. I never manage to find fault in anything he says! Looking forward to the next one.
God bless you Jeff and Bernie. Excellent. As always both of you are gems of the universe that make me happy to be alive. Both your smiles are genuine and I smile along with you. Thank you! 🙏🏾❤️🔥
Fascinating. Utterly! I do not understand how materialist scientists can so utterly dismiss Kastrup's logic when their very findings in fact rely on its underpinnings!
Awesome video.
Best interview ever.
ok - have to listen to this once more.....
Excellent interview! All of your interviews with Bernardo or superb.
Exellent interview.
I was thinking those laws of physics almost take on the characteristics of foriegn exchange/currency markets.
That was a class line " A fluctuating in certain degrees of reality " . The next time someone tries to lay some B.S. on me I'm gonna bust " Do you mean to tell me there was a fluctuation in certain degrees of reality " on them .
Thumbs up !
Leading up to the 49:00 mark, while the discussion was focused on the relativity of reality, mind, & matter, I found myself thinking back on the books by Carlos Castaneda. Relativity of the "real" world, & its existence as an act of consensus fits well with what Don Juan taught Carlos about the "Tonal". Stepping outside of personal constraints imposed by Aristotelian logic, into a 3rd person perspective within intuitional logic could be construed as getting into the "Nagual".
OH, HEY! Wouldn't that be a FANTASTIC interview? Interviewing Carlos Castaneda?
Greatly enjoyed this.
Wonderful discussion.
Very deep discussion. Bravo!
That was one of the most interesting conversations for me, l really enjoyed it, makes me think.
Bernardo Kastrup:
"The world is a cloud of possibilities."
Masterful!
My favourite guest (and host)
The parts that I understood about this interview were delightful and informative.😅 I appreciate you both!
time stamp 43:00 is the important point and I would suggest points to Holographic (not a hologram) Mind theory is the direction that QM needs to arrive at, QM is a partial view that lays too much import on the microscopic world of their experiments.
I appreciate the difficulties of communicating from within the conflict and about the confusions of the ego; the archetypes of Jung are mentioned. Bernardo Kastrup possibly didn't make clear that the assumptions of separated identities play an important part in perceiving reality or that there are two realities; that of the universe as it is shared in perceptive experience and that of the separated reality of the fragmented identities of a dreamer or a singular mind that projects or extends states as nature. He's introduced the possibility that 'correspondence theory of truth' is not true in trans-temporal reality of mind, if there is such a unifying mind; nicely, as mathematics.
Really real! Such honest questions, I have always been fascinated by the same topics as well.
Thank you for talking about this.
My guess is that once we have a better sense of what consciousness is, we'll then have a better story to tell about the strange phenomena of our world, phenomena that tugs at the edges of our reality and then poof... gone like a dream upon waking.
outstanding!
"there is a joint environment that alice and bob, you and i share, but that is not physical, it is not constituted of physical quantities like mass charge, inertia...it is something else...what is something else?"......wow, now we arrive at the dao, or the 'it' of the nondual teachings...beyond the physical and with no attributes......thank you jeffrey, for conducting this interview
right at 31:16 you said something brilliant Jeffery about manifesting reality from the depths of the psyche or something and it was so good. I really appreciate that. I'm going to get at least one of Dr. Kastrup's books
In the experience of contemplating the various experiences we have in certain states of consciousness or realms, is there a logic that reveals itself?
Does the logician now have to consider non-linear and non-local logic; that which bridges dimensions with an applicable new living awareness?
What is real varies across dimensions of consciousness. What becomes objective fact?
Reality, what a construct. I love the notion of acquiescing toward coherence. Jeff's summation suggesting there is some bridge between inner and outer realities promotes spooky cool action in the moment, perhaps at a distance too.
The simultaneity and time dilation between dimensions certainly has axioms right? Great conversation.
I recall an online discussion with Bernardo some years ago, in which I proposed the idea of a coherent symbolic language. This is a difficult idea because it attributes real and transferable values to concepts that are at a remove from their denotive source. Nevertheless I find it intuitively and experientially the case that underlying manifest reality is an absolute reality that functions to according to laws we recognise. Even the highest of high strangeness is not a meaningless singularity but part of the lexicon.
