I got it! The difference between the External Material World (EMW) and the Mind At Large (MAL) is the following. EMW can never be experienced directly, because if it could be experienced it would not be outside, i.e. by definition it must be outside of experience and that is a contradiction (thinking 'this is outside of experience' is a thought within experience). Simply, to be is to be experienced (by some point of view somewhere). While, MAL is largely 'external' (seemingly) only most of the time, but, and this is key, it is possible to access (experience) greater portions of it eventually (but not all of it probably due to incomprehensible vastness) through various changes in your consciousness/being (dreaming, NDEs, strong psychedelics, OBEs, life of asceticism, dying, etc). Thus, even though it's not experienced right now, it still remains within experience as a possibility of experience (I don't experience it now, but I could if I put in the effort). And how do I know that I could ? Well, a lot of human history and knowledge (minus only materialism, not even minus science) is telling me so or maybe I already had some similar experiences... It's not exactly on the same level of certainty as present experience but it's on the spectrum. Possibilities are experienced too (as opposed to actualities). In Being and Time, Heidegger asserts that "higher than actuality stands possibility", emphasizing the primacy of potentiality in understanding human existence. He argues that Dasein (being-there) is fundamentally oriented toward its possibilities, which shape its understanding of being. And Bernardo's AI is essentially a Cosmic Solipsism. Regular solipsism (be it metaphysical or epistemological) says the world is your dream and there is either no outside at all or outside can never be known to exist or not. You are creating the world, you are the dreamer. Cosmic solipsism says you are not the dreamer, but instead a dream-character (the dream is structurally primary to the dreamer) - the dream is dreaming the dreamer (in a way), usually bound up with a single point of view. "Others are just in me" is wrong because "you" (the phenomena of the phantom "behind the eyes") are not in you. It really helps to research DID (same as Bernardo did), especially when it comes to their "Inner Worlds" (where all the Alters interact) and the phenomena of Depersonalisation specifically (not Derealization)... It really clarifies a lot of his thinking. Ask a DID system and most of them will tell you that they live in 2 real worlds and that "they are many". This can also explain how people with special psychic abilities can access information they never experienced (with their alter) - they gain access to information from other alters (across a dissociative boundary). DID people can indeed both have information sharing between alters and not (almost like a switch that is sometimes On and sometimes Off).
@@stefanvidenovic5095 Thank you for leaving a comment. Unfortunately, however-when you write that “While, MAL is largely ‘external’ (seemingly) only most of the time, but, and this is key, it is possible to access (experience) greater portions of it eventually (but not all of it probably due to incomprehensible vastness) through various changes in your consciousness/being (dreaming, NDEs, strong psychedelics, OBEs, life of asceticism, dying, etc.)”-you simply repeat the very Johnsonian argumentum ad lapidem fallacy I specifically alluded to in my critique: viz., the transcendental reality of a mind at large cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a posteriori because experience affords access only to immanent representations, and a mind at large cannot possibly be given in experience without thereby reducing to immanent representations. Furthermore, as I specifically wrote in my critique, “Whether the experience is ordinary or extraordinary, mundane or mystical, it remains bound by the fundamental limitation that experience can only provide access to representations in consciousness, not to transcendental reality beyond consciousness”-which is to say that you are also begging the question (you are engaging in the same fallacy I specifically called out in my critique)-“such a question-begging and stone-kicking appeal to revelation only reinforces the dogmatic ways of Kastrupian analytic idealism: which dogmatic ways “are, indeed, not within the intention of the natural constitution of our reason; and inasmuch as they have their source in misunderstanding, it is the duty of philosophy to counteract their deceptive influence, no matter what prized and cherished dreams may have to be disowned” (Kant, KrV, A xiii). The appeal to revelation represents not an escape from dogmatism but rather its intensification, attempting to establish through appeal to special experience what cannot possibly be established through any experience whatsoever (dogmatic speculative metaphysics like Kastrup’s can have for its basis “neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology”). But, worse, the appeal to revelation would only entail dogmatic irrational fideism once again, because the Kastrupian would be tacitly taking it upon faith-besides begging the question and appealing to the stone against egoism-that immanent representations have a relation to an alleged transcendental reality, when it is precisely this relation which is in question and which is not even sufficiently demonstrable a priori or a posteriori to begin with (to say nothing of the fact that the Kastrupian, being dogmatic and pre-critical, would be illegitimately extending the category of relation beyond its proper sphere within experience)”.
Thank you for the long response. However, I don't quite see your point... MAL is not a transcendental reality any more than your bathroom is while you're not in it. You are not always experiencing your bathroom, in all its 6-sense glory, but you can always go there and experience it fully. At no point does it become a transcendental thing. Same with MAL - you could navigate more of its "space". Can you not substantiate a posteriori the existence of your bathroom ? Also, I suggest you checkout (if you haven't already) "A World in a Grain of Sand: The Clairvoyance of Stefan Ossowiecki", it's the best documented case, I know of, of a person who could explore much more of the MAL, prooving that it is possible to do that, although quite rare. Experiments in there are very well designed and controlled and done by many independent researchers.
