Bernardo Kastrup, Is there reason to believe in God?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Multistreaming with restream.io/?r...
Twitch: / tjump
Discord: / discord
TJump Gaming: / @tjumpgaming
How to support the Channel:
Patreon: / tjump
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
Merch: teespring.com/...
Podcast Version:
podcasts.apple...
www.stitcher.c...
If you arrived at my RUclips page, I want to thank you right away for taking the time to watch my videos.
Who I am
My name is Tom and I started my RUclips channel, TJump, in order to demonstrate how effective my approach is at debunking arguments for the existence of a God at all levels from casual apologetics to professional philosophers and cosmologists.
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
How ironic it is that materialists, who consider their worldview to be the most rational, defend the foundations of that worldview with what is essentially hand-waving sophistry.
The interviewer just doesn't seem to get the fact that what we call matter is an entirely mental phenomenon. As far as we can ever know, it only exists insofar as it is an object of experience.
To say that it exists outside of experience is to postulate a completely separate ontological realm. That realm would, by definition, be forever inaccessible to knowledge. It is, therefore, a worldview which ultimately entails an appeal to faith which is exactly what they accuse their critics of.
@Language and Programming Channel well, as far as I can see, experience is fundamental. It's all we know and that we will ever know. Everything else are concepts and theories deduced from our experiences and therefore secondary.
@Language and Programming Channel no need to think it believe anything what engine is saying... You can and you are experiencing it for yourself all the time, you believe that you are experiencing an outside world and other people. But go to your experience right now: the room you are in, the chair you are sitting on and ask yourself want that experience is made of. If you stop your mind rushing forward with this ideas and concepts, you will find that all your experiences are made out of sight, sound, sensory-, olfactory- and gustatory impressions that arise in your mind. And then thought comes in and tries to extract meaning out of these impressions and hence the concept of an outside world is formed without you even knowing it that this just happened. It's the (almost) perfect illusion! 😘
The fact is that we have no way of forming rational beliefs about the properties of the fundamental nature of reality- period. But i can perfectly rationally conclude that my house is protecting me from the weather outside right now. You guys are positing something extra which is sustaining the apparent world we experience- with no evidence
@@gregorsamsa1364 no, you're positing an extra external world that somewhat preexists apart from your present sensory experience of sight, sound, touch ect. that you believe in as an objective reality but have no means to prove that it actually exist.
@@edzardpiltz6348
I've posited nothing. I said explicitly that i don't believe any conclusions can be rationally drawn about the fundamental ontological characteristics of reality. I posit no claims about the ultimate sense in which my house, or the weather outside it, exist. You do, and you do it without evidence
LOL this guy on the left thinks if he adds more pipes to his house his plumbing will wake up LMAO *facepalm*
Youre just giving an argument from incredulity.
If you add enough hydrogen to a cloud of hydrogen you will get a sun
And computers do NOT produce images; they produce pixelated paterns on a screen that humans experience as images in their consciousness. To the computer, they are just electronical produced patterns. Just as a CD beying played in a computer doesn’t produce music; it produces vibrations in the air that are experienced as music in a human listener’s consciousness. Its amazing how hard it is for even intelligent people who are so steeped in materialism to see the obvious.
That’s one of the funniest comments ever lol 😂
LOL true, he thinks that if he wrote a program to simulate kidney function, his computer would URINATE on his desk! 🤣👌
LOL; Im dead.
Bernardo Kastrup has an upperhand against materialists because besides being clever, he's wise. Enjoy these debates while they last. In some years from now materialism will be dead
His only problem is that he has no evidence
@@gregorsamsa1364 Ok, and your point is? there isn't any evidence for physicalism / materialism either.
@@zakhust6840
There's the entire body of science
@@gregorsamsa1364 Not true because Materialism isn't a scientific theory.
@@zakhust6840
Are you suggesting that it's impossible to make a rational inference outside of science?
The host is so outclassed in this discussion that it’s embarrassing 😳.
The only good that’s come from this discussion is the following: The host’s credibility as a thinker of any consequence has been completely debunked.
Yea Kastrup really made him look pretty silly to be honest
Yer the interviewer doesn't seem to actually understand what the hard problem is! So he doesn't understand the question let alone begin to formulate an answer!
Amen brother. He posted his own suicide.
Confirm bias is a beautiful thing….
Terence McKenna used to suggest you go and smoke DMT and then we can talk.
Wise man
Such a wierd title. God is not even invoked in this title.
The interviewer (as smart and quick on his toes as he is) seems not to understand there is a hard problem in consciousness. How can you equate the hard problem of consciousness (experiential states arising from inanimate material) to bricks and a wall?
Consciousness emerging from inanimate matter is an appeal to magic. Inanimate bricks building an inanimate wall is not an equivalent problem.
He does. He just thinks its an as yet not understood physical process because thats all we've ever experienced. We have matter which doesnt have the property of consciousness but enough matter produces consciousness.