Thanks very much for this. I'm happily a new subscriber. All the best!💞
This discussion brings back some old memories:
Colin Wilson. Charles Fort. "The Morning of the Magicians," by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier. Pataphysics, Alfred Jarry. The Surrealists, the Dadaists. A cloud of memories.
John Paul the Morning of the Magicians- I came upon an old paperback of that. Permanent impression on me. Thanks for the reminder
I wish my thoughts would pay my bills.
+Lily Gazou
I really enjoyed that book long ago,
but I've heard these days that some of it has been proven false.
I learned yesterday that it's available on-line for free. They wrote a follow-up book that wasn't as interesting, but I can't remember the name.
This was so good! I mean hard to understand because I didn't take physics but its really very interesting. I had hypnogogic experiences until I was about 45 or so and it was hard because I was experiencing what felt exactly like reality, I mean it wasn't fuzzy, I wasn't dreaming, but no one else heard or saw thiese things. I keep searching to see if I actually saw something or just made it up and it looks like maybe I actually saw things. Thank you so much Jeffrey and also to your guest Bernardo. It was fascinating.
Amazing video and conversations! 🍻👽🛸
The manifested reality and the unmanifested reality, two sides of the same coin, and we’re stubbornly sure that only manifested reality exists and displays causal effects. I’d like to add that every conscious point generates its own dimension as well, slightly and barely noticeably unique and different from other conscious points in creation, the layers and echo system of reality is more complex than what it looks like, with filters upon filters that turn fundamental awareness into individual consciousness, and eventually what we interact with and experience around us. And to add extra complexity to the entire system, it’s also organic, it just looks rigid at a certain level where we happen to have our experiences. It’s a top down creation that we’re trying to untangle from bottom up, but from bottom up it looks like a virtual reality and a fractal with singularities acting as locks at every transition between the filters, otherwise creation would collapse back into the source of awareness.
Absolutely one of the most riveting talks I have had the privilege to listen to in recent years. I already have your book, Mr Kastrup, 'Materialism is Baloney' and hope to read some of the others in due course but my job keeps me so busy I struggle to keep up with my reading interest. One point I hope I might be able to make a humble suggestion: you talk about phenomena arising out of "nothing" and imply that is the state of the subjective in spacetime. You also mentioned that this "nothing" was extremely rich. The dififculty with semantics and lexical issues is that it makes people misunderstand good points. The Hindus talked about "Shunyata" (emptiness) which of course is central to the Buddhists and the "annihilitation" of the ego from which true liberation comes. You also talked about the "oppressive quality" of experiential spacetime states which only becomes apparent when one has had some sort of experience liberating oneself temporarily frrom spacetime constaints. At the same time, spacetime experience, by its oppressively compelling nature, keeps us pinned to "common sense" and maintains the delusion of the physicalist perspective so beloved of scientists with little or no acquaintance with philosophical discourse. I would tentatively suggest - in replacement of the word "nothing" - the world "potentiality." Monistic idealists like Amit Goswami talk of the "ground of being" - a Hindu type of concept - which in fact resonates quite well with "potentiality" although it is possibly even a deeper concept than that; "ground of being" implies that from which even potentiality originates and beyond which there is no further regression. But sticking to the level of "potentiality", this resonates perfectly with quantum mechanics and explains how something - a phenomenon or state - can emerge from "nothing" (potentiality , i.e. no specific phenomenon or state but an infinity or near infinity of possible ideas or states. Gary Zukav in the 'Dancing Wu Li Masters' as far back as 1979, clarifying ideas so well for non specialists like myself, and dealing with what happens when the wave function of potentiality collapses, and picking up on H. Stapp's exegesis, states that "physical reality must be both idea-like and matter-like...incredible as it sounds, this is the view of orthodox quantum mechanics. The physical world appears to be completely substantive (made of "stuff"). Nonetheless, if it has an idea-like aspect, the physical world is not substantive in the usual sense of the word..." This helps us to see that your "nothing" might be helped by the concept of "potentiality" as opposed to a specific phenomenal state, and the phenomenal state that proceeds from wave function collapse is not substantive in the usual sense either but some kind of projection of an ideal substrate that bears the impression of substantiality compelling enough (through the brain filtering process you explained) to keep scientists imprisoned within the physicalist paradigm and unable to move out of it. They deal with the idealist perspective usually, I find, through abuse and heckling, using terms like 'woo reality' and 'nonsense' in order to cover up for their terror that their entire world view, the careful construction of 400 years of paintstaking and worthy scientific effort, that has built so much, will collapse into incoherence at worst and relative truthfulness at best, but will certainly have to be acknowledged as insufficient as both method and conclusion as a mode of enquiry into reality, despite its impressive explanatory power of physical phenomena within physiclaist terms. Please excuse this rather long discourse but if I am wrong or if my offer of the "potentialilty" term borrowed from quantum mechanics was unhelpful or redundant, I would be grateful for your comment.
