วีดีโอ

Two people wriggling the hook and waving their hands about and one talking good sense does not make for a good discussion.

Materialism is dead.

Clark Shirley Allen Joseph Martinez Scott

❤time for this ❤

While we sit in the gallery and opine about what these accomplished individuals say, could we remember that we all have our limitations? Because so much of this type of interaction depends on the precise use of language, it seems problematic to include Carlo in this discussion. He is immensely intelligent, and has an understanding of physics that far outstrips most people, including BK and PC, not to mention us onlookers. I have really enjoyed his books, and I think I have learned from them. But he has difficulty using English "on the fly" to make specific rigorous epistemological and semantic arguments and points that need to be involved in this type of discussion. It would make sense for people with varying skill in different languages to be involved in a format in which each participant could present a written summary, so it could be formulated in the presenter's native language, then translated into English by someone with similar fluency in each language, so he or she could express their thoughts as precisely as possible. But in an oral discussion like this, it's difficult enough to follow a nearly perfect articulation of thoughts that involve concepts as challenging as the attempt to clarify the nature of consciousness, perception and (mysterious music here) reality.

Davis George Young Edward Martin Donald

Thompson Scott Anderson Sharon Johnson Melissa

I have noticed that physicalists and materialists tend to need to belittle, dismiss and be insulting of idealism and its proponents, becoming agressive for some psychological reasons. It would be more instructive if they took the time to understand it and address its fundamental critiques of materialism and physicalism. For Patricia to claim that we just need to follow the data, without any theoretical or philosophical framework for its assessment, is literally absurd. For Carlo to claim that there is absolutely no evidence or experience of post-mortem survival of consciousness is plain ignorance of the subject. Is he even aware of the work of Professor Jim B. Tucker, Bonner-Lowry Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, or that of Dr Raymond Moody? It seemed to me that Bernado's contributions were the only ones based demonstrating deeper understanding and argument, rather than belief, prejudice or faith. Patricia and Carlo, I need a lot more than, 'Well I just I think this...' and, 'Well, I still think that...'. Why exactly do you think those things, what are you basing that on exactly? Respect to Bernado for cutting through this nonsense and some false claims. I hope that you don't have to debate these two again.

This is honestly embarrassing and cringe to watch. These two exemplify the saying that “science progresses one casket at a time”. You have one basically saying it doesn’t matter to know what consciousness is, even though his conscious experience is what brought him to this conclusion 🤦‍♂️ and the other stating that “well I don’t see data so I can’t entertain this”, when the problem for her is in actuality is the wider conundrum for science. How does a practice that essentially only has the capacity to explain what something does, explain why something is? They can explain the equation but not the numbers. This is truly the hard problem for physicists and they apply all the 5 D’s of dodgeball to accepting their just may be limitations to the answers of practice as currently governed can answer. This is why they lose credibility because their practice has become dogmatic, whether sincere or in Patricia’s case I suspect not.

Bernardo tore them apart 😅

The statement of the talk: '"consciousness is the involuntary wiggling of my left toe". A new philosopher-rock star - Barnardo Kastrup.

How did I miss this..I was laughing Mao when Carlo said he doesn't know what mental means... man, you can't make this stuff up

Gosh this is such a sweet song, it makes me real happy

Patricia literally looks like, Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat, took her soul and left her only with logical thinking. Her intuition has been sucked cleanly away and appears to be a spiritual carcass

I didn't even know if Rovelli understand philosophy.

I see RLK is still assembling the best minds so that he can show them in the worst possible light

It would be far more interesting if two of the three participants had provided arguments against idealism BY FIRST HAVING UNDERSTOOD the idealist perspective (or even what the hard problem of consciousness is, to begin with).

People like Patricia are the reason why I don't idolize, a priori, academics/intellectuals/experts anymore. She handicaps her intellectual capacities to an astonishing degree and thus renders herself highly unreliable as a source of information/research. I've rarely seen somebody in such dire need of philosophical reflection/re-interpretation and, I say this respectfully, psychological analysis/evaluation. I've read some of her work for a graduate philosophy of mind course, and, I have to say, it's especially hard to take somebody seriously who has advocated so ferociously for such a self-refuting set of ideas (eliminativist theory of mind). This just goes to show how important one's approach to inquiry (or their guiding epistemic virtues) truly is. It's sincerely pathetic/sad to see a so-called "philosopher/intellectual" conduct themselves in such a way. Rovelli is not far behind, I'm not trying to focus overmuch on her. As somebody who is not a die-hard follower of Kastrup (although I am sympathetic to many of his ideas), this was still sad to see, and shame on the moderator as well for illustrating his own bias throughout the video.