In much the same way bricks dont have the property of wall but enough bricks create a wall or hydrogen doesn't have the property of fusion but enough hydrogen creates a sun which has fusion.
Its the composition division fallacy
@@bertthompson4748 That describes weak emergence to a tee
Man these non-materialists, i wish i was born in the 17s so i can just be like "how does non watery oxygen & hydrogen make water" "hard problem of water bitches"
"water is fundamental"
"i can conceive of a world where h20
doesn't create water, it seems like water but it isn't water, water is h20
debunked P-water bitches"
@@scarziepewpew3897 We give a subjective label to H2O which is water, that is weak emergence. Strong emergence is much more different. It is a difference of category not degree
@@NOCOMPLYE thanks for ur comment, honestly back then i didn't know about the subject much
Brilliant Bernardo. Some of these conversations must be very tasking.
Yay, finally a new Bernie K video. Todd in you, for having him on.
Enjoyed hearing both points of view in this one 👍... Personally I think saying i dont know is an honest position... Imo Idealism just seems to be making huge claims about reality with nothing but interesting thoughts to back any of it up... Really interesting philosophical discussion though appreciate it 👍⚡😋
Well said, DC! 🙂🍻
@@BertRussell4711 hi bert 🍻😊 thanks 👍 hope alls well buddy 👍🍻
Around 38:00 Kastrup says that there would be nothing like to be a rock or a silicon AI because the instances we know have to do with metabolism. But why is there something like to be the entire inanimate universe apart from dissociated alters then? It would be just the totality of all rocks, silicon, stars, etc. It would not be metabolism. Why arbitrarily assume that for the entire universe? Take it to its logical conclusion, and you have consciousness only in the case of metabolism, so he cannot have the grounding consciousness which is crucial to his view. He is plainly inconsistent.
I like the CD analogy!
Why it makes no sense?
it's stupid, i wish they'd stop doing that, brains are nothing like CDs.
Very good conversation, enjoyed both perspectives.
Engaging conversation.
Still waiting for "the reason to believe in God" part though...
@Language and Programming Channel Wrong. Kastrup's ontology is not pantheism at all.
ruclips.net/video/hx7cspjwvHM/видео.html
@Language and Programming Channel _"How am I wrong?"_
Didn't watch the link I offered did you?...smh...
That's just the title that the author of this video gave to this upload, who knows why he changed it to the title in this upload.
Sorry I ment so say: Very interesting discussion! Thank you for uploading and "materializing" this to my consciousness.
Thought will not give you _______,. Let’s play above the field of thought we’ll find out if only consciousness knows it self or you apart from it. At the level of this conversation the observer is the assessment of only that which you see and know: the knowing aspect of consciousness itself can not be defined or labeled. Both of you love the sound of your own voices knowing that this only furthers you from it.
Keep calling them out tjump
This guy is boring word salad
Thanks for showing how stupid the current paradigm of materialism is...cause holy shit this revealed so much...😂🤣🤦♂️
it's still useful and we can work on building systems.
rejecting materialism won't make the world a better place by believing in sky daddy lol.
we use materialism and science to work with the world and build better systems and it has a consistent history of working
@@businessmanager7670Ehhhh cringe
YET a brain is not, at all, just a CPU.
Clearly, Kastrup does not understand what parsimonious means.
How many pipes? In your opinion?
😮💨🤦
I’m sorry to say but this interviewer seems to have some mental blocks. He is over his head with Bernardo and the push backs on Idealism seem more to do with lack of understanding than real criticisms. 😂
TJump; you were continually engaging in bait and switch, holllow man , appeal to magic etc
Horrible. You should be ashamed.
science works on evidence and we are able to utilize it to build a better world.
believing in sky daddy and pure fantasies that do not have an empirical basis never works anyway lol.
can you build computers and solve mathematical equations by praying to god or following the Bible?
science does not make claims of what is absolutely true.
but with the degree of certainty that we have, it works consistently and we can make a useful world.
I agree.
It is so much less parsimonious to suggest that everything outside of your brain is consciousness than merely what is inside your brain, while the phenomena inside your brain has the benefit of the highest complexity in the universe to support its function, even if we don't understand how!
Why is it less parsimonious?
🤦
Well said, _a_z!
Every interesting
Totally disagree with Kastrup re: neurons not having any experience. To my mind, all cells, their organelles, and all the proteins within the cell have a sense of their position and action. Kastrup’s obviously not a panpsychist.
Panpsychism introduces the combination problem, which idealism doesn't have. So idealism is a more parsimonious position to me.
@@pandawandas Perhaps panexperientialist would have been a better term.
@@pandawandas His idealism has the decombination problem which is a direct knockdown just like the combination problem. Also he says that there is nothing like to be a rock or a silicon AI because the only instances we know have to do with metabolism, yet he arbitrarily assumes that there is something like to be the entire inanimate universe which is the totality of rocks, silicon, stars etc. He is plainly incosistent.