Wow after halfway through this interview I couldn't help feeling like a mental Guinea pig. I believe the mind/brain requires biologic/electrical increased input externally in order to achieve answers/conclusions "truths" being quested here.
The rise/fall of consciousness/ conscience directly relates to input available/given from bodily sources . Therefore attentive truths available at any particular juncture are regulated only through the ability of memory subtly derived from attractive expenditure. Tyvm.
If you want to “experience” what Bernardo’s talking about, read and take seriously the practice of Letting Go, as Dr. David Hawkins writes about in his similarly titled book. Caution though, if you’re deeply tied to your beliefs, be prepared to have your mind blown.
It only needs a quick trawl through the huge shifts in the history of ideas which have constituted the accepted concensus reality to realize the truth of this argument ...
I like this guy his philosophy’s mental !
It seems to me that the Vedantins were right about Maya, all along.
Wow!
Brilliant. And humbling. And that's why this topic is not often mentioned let alone examined, especially by those who have become our new priests and priestesses (a/k/a/ scientists).
The problem with taking the results of Quantum Mechanics as a foundation of reality is that the experiments are looking at tiny events in a closed system, 'reality' is not closed, the combination of all agents in an open system null the control that consciousness has on the real or material. Is there a reality outside of your individuated mind? Yes. QM is useful but has it's limits. This does not mean that Bernardo is wrong, Idealism is correct, materialism is false. The real survives in the larger universe but stands on the shoulders of Idealism.
We create our own reality. His ideas are very similar to The Seth Material. Let's talk more about all this.
When something in your body changes, say the amount of a neurotransmitter being used, or you get a skinned knee, that information is transmitted throughout the body. It influences different regions of the body differently, but that information influences the entire system nonetheless. Not being able to accept nonlocality is just lack of understanding of the extent of the system we are a part of, or body we are apart of, if you will.
How can we classify mind as an epiphenomenon of matter when we can only experience matter indirectly through our 5 measuring devices(senses)as an imaginal construct or appearance within the substratum of mind itself? The concreteness of physicality is qualitative, and in the final analysis it's just the properties of the dimensions of consciousness, along with form, motion, color/light, and space-time too. Even darkness. That world that appears "out there" isn't actually out there, but it certainly leads us to believe otherwise. It's a representation.
Anyone can come to this conclusion independently, from their own center of awareness, it's self evident but not obvious because although reality is what it is, and obviously exists as we perceive it, the illusion is in perception itself. We are that spark of inner light, that awareness. Scintilla, that spark, that ember. The light is God. The breath of animation of the soul, as psyche. Which is part of spirit, as the inner and outer experiences are one, connected in a state of awareness. That inner light in our mind we call light, it makes up our dream images too.
"...the world is ...composed of ...a superposition of thoughts..."
Probably those thoughts become real, the consensus view becomes manifest on a social level.
Recalling Charles Fort, a lifelong collector of anomalies (like frogs raining out of the sky and spontaneous human combustion, among many more), I was listening here for more examples of bizarre phenomena (beyond the appearance of that intergalactic IHOP delivery vehicle).
By the way, March 12, 2019 is National Pancake Day, and all pancakes at your local IHOP will be free.
RE: Quantum Physics
As per experimental results, it looks currently as if BOTH realism AND locality break down, not either or.