Felipe, interesting video, although I have some comments. 1. The critique begins with the epistemological construction of his idealism, but it does not take into account what would be Kastrup's starting point: his interpretation of scientific knowledge, particularly in relation to quantum physics. Although I believe his scientific interpretation is incorrect, his analytical idealism is grounded in that interpretation. Attacking his metaphysics without considering its scientific foundation overlooks the "analytical" aspect of his idealism, that is, its foundation. 2. Kastrup makes a leap from his interpretation that quantum experiments would demonstrate that reality depends on subjectivity, to the conclusion that physical reality depends on subjectivity at the cosmic level. Criticizing his metaphysics without first questioning this leap from science seems like a mistake. 3. Although he is accused of dogmatism, Kastrup himself acknowledges that his idealism is "plausible," not an absolute truth. Therefore, labeling him as dogmatic weakens the argument, since he accepts that his proposal is not the only possible interpretation, but a plausible response based on his scientific and philosophical postulates. 4. Under the definition of dogmatism you provided, assuming that Kastrup's position is dogmatic without first addressing the scientific basis he uses to defend his stance would also constitute dogmatism. You are not considering that his foundation-the scientific interpretation of reality based on quantum measurement-is the main reason behind his metaphysical construction. This minimizes the crucial role of science in his proposal, but at the same time, it removes an element of empirical reality from your critique at this point. 5. While it is not logically necessary for a Mind At Large and other minds to have a transcendental reality, why do you make the leap of "logically necessary" as a requirement for Kastrup, but assert that it is enough for egoism/solipsism to be "logically possible" as an argument to counter him? It seems to me that the logical possibility of solipsism does not invalidate Kastrup’s proposal, even if it is not logically necessary, as long as it is plausible. 6. On the other hand, assuming that Ockham is correct, solipsism is not necessarily the simplest explanation. While solipsism involves denying all external reality, Kastrup’s proposal, which posits a Universal Consciousness as the source of reality, could be considered simpler. 7. The metaphor of the "dashboard," used by Kastrup to describe physical reality as a representation of universal consciousness, deserves more attention as it is fundamental to the formulation of his proposal. However, it has not been addressed in your critique.
@@1000palabras-jufroi Thank you for leaving a comment. Allow me to address each of your points in turn. 1. You insist that I do not take into account Kastrup’s starting point-namely, his interpretation of scientific knowledge-but, I specifically do take this into account, and I point out that the transcendental reality of a mind at large cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a posteriori because experience affords access only to immanent representations, and I add that “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason” (Kant, Prolegomena). The scientific/empirical foundation of analytic has not been overlooked in my critique; rather, it was explicitly addressed. Your emphasis on “scientific foundations” actually serves to highlight the philosophical confusion in Kastrup’s approach rather than defend it. 2. Your statement that it is a “mistake” to criticize Kastrup’s metaphysics without first questioning his leap from science involves an ignoratio elenchi fallacy-I specifically did address that “leap” by pointing out that “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason”. 3. Whether Kastrup presents his mind-at-large position as an absolute truth or as a hypothesis is irrelevant to its being dogmatism. Dogmatism is “the presumption that it is possible to make progress with pure knowledge, according to principles, from concepts alone” (Kant, KrV), meaning that the sheer act of attempting to extend our knowledge from mere concepts alone-whether in the guise of an assertion or a “plausible” hypothesis-is already dogmatism simpliciter. 4. Your statement that Kastrup’s foundation involves quantum measurement, once again, entails ignoratio elenchi-as I specifically do address Kastrup’s attempt to base his metaphysical position on any variety of empirical “measurement” whatsoever: viz., “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason”. Furthermore, experience affords access only to immanent representations, such that experience cannot even in principle be appealed to at all in defense of metaphysical pretensions. 5. Your fifth point involves ignoratio elenchi-plus it is simply a bad argument. The very fact that egoism/solipsism is a logical possibility is already sufficient to rule out the logical necessity of the transcendental reality of a mind at large, meaning that Kastrup cannot sufficiently substantiate his metaphysical pretensions a priori. You have missed the point here. The logical possibility of solipsism serves not as a positive argument for solipsism, but rather as a sufficient demonstration that Kastrup’s position cannot possibly be established as logically necessary (cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a priori). 6. Technically, the mind at large hypothesis is not simpler than outright egoism/solipsism, because the mind at large metaphysical hypothesis at least involves dissociation mechanics and the generation and subsequent discontinuation of alters-in addition to each alter’s unique field of appearances/representations, and in addition to the mind-at-large’s own unique field of representations (none of analytic idealism’s metaphysical commitments can ever possibly be empirically verified, and are not logically necessary because of the logical possibility of solipsism, and the solipsist can at least verify his own field of representations empirically (even if the question of transcendental reality remains irrevocably problematic at best tout court))-whereas solipsism requires none of analytic idealism’s unnecessary metaphysical pretensions (to say nothing of the fact that analytic idealism’s metaphysical pretensions cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a priori or a posteriori anyway), solipsism requires only one sole field of appearances/representations for one sole self-sufficient mind. The question isn’t about explanatory elegance but about the multiplication of entities beyond what is given in immediate experience: solipsism, whatever its other philosophical challenges, remains ontologically more parsimonious as it doesn’t posit entities beyond immediate consciousness, and does not posit entities beyond necessity. 7. I do tacitly address the dashboard metaphor when I speak of “representations”-whether I state it explicitly or not, my reference to “representations” is the same as a reference to what Kastrup means by his “dashboard” metaphor-which is why Kastrup cannot possibly sufficiently substantiate his analytic idealism a posteriori, because the mind at large cannot possibly be a representation (a mere component of the “dashboard”) without repugnancy (without thereby reducing to a mere representation in me, which is specifically why metaphysical pretensions like Kastrup’s cannot have experience as their basis).
@@mariafil7249 It would please me immensely to have a live conversation with Mr. Kastrup concerning his analytic idealism and idealism more broadly. I am very much open to the idea.
@@janthomsen2 Thank you for your reply. As it pertains to your concern regarding the repetitiveness, I recapitulate the main points deliberately, actually-in order to consistently re-emphasize the point, and to ensure that the listener is constantly being reminded of the basis of my critique.
To be quite honest with you, I have not acquainted myself with the work of Plotinus satisfactorily enough to formulate a stance on his work. My knowledge of Plotinus is mainly indirect, coming especially from the favorable review Novalis gives of him. My chief focus has recently been, for better or worse, on German idealism-although I do consider it unpardonable to be not acquainted with the work of an eminent thinker such as Plotinus, such that I will resolve to give to his Enneads the attention I believe these deserve (at some point). Thank you for bringing up that influential thinker, and for reminding me to examine his works.
Update: I have just purchased the complete Enneads of Plotinus on Audible. Thank you for reminding me to look into Plotinus’s works-I have been thinking about it for a while now. I look forward to listening to the Enneads on audiobook.