7

Bernardo/Idealism has the most parsimonious theory. I can't believe Kuhn, who's been on to this subject for a very long time now, does not see it.

6

Wow really interesting! Never heard any of this before! I do have to say that Dr. Kastrup seems far beyond the other two in terms of putting forth a rational and logical argument that actually answers the big questions. The other two have no real answers at all to anything. Which doesn’t surprise me coming from a materialist viewpoint.

Jle dub mix!

Bernardo does Aikido with the panelists. Hats off to the Dutch Samurai.

Bernardo does Aikido with the panelists. Hats off to the Dutch Samurai.

5

This was painful to watch. Bernardo bullied the rest.

4, I'm so early on this time on the counting!

*insert mario sounds here*

"Foodloff of the Ramtrop". Perfect, Patricia !!

It really shows who Kastrup is when he repeats his ignorant of fraudulent claim about globally reduced neuronal activity on psychedelics even after Churchland just freaking cited and explained to him the studies that show why his claims are false. This guy is an arrogant and ignorant charlatan with a terminal case of the Donning-Kruger effect. Why is he even invited to a discussion where he is taking time from talking to accomplished and highly creative people like the other guests ??? You may as well have invited Trup junior or the pillow guy

it's definitely nice to hear ROvelli correcting the Kastrup's fraudulent claims about physics experiments.

I go with Bernardo, he makes the most sense. On the contrary anyone who is bound by data, or anyone who wants to be dead when they are dead is too landlocked and non-intuitive to be reliable.

None of the interviewed was seriously engaged in addressing the problem and dr. Laurence questions in a productive manner. And they show dismissal attitude toward the other, instead. All my sympathy to Dr. Laurence, the only one getting out gently from this supposed conversation, which turned out to be nothing but a stage to display contempt.

Bernardo is just on another level, materialism is baloney.

The only thing Kastrup says is that his believes and philosophical speculations have enormous consequences. Well woop di do, how deep. Now, show me what you can produce with that insight, except a pseudo-religion.

Listening to churchland is like plugging into a schizophrenia simulator

I'm so proud of Kastrup for putting himself through this for the advancement of ideas

It’s such a slog trying to get the blinders of materialism off so that a real conversation can begin. Most of these talks are far too short to reach any interesting territory unfortunately.

3

Nobody has created a matter and a consciousness.

To understand consciousness one has to be awake him/her self. Or rather to put it more precisely, it is not a consequence of being awake, but the level of awakeness itself is the level of understanding of the consciousness, or to paraphrase, in order or know consciousness one needs to be conscious. And to clarify this a little, the above is not a logical statement, however most people will treat it as such, since most people are not awake, which means that they are looking at the world symbolically, the consciousness itself being a symbol inside the worldview.

When it comes to consciousness the paragons of materialism can't put two coherent sentences together. As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in micro-tubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in micro-tubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.

Horrible debate. You have Kastrup which has a deep understanding of the other ideas and two folks who have no idea what idealism even is. Just fast forward through everyone except Kastrup and maybe there is some value here.

Role model

Bernardo is the only one of three that seems to understand intuition ie consciousness. If I'm going to bet on the future, I bet on Bernie...

he dosent want to be alive after death ,thats you and seeing that you dont believe it in any case ,why the hang up after all its false right

2

Near the end when Carlo says he wishes there wasn't life after death, as a rhetorical devise to defeat Bernardo, but Bernardo also wishes there wasn't life after death, but for different reasons. Rovelli uses philosophical arguments in a pompous way, so confidently saying he isn't keen on immortality, to make out those who speak such things are too weak to look at the bleak facts, thus his ego is elevated in this school boy debate. But Bernardo Kastrup knows there isn't death and so he worries a little bit, because, like you and me, he has had nightmares. Bad dreams are there but he wake up. But when You leave that brain organ which reduces your ability to have nightmares, once you have left your safe anchor, then you may very well get stuck in that nightmare forever! This is what Bernardo fears.