Logic in general, Aristotelic or not, is based on propositions. Trying to explain any supernatural phenomena using any kind of logic is pointless because valid propositions would be lacking. (Would be different if we were talking about natural occurrences...) In this case, the point here is not to create a new kind of logic to substitute Aristotelic logic as Mr. Kastrup suggested in this video. Traditional logic was Aristotle´s creation but more than 90% of his assumptions were based not on logic but on deductions through observations. His way of thought was primarily formed in biological sciences and not in exact sciences... If this Greek philosopher was alive today for sure he wouldn't try to explain those bizarre phenomena using logic, but most probably deductions. As long as scientists do not admit the existence of a new reality beyond the material realm, is going to be impossible for them to understand those phenomena.
I think the discussion re "facts" could be gone into more.....another time maybe.
Why is Idealism not discussed more extensively in science, should not the most parsimonious ontology have greatest prominence?
The thought that an idea might be both right and wrong at the same time made me laugh out loud; as if I'd been momentarily liberated from the dreadful "either/or" obsession of the American mind, which can seem, to me, as violent in its origins and persistence as a personality disorder, a spiritual affliction, a tragedy.
Ever seen a squared circle?
Does anyone know what language/symbols was used by Atlantis. Looking on google only shows the disney movie.
The Telepathic Language ; )
"What can we learn from bizarre phenomena?"
Honestly...after listening carefully (twice) I still don't have a definite answer. But maybe that is the answer.
I wonder whether Realism is really threatened by quantum mechanics. It may just be that a new kind of Realism is needed. Quantum mechanics (currently) suggests that the mind affects matter at the quantum level, which is at the level of photons and the smallest things we can measure in terms of energy and mass. However, at the level of molecules and larger structures it seems that objects are not very much affected by us observing them, so perhaps Realism still makes sense at that scale and level of organization.
Not quite so. Quantum effects have been demonstrated in systems comparable in size to a red blood cell. The micro/ macro boundary hypothesized in the Copenhagen interpretation has arguably been shown to be false. It is quantum at every scale.
Bernardo has done most of his intellectual combat with materialists, so far as I can tell- which is great. We need strong, astute critics of materialism. But I'd be interested to see how he engaged with a learned exponent of classical metaphysics and theism, someone like Ed Feser who has done good work on philosophy of mind. Some of the things that are said early on seem to me to turn on an improper definition of realism and the correspondence theory. Perhaps I'm nitpicking and "realism" wasn't intended in its traditional sense, but since we're in the realm of metaphysics that can be confusing. To be a realist in the metaphysical sense is to say that there really are such things as universals. There really is a redness which manifests in red objects and unites them in being red things- the redness of a car is not irreducibly and totally distinct from the redness of a rose. There really is such a universal which is properly predicated in a univocal way of both.
This is very important when we talk about things like quantum indeterminacy. As I mention below, quantum indeterminacy in no way threatens realism, because realism is not the view that there is a single, definite, non-probabalistic (i.e. all probabilities are epistemic and not ontological, a reflection of our uncertainty and not genuine contingency) state for each physical object. This is why I mentioned the possibility of engaging with other antimaterialists who hold more classical views of metaphysics. Actually, I think Nicolas Cusanus would be immensely fruitful in pointing the way towards an integration of Kastrup's idealism with classical theism and the tradition of Aristotelian and Platonic (the conception of the two as two opposed schools was not held by most of the ancients and medievals, where they represented developments in a single tradition) philosophy. We're not talking about physical states except insofar as they are contingent derivatives of metaphysical necessity.
With respect to the correspondence theory and the laws of logic, I can't see how Bernardo's articulation isn't self-refuting. If it's the case that we are not properly ordered towards the discovery of a truth independent of particular minds (not "mind" per se), then there's no point in engaging in this discussion. After all, if self-evidence is identified with an arbitrary axiom, then all we have is irrationality. This is where I think the key mistakes are made. I see no reason to dispute what was stated concerning a world of indeterminate probabilities being that which exists apart from our apprehension of things. But this is not to reject the correspondence theory of truth. It's only to say that what's really true concerning physical states outside the apprehension of our mind is that they exist as a range of probabilities. That in itself is a statement of truth independent of our mind. And then when a thing is observed and the particular state is determined, the truth about that thing to which our predication ought to correspond is definite rather than indefinite.