@@OuroboricIdealism good to hear, just a quick piece of advice, Plotinus is one of those authors where you have to listen/read it over multiple times to really catch all of what he is trying to convey. I intend to read his work over again starting soon. Cheers
@@experience-k7q I am not sufficiently informed on Tononi’s “Integrated Information Theory” to offer thoughts with regard to it-my main focus has been German Idealism and Neo-Kantianism, and the empiricism (e.g., Locke, Berkeley, Hume) and rationalism (e.g., Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) which set the stage for its emergence in Kant’s Kritik der reinen Vernuft. I will pay more attention to Tononi’s IIT, because you recommended it, and see what relationship it bears to the essentially critical work I am doing. Thank you for mentioning IIT, and thank you for leaving a comment.
@@OuroboricIdealism Thank you. Yes, Tononi likes to mention Leibniz and many others, so it's interesting to watch your videos and learn more. But if you also pay attention to IIT and make a video about it, I'd be happy to watch it, as I see that you have a lot of knowledge and good insight. Thank you.
I'm going to watch this. But after the first 33 seconds, I'll make a prediction. This person will mischaracterize key aspects of Kastrup's work. Based on the tiny sliver, I've heard this person, in order to remain consistent, will have to disavow ANY and ALL ontological perspectives and remain skeptical of all. Let's see!
@@rooruffneck Thank you for leaving a comment. I look forward to any replies you may happen to have once you’ve listened to the whole video through. By the way, let me just respond to your observation that I will have to “disavow ANY and ALL ontological perspectives and remain skeptical of all”-I actually already address this in the video itself: namely, I write that “‘All objections can be divided into dogmatic, critical, and skeptical’, tells us Kant in his first Kritik: ‘A dogmatic objection is directed against a proposition, a critical objection against the proof of a proposition … A sceptical objection sets assertion and counter-assertion in mutual opposition to each other as having equal weight, treating each in turn as dogma and the other as the objection thereto’ (A 388). It should be clear that our objection to Mr. Kastrup’s analytic idealism is a critical one: namely, ‘confines itself to pointing out that in the making of the assertion something has been presupposed that is void and merely fictitious; and it thus overthrows the theory by removing its alleged foundation without claiming to establish anything that bears directly upon the constitution of the object’ (Kant, KrV, A 389)”. Furthermore, I assure you that-contrary to your prediction-I have not mischaracterized key aspects of Kastrup’s work, but have referred myself to the very essence of analytic idealism, which essence involves the postulation of the transcendental reality of a mind at large and its dissociated alters. Anyways, thank you for watching the video, thank you for leaving a comment, and I sincerely look forward to being informed of any replies you may happen to have to my critique of analytic idealism.
I, like Kant, agree that “Neither bodies nor motions are anything outside us; both alike are mere representations in us; and it is not, therefore, the motion of matter that produces representations in us; the motion itself is representation only, as also is the matter which makes itself known in this way” (Kant, KrV, A 387).
Congratulations. Kastrup uses metaphors (the dashboard in a pilot´s cockpit) to build up his system. Treating metaphors of reality as if they were reality seems to be inherent to philosophical thinking. Metaphors resist empiricism. But they may reflect truth or part of it. Maybe we don´t have other possibility, after all philosophy deals with non material "things". So maybe the way of the metaphor not being reality, is the only way humans can deal with reality.
Thank you for sharing this enlightening insight on the significance and utility of metaphors. It reminds me of Kant’s observation that “From all this it follows that it is not in keeping with the nature of philosophy, especially in the field of pure reason, to take pride in a dogmatic procedure, and to deck itself out with the title and insignia of mathematics, to whose ranks it does not belong, though it has every ground to hope for a sisterly union with it. Such pretensions are idle claims which can never be satisfied, and indeed must divert philosophy from its true purpose, namely, to expose the illusions of a reason that forgets its limits, and by sufficiently clarifying our concepts to recall it from its presumptuous speculative pursuits to modest but thorough self-knowledge” (Kant, KrV, A 735).
@rubenpalma4045 Thank you for your question about the video explaining Ouroboric Idealism. The fact is that I recently decided to re-do my TH-cam channel; so I have deleted many of my older videos (except the “Waning Gibbous” short story), because I am going to re-upload them with different artwork. In my previous videos, including the one explaining Ouroboric Idealism, I used the same artwork for all of them, and I felt that it would be better to use a different art piece for every new video-so I will be re-uploading a new version of the video explaining Ouroboric Idealism very soon.
@@QDoppio Thank you for encouraging me to promote my own ideas. I will definitely be uploading more content soon, which will promote my own philosophical stance (“Ouroboric Idealism”). In the meantime, if you want to get a sense of what “Ouroboric Idealism” involves, you can check out the other two videos on my channel (on “Transcendental Solipsism” and a short story titled “A Waning Gibbous”): these two other videos indicate features of my own position (“Ouroboric Idealism”). Soon I will upload a proper “Introduction to Ouroboric Idealism”. Additionally, I will also soon be uploading a critique of materialism (a draft of which I already have finished), which will be titled “Why Materialism Fails”-so it is not that I am only picking on Kastrup’s analytic idealism, since I will soon upload a critique of materialism as well. Thank you for leaving a comment.
@@al-kimiya6962 Thank you for leaving a comment. If you happen to have a substantial counterargument against my critique of analytic idealism, I will be very glad to be informed of it. As it stands, however, your above remark-viz., “Chap thinks he can refute anything with ChatGPT”-because you tacitly attempt to dismiss my critique without providing any actual substantial counterargument, amounts to only an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy. Because your hitherto remark involves only fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem), your above statement may be dismissed as logically invalid.
@@al-kimiya6962 Thank you for your continued engagement-however, you have once again failed to offer any actual substantial counterargument against my critique of analytic idealism. Because you are attempting to dismiss my critique, without offering any actual substantial counterargument, eo ipso you are once again engaging in the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy-and because fallacious, your recent statement may be dismissed as logically invalid. If you have any actual substantial counterarguments to offer, I will be delighted to be informed of these-however, as it stands, your remarks have involved fallacy, and, worse, have served to give Kastrup’s analytic idealism a bad name (you are doing a miserable job of representing analytic idealism, and only tacitly confirming my position that analytic idealism is indefensible dogmatism, since, after all, if analytic idealism were defensible you’d have something more to offer than fallacies, but you don’t).
If you have a substantial counterargument to offer, I would be very pleased to know of it. However, as it stands, your statement-viz., “lol. Nope”-amounts to a blatant argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, because you are tacitly attempting to dismiss my critique of analytic idealism without offering any actual substantial counterargument. As it stands, your statement is a fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem); and, hence, it may be dismissed as logically invalid.
@@ImportacionesBasicas Unfortunately, no I have not tried DMT (yet). However, I have tried LSD and psilocybin mushrooms-the experiences which I had after ingestion of these substances led me to the awareness that empirical phenomena are one and all essentially mental (although, unlike Kastrup, I am not convinced of the transcental reality of a mind at large and, like Hume, I concede that “To begin with the senses, ’tis evident these faculties are incapable of giving rise to the notion of the continu’d existence of their objects, after they no longer appear to the senses. For that is a contradiction in terms, and supposes that the senses continue to operate, even after they have ceas’d all manner of operation”). Incidentally, I do tacitly refer to altered states of consciousness in the above video: “Whether the experience is ordinary or extraordinary, mundane or mystical, it remains bound by the fundamental limitation that experience can only provide access to representations in consciousness, not to transcendental reality beyond consciousness”. Thank you for leaving a comment.
@@Simon-xi8tb Thank you for leaving a comment. To answer your question: I am not a materialist. In fact, I am also presently working on a “Why Materialism Fails” video. In fact, like Kant, I insist that “All bodies, together with the space in which they are, must be considered nothing but mere representations in us, and exist nowhere but in our thoughts”. I will be uploading the “Why Materialism Fails” video soon; I am still writing the script for it. Once again, thank you for leaving a comment.
Lol, no wonder your channel got so many subscribers, you're not fit to tie Kastrup's bootlaces. 🤣Why don't you go and study some epistemology first, you then might not e so painfully out of your depth.
Thank you for leaving a comment. However, because your comment does not involve any actual substantial counterargument against my critique of analytic idealism, and because your comment involves nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy, eo ipso your comment may be dismissed as being logically invalid. If you have an actual substantial counterargument to offer here, I will be very pleased to hear it-as it stands, however, what you have offered hitherto is only fallacy (argumentum ad hominem).
@CGMaat Mr. Kastrup’s approach, whether you like it or not, is a dogmatic approach-his analytic idealism amounts to nothing more than a regression to pre-critical speculative dogmatic metaphysics à la Leibnizian-Wolffian scholasticism, illegitimately attempting to conclude existence given only essence. My concern, furthermore, is *not* with Kastrup himself; concerning Kastrup, I say nothing. My aim is only to point out the dogmatism invariably inherent and constitutive of his approach.
@dueldab2117 Thank you for your question. In response, the reason why I am utilizing a digital narrator is because it is more convenient for me; I do not have the time nor the desire to sit down and do/edit audio recordings; my main focus is as a writer; I am more concerned with writing than with narrating. Thank you for the question and thank you for engaging with the video.
I think the jig's up, Bernardo. It's been a good ride while it lasted, which wasn't very long. Do you cry, 'Uncle!' yet or must we prolong this unpleasant encounter? This hurts me - more than it hurts me to think from your perspective. That really ain't natural. Is it? I don't even know anymore.
@@kokolanza7543 The jig has been up since 1781, when Kant first published his Critique of Pure Reason-since then, dogmatic speculative metaphysics (e.g., Kastrup’s analytic idealism) has been exposed as baseless (“Fight as they may, the shadows which they cleave asunder grow together again forthwith, like the heroes in Valhalla, to disport themselves anew in the bloodless contests” [Kant, KrV, A 756]).
@@OuroboricIdealism I'm all for some German Idealism, but as the neopragmatists have shown, trying to ground your thinking in some kind of epistemological foundation is a misguided pursuit. Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Dewey and several other pivotal philosophers have pointed this out (usually later in their lives).
@Archeidos-Arcana Yes, you make a fair point-hence, why I sympathize with the Frühromantik Grundsatzkritik (cf. Hölderlin, Schlegel, and Novalis), which was a reaction against the rationalist-speculative approach in the works of Reinhold, Fichte, and Schelling.
@@world_musician Thank you for leaving a comment. However, because you are tacitly attempting to dismiss my critique of analytic idealism without actually offering any substantial counterargument, eo ipso your remark amounts only to an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy. If you have a substantial counterargument to offer here, I will be very pleased to be informed of it-as it stands, however, you have offered only fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem), and Kastrup’s analytic idealism eo ipso remains without basis.
I got it! The difference between the External Material World (EMW) and the Mind At Large (MAL) is the following. EMW can never be experienced directly, because if it could be experienced it would not be outside, i.e. by definition it must be outside of experience and that is a contradiction (thinking 'this is outside of experience' is a thought within experience). Simply, to be is to be experienced (by some point of view somewhere). While, MAL is largely 'external' (seemingly) only most of the time, but, and this is key, it is possible to access (experience) greater portions of it eventually (but not all of it probably due to incomprehensible vastness) through various changes in your consciousness/being (dreaming, NDEs, strong psychedelics, OBEs, life of asceticism, dying, etc). Thus, even though it's not experienced right now, it still remains within experience as a possibility of experience (I don't experience it now, but I could if I put in the effort). And how do I know that I could ? Well, a lot of human history and knowledge (minus only materialism, not even minus science) is telling me so or maybe I already had some similar experiences... It's not exactly on the same level of certainty as present experience but it's on the spectrum.