We can see the inevitability of a correspondence theory in the way that this gets unfolded in the discussion. What happens is that Bernardo takes the view of a sea of indeterminate states and seeks to make it intelligible in terms of an integrated view of reality. So, with respect to bizarre experiences, it is said that when we let our natural intuitions down, when we "forget" our expectations- whether through naivete, drugs, or simple exhaustion, nature is responsive to our mental state and produces a wider range of experiences in relation to our mind. But we see that the non-correspondent subjectivism which Bernardo seemingly endorses isn't actually what comes out: instead, he articulates an integrated view of reality which accounts for both the normative experience and the bizarre experience in a single portrait, a view in which nature is both formed by and forms consciousness, in which nature is responsive to the intentional states of mind and generates qualities in proportion to expectations.
But this presumes that there is a basic rational unity to things, a unity in principle intelligible to the mind. It is simply that this integrated reality is much more diverse than normative experience. It's an octahedron and not a square. The mind, in proportion to its state of perception at any given moment, may perceive different sides of the octahedron. We learn in altered states or in bizarre experiences that the one side was not the only side. But when Bernardo describes the other side, he does not throw up his hands and say "both are true. neither are true." His excellent work is a testament to his commitment to the possibility of actually making sense of these different sides in a consistent way.
But the most basic truths with respect to which the correspondence theory functions are not truths about physical states- that's what I think is Bernardo's blind spot- since the vast majority of his criticism is from the materialist side, I don't know if the inner coherence and success of his particular construction of the nonmaterial side has been tested as thoroughly. It may well be that he has discussed this in detail and I've missed it, so I'm not claiming that this IS a blind spot, only that it may be such. So let's take something like mathematical truth. Two plus two really does equal four and only four. I can construct a sentence in the English language or a statement in a set of mathematical symbols which specify the same proposition, and despite their having nothing in common visibly (i.e. the characters "two" and "2" share absolutely nothing that would unite them), they specify an identical proposition. This tells us the proposition exists in a manner transcending the symbols, which is only a problem for our materialist friends. But here I've specified a proposition which has nothing to do in principle with physical states, determinate or indeterminate. And yet the proposition is true or false. It's true, self-evidently so. And that's why the correspondence theory isn't about physical states. It has implications for those states, but to specify the proposition "unobserved locales have an indeterminate state with X range of possible values, each value having Y probability" is simply to make another truth claim which either corresponds or doesn't. Nothing about indeterminacy suggests an anticorrespondence view.
Finally, as a bit of a postscript, I think it's a mistake for people to take quantum mechanics as the quintessential proof of our incapacity to make sense out of the world. Yes, it's complex. Yes, things behave in ways we are not used to. But there is nothing, as far as I can tell, which qualitatively separates that from the unexpectedness of existing in a low-gravity environment where the set of intuitive rules is changed because of a change in the strength of local gravity. The rule changes are more complex, to be sure. But unintelligible? How can that be so when it is so precisely described in the language of mathematics? That's intelligibility, not unintelligibility. Unexpectedness must not be identified with unintelligibility.
What!? I would never turn over my space pancakes! 😆
A great discussion, again. I would have to say that my own thinking agrees with Bernardo's on many points. Not on all points, but, well....that is always to be expected. Perhaps my own emphasis on neutral monism rather than Idealism, is one of these, but perhaps even that is not an unresolvable difference at the end of the day. I would like to raise two issues however. The first concerns the nature of possibility. The very nature of possibility seems "changed," first by quantum mechanics itself, and secondly, by Bernardo's flavor of thinking.
So in QM the alive and dead cat (even though that is a thought experiment) or the vibrating and (simultaneously) not vibrating quantum object (which is NOT a thought experiment) seem to suggest to us that possibilities are in some sense ontic structures, embedded in what Bernardo is referring to as "universal consciousness" or "universal thoughts."
One of the problems here though is that even such a thing as a "thought," being a discrete possibility actualized in some sense, even if only actualized in my contemplation of it, (I almost said quantumplation, haha!) is somehow subsequent to whatever "reality" these kind of superpositions are embedded in. The question then becomes, what ARE possibilities, and, very poignantly, what are possibilities that we don't experience as being actualized. What "happens" to those possibilities and where do they "go"? I know this may seem an abstruse question when stated this way, but it isn't really,. It has a great deal to do with "alternative possible pathways" in life, and whether those pathways have ontic status of some kind. If the bar can both vibrate and not vibrate, in a sense the implication (on a much higher turn of the spiral) is that a particular person could undergo a particular life experience, or undergo an alternate one, which could even be much different, but would not be consistent with the first one. The sensory world therefore forces us to accept or filter one of these, but if the alive and dead cat are both emerging from a possibility field that is deeper than both specific outcomes, then "universal consciousness" must somehow contain both of these possibilities as "ontic facts" of some kind that we don't comprehend, and which is in some sense deeper than our notion of sensory-empirical facts.
QM of course calls this bizarre state of affairs "superposition" but this is actually just a vulgar placeholder image that imagines the forced combination, as it were, of two sensory-empiric facts. That cannot possibly be the hidden nature of these unactualized experiences. The same goes for "multiple universe theory" which is also a vulgar (possibly even more vulgar) response, which supposes that every sensory-empirical version imaginable is materially actualized somewhere. But again, to my mind anyway, this is also dodging the deeper question about the nature of these "possibilities." And even Bernardo's thoughts do not escape this, because he is speaking here of "networks of coherency relation."
But if there are no natural laws (as such) then our evolved history of "coherency relations" could have been different...in fact, when we really get down to it, could have been different in an almost infinite number of ways. This is the same thing as saying that they must exist as well in that domain of deep ontic primitives. Thus entire alternative "networks of coherency relation" (i.e. potentially experienceable "worlds") could also be said to exist as these same mysterious ontic entities, because (and especially if we are talking about nonphysical characters and hence an expanded notion of QM) it would not really be sustainable to claim a fundamental difference between cat dead or alive and "this version of earth v that version of earth" since the usually cited constraint of mass of matter involved in the interaction would no longer be relevant.
The main point I am making here is this. The question of "realism" goes beyond simply that of whether the world is independent of our perception if it. Altering realism must alter, in some important sense, the relationship between what we call Possibilities and Actualities. Perhaps Possibilities are deeper and in some sense more "real" than Actualities, paradoxical though that sounds. Indeed, what we think of as Actualities, may simply be eroded or degraded forms of much greater or wider "Possibility Fields" that have somehow shrunk down until they can be fitted within our animal perceptions and experienced there. Anyhow, this comment has already grown long enough, so I will leave it there. There is another thing I'd like to say, but I will put this in a separate comment.
Dr. Donald Hoffman, and his theory of conscious realism, would be great for your audience, Jeffery.
Ps. You're a Titan in the field of ontology for us all.
I still don't get his interpretation of quantum physics. How is it consistent with his shared-dream reality within mind at large? Objects are the extrinsinc appearance of mind at large... but why then quantum particles are so evasive?!
For a great talk about what is true, and how language also shapes how we think, I recommend the Slavoj Zizek interview 'Down With Ideology?'. The Hidden Brain episode 'Lost in Translation' is also good on that subject (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).
Regarding UFO memories of unsalted-pancakes, I wonder if strange memories are an implant. For example, in the Zimbabwe incident, the beings appears to communicate telepathically, if that's the case, it would seem plausible that they could also plant a false memory whenever they want, to act like a curtain for what they actually did.
And if the UFO phenomena is not due to anything conscious, but rather due to alien entities, capable of selectively manipulating gravity and time.. then our reality becomes even stranger to reconcile. For example, there's been many cases where 2 observers report vastly different experiences.. one is taken to the craft while the other appears frozen in time.
Finally, on the Lex Fridman podcast Garry Nolan talks about the similarity in the basal ganglia part of the brain, among abductees and those that are more clairvoyant.
Sorry Jeffrey, but I need to correct you, as you made one of the most basically incorrect statements about research statistics that every scientist should know: you cannot “falsify” the null hypothesis, you can only “reject or fail to reject” the null hypothesis. I enjoyed this conversation.👍
All truths (small "t") are relative truths manifested by the great Truth (with capital T).