Possibilities are experienced too (as opposed to actualities). In Being and Time, Heidegger asserts that "higher than actuality stands possibility", emphasizing the primacy of potentiality in understanding human existence. He argues that Dasein (being-there) is fundamentally oriented toward its possibilities, which shape its understanding of being.
And Bernardo's AI is essentially a Cosmic Solipsism. Regular solipsism (be it metaphysical or epistemological) says the world is your dream and there is either no outside at all or outside can never be known to exist or not. You are creating the world, you are the dreamer. Cosmic solipsism says you are not the dreamer, but instead a dream-character (the dream is structurally primary to the dreamer) - the dream is dreaming the dreamer (in a way), usually bound up with a single point of view. "Others are just in me" is wrong because "you" (the phenomena of the phantom "behind the eyes") are not in you.
It really helps to research DID (same as Bernardo did), especially when it comes to their "Inner Worlds" (where all the Alters interact) and the phenomena of Depersonalisation specifically (not Derealization)... It really clarifies a lot of his thinking. Ask a DID system and most of them will tell you that they live in 2 real worlds and that "they are many".
This can also explain how people with special psychic abilities can access information they never experienced (with their alter) - they gain access to information from other alters (across a dissociative boundary). DID people can indeed both have information sharing between alters and not (almost like a switch that is sometimes On and sometimes Off).
@@stefanvidenovic5095 Thank you for leaving a comment. Unfortunately, however-when you write that “While, MAL is largely ‘external’ (seemingly) only most of the time, but, and this is key, it is possible to access (experience) greater portions of it eventually (but not all of it probably due to incomprehensible vastness) through various changes in your consciousness/being (dreaming, NDEs, strong psychedelics, OBEs, life of asceticism, dying, etc.)”-you simply repeat the very Johnsonian argumentum ad lapidem fallacy I specifically alluded to in my critique: viz., the transcendental reality of a mind at large cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a posteriori because experience affords access only to immanent representations, and a mind at large cannot possibly be given in experience without thereby reducing to immanent representations.
Furthermore, as I specifically wrote in my critique, “Whether the experience is ordinary or extraordinary, mundane or mystical, it remains bound by the fundamental limitation that experience can only provide access to representations in consciousness, not to transcendental reality beyond consciousness”-which is to say that you are also begging the question (you are engaging in the same fallacy I specifically called out in my critique)-“such a question-begging and stone-kicking appeal to revelation only reinforces the dogmatic ways of Kastrupian analytic idealism: which dogmatic ways “are, indeed, not within the intention of the natural constitution of our reason; and inasmuch as they have their source in misunderstanding, it is the duty of philosophy to counteract their deceptive influence, no matter what prized and cherished dreams may have to be disowned” (Kant, KrV, A xiii). The appeal to revelation represents not an escape from dogmatism but rather its intensification, attempting to establish through appeal to special experience what cannot possibly be established through any experience whatsoever (dogmatic speculative metaphysics like Kastrup’s can have for its basis “neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology”). But, worse, the appeal to revelation would only entail dogmatic irrational fideism once again, because the Kastrupian would be tacitly taking it upon faith-besides begging the question and appealing to the stone against egoism-that immanent representations have a relation to an alleged transcendental reality, when it is precisely this relation which is in question and which is not even sufficiently demonstrable a priori or a posteriori to begin with (to say nothing of the fact that the Kastrupian, being dogmatic and pre-critical, would be illegitimately extending the category of relation beyond its proper sphere within experience)”.
Thank you for the long response. However, I don't quite see your point... MAL is not a transcendental reality any more than your bathroom is while you're not in it. You are not always experiencing your bathroom, in all its 6-sense glory, but you can always go there and experience it fully. At no point does it become a transcendental thing. Same with MAL - you could navigate more of its "space".
Can you not substantiate a posteriori the existence of your bathroom ?
Also, I suggest you checkout (if you haven't already) "A World in a Grain of Sand: The Clairvoyance of Stefan Ossowiecki", it's the best documented case, I know of, of a person who could explore much more of the MAL, prooving that it is possible to do that, although quite rare. Experiments in there are very well designed and controlled and done by many independent researchers.
Felipe, interesting video, although I have some comments.
1. The critique begins with the epistemological construction of his idealism, but it does not take into account what would be Kastrup's starting point: his interpretation of scientific knowledge, particularly in relation to quantum physics. Although I believe his scientific interpretation is incorrect, his analytical idealism is grounded in that interpretation. Attacking his metaphysics without considering its scientific foundation overlooks the "analytical" aspect of his idealism, that is, its foundation.
2. Kastrup makes a leap from his interpretation that quantum experiments would demonstrate that reality depends on subjectivity, to the conclusion that physical reality depends on subjectivity at the cosmic level. Criticizing his metaphysics without first questioning this leap from science seems like a mistake.
3. Although he is accused of dogmatism, Kastrup himself acknowledges that his idealism is "plausible," not an absolute truth. Therefore, labeling him as dogmatic weakens the argument, since he accepts that his proposal is not the only possible interpretation, but a plausible response based on his scientific and philosophical postulates.
4. Under the definition of dogmatism you provided, assuming that Kastrup's position is dogmatic without first addressing the scientific basis he uses to defend his stance would also constitute dogmatism. You are not considering that his foundation-the scientific interpretation of reality based on quantum measurement-is the main reason behind his metaphysical construction. This minimizes the crucial role of science in his proposal, but at the same time, it removes an element of empirical reality from your critique at this point.
5. While it is not logically necessary for a Mind At Large and other minds to have a transcendental reality, why do you make the leap of "logically necessary" as a requirement for Kastrup, but assert that it is enough for egoism/solipsism to be "logically possible" as an argument to counter him? It seems to me that the logical possibility of solipsism does not invalidate Kastrup’s proposal, even if it is not logically necessary, as long as it is plausible.
6. On the other hand, assuming that Ockham is correct, solipsism is not necessarily the simplest explanation. While solipsism involves denying all external reality, Kastrup’s proposal, which posits a Universal Consciousness as the source of reality, could be considered simpler.
7. The metaphor of the "dashboard," used by Kastrup to describe physical reality as a representation of universal consciousness, deserves more attention as it is fundamental to the formulation of his proposal. However, it has not been addressed in your critique.
@@1000palabras-jufroi Thank you for leaving a comment. Allow me to address each of your points in turn.
1. You insist that I do not take into account Kastrup’s starting point-namely, his interpretation of scientific knowledge-but, I specifically do take this into account, and I point out that the transcendental reality of a mind at large cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a posteriori because experience affords access only to immanent representations, and I add that “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason” (Kant, Prolegomena). The scientific/empirical foundation of analytic has not been overlooked in my critique; rather, it was explicitly addressed. Your emphasis on “scientific foundations” actually serves to highlight the philosophical confusion in Kastrup’s approach rather than defend it.
2. Your statement that it is a “mistake” to criticize Kastrup’s metaphysics without first questioning his leap from science involves an ignoratio elenchi fallacy-I specifically did address that “leap” by pointing out that “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason”.
3. Whether Kastrup presents his mind-at-large position as an absolute truth or as a hypothesis is irrelevant to its being dogmatism. Dogmatism is “the presumption that it is possible to make progress with pure knowledge, according to principles, from concepts alone” (Kant, KrV), meaning that the sheer act of attempting to extend our knowledge from mere concepts alone-whether in the guise of an assertion or a “plausible” hypothesis-is already dogmatism simpliciter.
4. Your statement that Kastrup’s foundation involves quantum measurement, once again, entails ignoratio elenchi-as I specifically do address Kastrup’s attempt to base his metaphysical position on any variety of empirical “measurement” whatsoever: viz., “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason”. Furthermore, experience affords access only to immanent representations, such that experience cannot even in principle be appealed to at all in defense of metaphysical pretensions.
5. Your fifth point involves ignoratio elenchi-plus it is simply a bad argument. The very fact that egoism/solipsism is a logical possibility is already sufficient to rule out the logical necessity of the transcendental reality of a mind at large, meaning that Kastrup cannot sufficiently substantiate his metaphysical pretensions a priori. You have missed the point here. The logical possibility of solipsism serves not as a positive argument for solipsism, but rather as a sufficient demonstration that Kastrup’s position cannot possibly be established as logically necessary (cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a priori).
6. Technically, the mind at large hypothesis is not simpler than outright egoism/solipsism, because the mind at large metaphysical hypothesis at least involves dissociation mechanics and the generation and subsequent discontinuation of alters-in addition to each alter’s unique field of appearances/representations, and in addition to the mind-at-large’s own unique field of representations (none of analytic idealism’s metaphysical commitments can ever possibly be empirically verified, and are not logically necessary because of the logical possibility of solipsism, and the solipsist can at least verify his own field of representations empirically (even if the question of transcendental reality remains irrevocably problematic at best tout court))-whereas solipsism requires none of analytic idealism’s unnecessary metaphysical pretensions (to say nothing of the fact that analytic idealism’s metaphysical pretensions cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a priori or a posteriori anyway), solipsism requires only one sole field of appearances/representations for one sole self-sufficient mind. The question isn’t about explanatory elegance but about the multiplication of entities beyond what is given in immediate experience: solipsism, whatever its other philosophical challenges, remains ontologically more parsimonious as it doesn’t posit entities beyond immediate consciousness, and does not posit entities beyond necessity.
7. I do tacitly address the dashboard metaphor when I speak of “representations”-whether I state it explicitly or not, my reference to “representations” is the same as a reference to what Kastrup means by his “dashboard” metaphor-which is why Kastrup cannot possibly sufficiently substantiate his analytic idealism a posteriori, because the mind at large cannot possibly be a representation (a mere component of the “dashboard”) without repugnancy (without thereby reducing to a mere representation in me, which is specifically why metaphysical pretensions like Kastrup’s cannot have experience as their basis).
Ok I subbed, hope to hear you own version of idealism soon👍
host him and have an interview with him.There was another cambridge phd philosopher that challenged him
@@mariafil7249 It would please me immensely to have a live conversation with Mr. Kastrup concerning his analytic idealism and idealism more broadly. I am very much open to the idea.
@@OuroboricIdealism send him an invitation.Seriously thought.He has been hosted numerous of times on channels on the same wavelenght as yours ...
Sorry chief, not gonna listen to a 60 min AI narrated video
No worries-I nevertheless do appreciate you leaving a comment anyway.
Cheers.
yeah, sorry, me neither, it seems also to be a bit repetitive, repeating the same arguments again and again
@@janthomsen2 Thank you for your reply. As it pertains to your concern regarding the repetitiveness, I recapitulate the main points deliberately, actually-in order to consistently re-emphasize the point, and to ensure that the listener is constantly being reminded of the basis of my critique.
Hi Felipe, is it possible to get a transcript of this video online or in your writings? Thanks.
Yes. You can access the text version on my Medium page.
medium.com/@ouroboricidealism
This is very good so far (about 1/4 of the way in). This echoes my own complaints about his idealism
If you desire to share your “complaints about his idealism”, I would be very pleased to be informed of them.
What’s your opinion of Plotinus
To be quite honest with you, I have not acquainted myself with the work of Plotinus satisfactorily enough to formulate a stance on his work. My knowledge of Plotinus is mainly indirect, coming especially from the favorable review Novalis gives of him.
My chief focus has recently been, for better or worse, on German idealism-although I do consider it unpardonable to be not acquainted with the work of an eminent thinker such as Plotinus, such that I will resolve to give to his Enneads the attention I believe these deserve (at some point).
Thank you for bringing up that influential thinker, and for reminding me to examine his works.
Update: I have just purchased the complete Enneads of Plotinus on Audible. Thank you for reminding me to look into Plotinus’s works-I have been thinking about it for a while now. I look forward to listening to the Enneads on audiobook.