Tell him you must obey your new master😀love the pancake story...you can call them fluf flufs..also☺
Aliens can teach us to "go easy" on the Salt ; )
The other issue I wanted to raise concerns a certain worrying anthropocentrism in all this. Yes, I can agree, and indeed DO agree that the mental world, and especially some kind of very deep, root, or primitive "awareness" (for want of a better term) must be bundled up with the deepest definition of reality. And I can also concede that our experienced reality may be a consensus construct of some kind. NOT just a consensus of human beings, though, and here is where it starts to get a bit tricky. And it gets progressively more tricky the further we slip down the phylogenetic pole. I may not know what it is like to be an earthworm, but I can arrange to kill an earthworm very easily (I don't do this!) So we have an overlap of worlds between humans and earthworms, therefore we must at least partially be sharing a consensus. The problem though, is that an earthworm, not to mention an amoeba or a bacterium (even more to the point), whatever the nature of its experience might be, can hardly be said to take its essence in "axioms of logic" or indeed anything related to intellect, "thought" or human-like mentation at all. in older language, such life forms used to be regarded as the vegetal soul of the world. Let me take that thought for now, as, imperfect though it is, it captures something which our more modern language mishandles and does violence to when it tries to approach this situation. So whatever an amoeba is doing by simply living, by simply existing, it is not those things (thinking, intellecting, drawing meanings, etc). Our natural bias towards seeing things in human terms is something to be wary of. Yes, we may be a top level extension or more refined version of things acting elsewhere in nature, but the vast majority of life may be said to move according to the rhythms and life expressions of what I am here calling "the vegetal soul of the world" (most simple animals, and all bacteria, plants, and viruses). It seems difficult to call the ground behind that domain of action simply a "mental world" or "universal consciousness." In my opinion, something important is not grasped by that definition, or at least that definition alone. Primitive life forms do not have a mental life as we understand it. Nor of course is it simply a "physical" life, except in materialism. They are the expression of "_________" where something mysterious fits in that blank. But we can't just wedge "thought" in there...that's far too high up the wedding cake. More like "vegetal life force" or "proto-proto-awareness" or something like this. This is my main problem with Idealism, at least as usually stated. It is too "weightless" or "abstract" to deal with such issues as the dynamism of being (energy) or the strangeness of vegetal life. Hence my own leaning towards a neutral monism. NM does not have to mean that any element of consciousness is not present. Quite the opposite: I think it is definitely present...but it is something really *really* quite different from anything WE know as "mental life."
Wow I love watching the programs and taking notes on the fancy words..abstract constructed axiom more freedom degrees multi truths symbolic metaphoric fascinating thank you great teachers...applies beyond perceive cognition great experience s 🙃literal Netherlands intuition mathmetics extrapolated apparatus evolve to survive concept notion realism correspondence theory of truth independent states objective quantum hints indications definite objective no definite states possibilities...wow thank you..
I love that pancake story but the only thing that's odd in that story is the flying saucer. I look forward to the day it's no longer odd.
Nah, mate you need to read the story man, it's bizarre. Pretty sure they land in this fuckers garden, ask for water which he gets. They give him these pancakes to say thanks and when he looks in the UFO, he just nothing but an alien literally at some kinda grill cooking machine making these pancakes.
Its fucking nuts.
2 powerhouses talking about probably one of the most important topics.
I think that collective unconsciouness is true buI this unconsciouness is collettiva cause we are the same computational point of view and we are into a system who ask that we use logical point of view to understand it so I think that there are a quantum idea of consciousness that quantum biology can try to describe and learn about space and time inside consciousness but we don t know why we are autoreferencial systems
8:20 Saying the axioms of logic are largely arbitrary is really bizarre. I wonder what we can learn from it.
Godel's theorem , does prove you cant know everything universe regardless of weather the universe is a formal system or not.
So, what are the consequences of his philosophy? If consciousness is not local, why do we have a first person experience almost all the time, except when on some kind of drugs (& are there any other ways?). Even in religion people get their visions ether by being on drugs or by "torturing" themselves (social isolation, starvation, etc). Revelations also happen in a dream , but you can't really control it. I don't know if you can get any relevant information during a lucid dream, but dreams are a different topic.
Science and logic are used as a tool to get knowledge and understanding about reality. If we suppose that there's a better way to acquire this understanding, then what exactly is it?
Mary Jane meditation for one. And when you say information about reality you’re talking about the material reality that our physical bodies inhabit but to know appreciate and experience non physical non ordinary reality one must be willing to take that leap of faith and experience first hand the myriad of possible realities that exist all around us. Meditation takes practice and dedication but the rewards are many. There are also plant medicines such as ayahuasca which opens the third eye and other dimensions of reality, but it is not for the squeamish or faint of heart
@@Hugatree1 yeah, I should've added ...about reality and ourselves(there are scientific studies about human psyche as well, not just about the physical world). It's just that these substances change the brain wiring for some amount of time and THAT affects our perception & state of mind. This is basically the mind-body problem. Something from the outside that affects your consciousness is materialism or at least a materialistic approach to the problem. If anything, not getting high proves that your consciousness is stronger than your body & supports idealism 😊 Bernardo is an idealist, so I'd like to know if he mentions anywhere some other non-materialistic approaches for getting on new levels of consciousness. Meditation is the only thing I can think of also.
Mary Jane, take a look at Bernardo Kastrup´s book 'Materialism is Balone.´He shows that the brain acts as a filter and closes anything other than material reality off so that we can function in the spacetime state. People put themselves into unusual states - through drugs, special exercises, meditation, even physical abuse - so as to close off the brain functions or suppress them. This opens up the mind to 'altered states' where a deeper reality than spacetime is encountered. Suppressing brain functions releases new potential whereas full brain functions shuts those potentials off - which is why NDE experiences mostly take place when brain function is severely compromised. This view is coherent and resonates effectively with the now huge corpus of scientifically studied anomalous phenomena which trad physicalism cannot effectively explain although it does its damndest to explain away, so far unsuccessfully. The hints that physical reality is a subset of a larger reality are getting bigger and will not go away.
Arjun L Sen I’ve never seen any scientific research regarding psychic phenomena it’s not a scientific topic. Can you link them? Anyway, the big question in psychology or even neuroscience is mind body problem. I see what you mean, but it’s hard to tell wether or not consciousness is at the bottom of everything. It’s obvious that matter influences consciousness and vice versa.
@@maryjane1152 There have been many scientific studies of so-called paranormal phenomena. See deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
Bizarre Phenomena - i use it as a way to what i call "to understand god". or when something seems out of synchronization, i may consider this to be a form of Bizarre Phenomena as well.
Bernardo still does not explain why we all share the same COHERENT universe.
because there is really only one subject having the same dream from different points of view.
The universe can be coherent yet also an immaterial lucid dream.
These men are obviously intelligent, but a lot of different points that didn’t really cover the topic description were “squished” inside this hour.
8:40 I'm inclined to disagree. I think there may in fact be good reasons to think that humans are uniquely placed to perceive and interpret all of Reality. At minimum, there's no reason why not . . .
I find it a somehow bizarre phenomenon that the host, who is clearly intelligent and worth LISTENING to, feels compelled to paste an absurdly insincere smile on his face pretty much all the time.
Bernardo I think you inappropriately cast doubt on the objectivity of logic when you say something like "it's nice that nature complies to our logic." I claim this is inappropriate doubt because of something you say later which is key: If your system (logic, in this case) is internally consistent, then you have something nice.
Logic and math are internally consistent definitions of ideal objects (numbers, assertions, etc.). There is no knowledge there when you use "knowledge" to mean something about the material universe. Because of how we define multiplication and numbers (and "negative numbers"), multiplying two negative numbers together yields a positive result, and we claim to "know" this - but it isn't knowledge - it's a necessary consequence of the definitions we use if we are to have a consistent system.
This "internally consistency" to which you refer is where objectivity comes into play. In that epistemology, I think Aristotle nailed it when he pointed out that "A is A." If you allow inconsistency, then you can get "A, but also not A." ...and then you're not objective any more. I didn't pay close enough attention to this video to know if the idea I just presented throws a bit of a monkey wrench into your rejection of "realism." I am the webmaster of the website, voluntaryist dot com, and you can reach by emailing the webmaster there if you're interested in my thinking on these things.
Reality is all.
Charles Sanders Peirce understood most of what is happening now.
Locality? How about Heaven -- dimensions beyond us?
If thought is the origin of everything what is the origin of the first thought? Chicken and egg paradox anyone?
There is objectively quantum system and its *measured* stated. However there isn't definitive state of the system prior to the measurement. Yes, but. It's quite big and illogical leap to conclude everything is therefore possible, correct and post-modernism is true (in some!?? sense). Essentially you are trying to use logic for basis of dismissing logic. By definition, that does not work.