@@OuroboricIdealism good to hear, just a quick piece of advice, Plotinus is one of those authors where you have to listen/read it over multiple times to really catch all of what he is trying to convey. I intend to read his work over again starting soon. Cheers
Interesting. What you think about to me favore and most logical Giulio Tononi Integrated Information Theory?
@@experience-k7q
I am not sufficiently informed on Tononi’s “Integrated Information Theory” to offer thoughts with regard to it-my main focus has been German Idealism and Neo-Kantianism, and the empiricism (e.g., Locke, Berkeley, Hume) and rationalism (e.g., Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) which set the stage for its emergence in Kant’s Kritik der reinen Vernuft.
I will pay more attention to Tononi’s IIT, because you recommended it, and see what relationship it bears to the essentially critical work I am doing.
Thank you for mentioning IIT, and thank you for leaving a comment.
@@OuroboricIdealism Thank you. Yes, Tononi likes to mention Leibniz and many others, so it's interesting to watch your videos and learn more. But if you also pay attention to IIT and make a video about it, I'd be happy to watch it, as I see that you have a lot of knowledge and good insight. Thank you.
I'm going to watch this. But after the first 33 seconds, I'll make a prediction. This person will mischaracterize key aspects of Kastrup's work. Based on the tiny sliver, I've heard this person, in order to remain consistent, will have to disavow ANY and ALL ontological perspectives and remain skeptical of all. Let's see!
@@rooruffneck Thank you for leaving a comment. I look forward to any replies you may happen to have once you’ve listened to the whole video through.
By the way, let me just respond to your observation that I will have to “disavow ANY and ALL ontological perspectives and remain skeptical of all”-I actually already address this in the video itself: namely, I write that “‘All objections can be divided into dogmatic, critical, and skeptical’, tells us Kant in his first Kritik: ‘A dogmatic objection is directed against a proposition, a critical objection against the proof of a proposition … A sceptical objection sets assertion and counter-assertion in mutual opposition to each other as having equal weight, treating each in turn as dogma and the other as the objection thereto’ (A 388). It should be clear that our objection to Mr. Kastrup’s analytic idealism is a critical one: namely, ‘confines itself to pointing out that in the making of the assertion something has been presupposed that is void and merely fictitious; and it thus overthrows the theory by removing its alleged foundation without claiming to establish anything that bears directly upon the constitution of the object’ (Kant, KrV, A 389)”.
Furthermore, I assure you that-contrary to your prediction-I have not mischaracterized key aspects of Kastrup’s work, but have referred myself to the very essence of analytic idealism, which essence involves the postulation of the transcendental reality of a mind at large and its dissociated alters.
Anyways, thank you for watching the video, thank you for leaving a comment, and I sincerely look forward to being informed of any replies you may happen to have to my critique of analytic idealism.
@@OuroboricIdealism you seem to hit the nail on its head there, and I have always been right there with you on this.
Def will give this a watch!
It seems like experiences is tied to the brain as it you damage it you damages your experiences what do you think
I, like Kant, agree that “Neither bodies nor motions are anything outside us; both alike are mere representations in us; and it is not, therefore, the motion of matter that produces representations in us; the motion itself is representation only, as also is the matter which makes itself known in this way” (Kant, KrV, A 387).
@OuroboricIdealism I'm sorry but can you explain in more layman terms I'm sorta new to philosophy or make metaphors
Congratulations. Kastrup uses metaphors (the dashboard in a pilot´s cockpit) to build up his system. Treating metaphors of reality as if they were reality seems to be inherent to philosophical thinking. Metaphors resist empiricism. But they may reflect truth or part of it.
Maybe we don´t have other possibility, after all philosophy deals with non material "things". So maybe the way of the metaphor not being reality, is the only way humans can deal with reality.
Thank you for sharing this enlightening insight on the significance and utility of metaphors. It reminds me of Kant’s observation that “From all this it follows that it is not in keeping with the nature of philosophy, especially in the field of pure reason, to take pride in a dogmatic procedure, and to deck itself out with the title and insignia of mathematics, to whose ranks it does not belong, though it has every ground to hope for a sisterly union with it. Such pretensions are idle claims which can never be satisfied, and indeed must divert philosophy from its true purpose, namely, to expose the illusions of a reason that forgets its limits, and by sufficiently clarifying our concepts to recall it from its presumptuous speculative pursuits to modest but thorough self-knowledge” (Kant, KrV, A 735).
@@OuroboricIdealism Thanks!
My question now is: where is the video explaining Ouroboric Idealism?
@rubenpalma4045 Thank you for your question about the video explaining Ouroboric Idealism. The fact is that I recently decided to re-do my TH-cam channel; so I have deleted many of my older videos (except the “Waning Gibbous” short story), because I am going to re-upload them with different artwork. In my previous videos, including the one explaining Ouroboric Idealism, I used the same artwork for all of them, and I felt that it would be better to use a different art piece for every new video-so I will be re-uploading a new version of the video explaining Ouroboric Idealism very soon.
Promote your ideas then, why going after what you think fails? Why pick this precisely and not something else?
@@QDoppio
Thank you for encouraging me to promote my own ideas. I will definitely be uploading more content soon, which will promote my own philosophical stance (“Ouroboric Idealism”). In the meantime, if you want to get a sense of what “Ouroboric Idealism” involves, you can check out the other two videos on my channel (on “Transcendental Solipsism” and a short story titled “A Waning Gibbous”): these two other videos indicate features of my own position (“Ouroboric Idealism”).
Soon I will upload a proper “Introduction to Ouroboric Idealism”.
Additionally, I will also soon be uploading a critique of materialism (a draft of which I already have finished), which will be titled “Why Materialism Fails”-so it is not that I am only picking on Kastrup’s analytic idealism, since I will soon upload a critique of materialism as well.
Thank you for leaving a comment.
Chap thinks he can refute anything with ChatGPT 😂
@@al-kimiya6962
Thank you for leaving a comment. If you happen to have a substantial counterargument against my critique of analytic idealism, I will be very glad to be informed of it.
As it stands, however, your above remark-viz., “Chap thinks he can refute anything with ChatGPT”-because you tacitly attempt to dismiss my critique without providing any actual substantial counterargument, amounts to only an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.
Because your hitherto remark involves only fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem), your above statement may be dismissed as logically invalid.
@OuroboricIdealism first learn to write your own response without the help of braindead chatbot.
@@al-kimiya6962
Thank you for your continued engagement-however, you have once again failed to offer any actual substantial counterargument against my critique of analytic idealism. Because you are attempting to dismiss my critique, without offering any actual substantial counterargument, eo ipso you are once again engaging in the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy-and because fallacious, your recent statement may be dismissed as logically invalid.
If you have any actual substantial counterarguments to offer, I will be delighted to be informed of these-however, as it stands, your remarks have involved fallacy, and, worse, have served to give Kastrup’s analytic idealism a bad name (you are doing a miserable job of representing analytic idealism, and only tacitly confirming my position that analytic idealism is indefensible dogmatism, since, after all, if analytic idealism were defensible you’d have something more to offer than fallacies, but you don’t).
lol. Nope.
If you have a substantial counterargument to offer, I would be very pleased to know of it. However, as it stands, your statement-viz., “lol. Nope”-amounts to a blatant argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, because you are tacitly attempting to dismiss my critique of analytic idealism without offering any actual substantial counterargument.
As it stands, your statement is a fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem); and, hence, it may be dismissed as logically invalid.
Would you consider yourself an atheist, theist, panentheist, none of the above?
Have you try DMT?
@@ImportacionesBasicas Unfortunately, no I have not tried DMT (yet). However, I have tried LSD and psilocybin mushrooms-the experiences which I had after ingestion of these substances led me to the awareness that empirical phenomena are one and all essentially mental (although, unlike Kastrup, I am not convinced of the transcental reality of a mind at large and, like Hume, I concede that “To begin with the senses, ’tis evident these faculties are incapable of giving rise to the notion of the continu’d existence of their objects, after they no longer appear to the senses. For that is a contradiction in terms, and supposes that the senses continue to operate, even after they have ceas’d all manner of operation”).
Incidentally, I do tacitly refer to altered states of consciousness in the above video: “Whether the experience is ordinary or extraordinary, mundane or mystical, it remains bound by the fundamental limitation that experience can only provide access to representations in consciousness, not to transcendental reality beyond consciousness”.
Thank you for leaving a comment.
I havent listened to this yet. You are not a materialist right ?
@@Simon-xi8tb
Thank you for leaving a comment.
To answer your question: I am not a materialist. In fact, I am also presently working on a “Why Materialism Fails” video.
In fact, like Kant, I insist that “All bodies, together with the space in which they are, must be considered nothing but mere representations in us, and exist nowhere but in our thoughts”.
I will be uploading the “Why Materialism Fails” video soon; I am still writing the script for it.
Once again, thank you for leaving a comment.
Lol, no wonder your channel got so many subscribers, you're not fit to tie Kastrup's bootlaces. 🤣Why don't you go and study some epistemology first, you then might not e so painfully out of your depth.
Thank you for leaving a comment. However, because your comment does not involve any actual substantial counterargument against my critique of analytic idealism, and because your comment involves nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy, eo ipso your comment may be dismissed as being logically invalid.
If you have an actual substantial counterargument to offer here, I will be very pleased to hear it-as it stands, however, what you have offered hitherto is only fallacy (argumentum ad hominem).
You are out of the elect - firstly , why not show respect for DR. BERNARDO - he is not just a mister… shame on this presentation - ERASED
@CGMaat
Mr. Kastrup’s approach, whether you like it or not, is a dogmatic approach-his analytic idealism amounts to nothing more than a regression to pre-critical speculative dogmatic metaphysics à la Leibnizian-Wolffian scholasticism, illegitimately attempting to conclude existence given only essence.
My concern, furthermore, is *not* with Kastrup himself; concerning Kastrup, I say nothing. My aim is only to point out the dogmatism invariably inherent and constitutive of his approach.
Why aren't you narrating your own argument?
@dueldab2117
Thank you for your question. In response, the reason why I am utilizing a digital narrator is because it is more convenient for me; I do not have the time nor the desire to sit down and do/edit audio recordings; my main focus is as a writer; I am more concerned with writing than with narrating.
Thank you for the question and thank you for engaging with the video.
I think the jig's up, Bernardo. It's been a good ride while it lasted, which wasn't very long. Do you cry, 'Uncle!' yet or must we prolong this unpleasant encounter? This hurts me - more than it hurts me to think from your perspective. That really ain't natural. Is it? I don't even know anymore.
@@kokolanza7543 The jig has been up since 1781, when Kant first published his Critique of Pure Reason-since then, dogmatic speculative metaphysics (e.g., Kastrup’s analytic idealism) has been exposed as baseless (“Fight as they may, the shadows which they cleave asunder grow together again forthwith, like the heroes in Valhalla, to disport themselves anew in the bloodless contests” [Kant, KrV, A 756]).
@@OuroboricIdealism I'm all for some German Idealism, but as the neopragmatists have shown, trying to ground your thinking in some kind of epistemological foundation is a misguided pursuit. Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Dewey and several other pivotal philosophers have pointed this out (usually later in their lives).
@Archeidos-Arcana
Yes, you make a fair point-hence, why I sympathize with the Frühromantik Grundsatzkritik (cf. Hölderlin, Schlegel, and Novalis), which was a reaction against the rationalist-speculative approach in the works of Reinhold, Fichte, and Schelling.
at least it came from a human mind unlike this fake AI channel
@@world_musician
Thank you for leaving a comment. However, because you are tacitly attempting to dismiss my critique of analytic idealism without actually offering any substantial counterargument, eo ipso your remark amounts only to an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.
If you have a substantial counterargument to offer here, I will be very pleased to be informed of it-as it stands, however, you have offered only fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem), and Kastrup’s analytic idealism eo ipso remains without basis.