Eventually I came to the conclusion that Dennet is a poet, who loves to play with obvious inconsistencies and meaninglessness to make me, as a listener or reader, think and wonder. For sure, if I really were about to take his words literally, I couldn't complain if everyone else would call me outright nuts!
@@LaughingStock71 Yes, Dennett is a Situationist who has managed to introduce Dada into materialist philosophy. I think of him as the St Peter of physicalism, holding the keys to a heaven his followers refuse to enter lest it offends him.
Totally nuts...so glad we have moved beyond Dennet, he must have retired by now. Chomsky on the other hand IS an idealist, it is the best we can do, even John Cleese said something like," I don't know how you can argue for materialism after the recent work of quantum physics"....he has plenty of experience of illustrating nutty ideas so he should be able to spot one
I love these interviews with Bernardo Kastrup and everyone else you interview Jeffrey Mishlove! It gives me knowledge and understanding in my own consciousness development as a non-academic! Love from Norway. Thank you !
As usual, well done, with a rapport that always teases out some deeper nuances, along with some great teasers for the upcoming Schopenhauer book. Would still like to see JM moderate a discussion between BK and other thinkers inclined toward the primacy of consciousness, to see if some consensus can be arrived at ... In any case, keep them coming.
Well Done. I was lost at times however not as lost as trying to understand the repetitious nature of the mind and body being independent and separate. As we grow and progress, the new way of thinking will emerge for digestion of its nature.
Your a tough man Jeffrey... I hope I can be as tough and relaxed as you ...being able to have these conversations is miraculous...and accessing all this info...time for me to call it a night...so much info...hahah. Thank you.
consider the possibility that it is merely a language trick which makes this paradox possible. if one can declare oneself to be BOTH a subjective AND an objective idealist, one can just as easily declare oneself to be BOTH an idealist AND a dual-aspect monist. the unifying (or unified) monism is: perception itself. also curious about parallels with key aspects of Buddhist psychology.
I love listening to these exchanges with Dr. Kastrup and yourself. I don't know if I've ever heard Dr. K discuss the notion that the realm of mind will behave with the same rules of logic that he uses to develop his philosophy, since the rules of logic we use are largely based on a materialist worldview. (ie, cause must precede effect)
Emotions always outweigh reason. We only use logic or reason to justify our inner experiences but it is emotions that rule. However those that are able to move beyond both are able to cultivate intuition which can only occur when somebody is soul, atman, God, aligned
One of the major contributions of contemporary idealism stems from Charles S. Peirce "objective idealism". I would like to know what Bernardo has to say about Peirce, Whitehead and Bergson.
To quote Robert Price (about his own works), "they don't debunk my works, they just harrumph them". It becomes a chorus of "harrumphs", then more people want to join in. It seems that "harrumphing" is a sign of great intelligence... ;P
A pleasure as always guys. Regarding Libertarian free will: Libertarian free will is the idea that mind is not determined by space and time. This is experientially true: The body is determined to need food and water. Mind is free to give or not to give the body food and water. If Libertarian free will did not exist mind would not have a choice but to give the body food and water.
Bernardo, I think you put this ditty in one of your books which explains what happens when we remove our mind from physical objects: God in the Quad There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd To think that the tree Should continue to be When there's no one about in the quad." Reply: "Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God." Ronald Knox
perceiving is receiving, my belief is All has giving this to us, to perceive and receive, to subjectively learn that everything is objective, no more and no less, matter and mind it is existing in all because we are all part of All.
I enjoy how frank can candid this interview was. IDK if ive ever heard 'foul' language used in any of your other interviews but it certainly made me laugh.
@45: thank-you for finally elucidating the idea of the material demiurge--blind instinct. Of course, we can quibble about the idea of the material world:-p
He is discussing the person when he mentions the will to do something or not to do something. When he is discussing free will he is only focusing on preference and not values. There is a difference between the two. All of this has to do with personage and if you are going in that direction the Artificial intelligence should also be discussed as well as nature.
Could it be that as we age, and as we gather our experiences, the illusion of time accelerates because we speed through events that are similar to prior experiences (much like fast forwarding through a video). During the course of my day people and events will literally pop in and out of my life, as if I'm declaring that I've been there, done that, and don't need to experience that again.
My Q to Bernardo, Jefffrey or anyone interested in answering: What is the implication of conclusion that reality is mental? How does it affect our day to day attitude to reality? One may assume anything about reality, but what difference does it make? Anyone? I hope Bernardo will answer this question in future interview, or Jeffery will do an interview on this.
That conclusion is more than intellection. It must be experienced at a level beyond/before mentation, what we may call intuition, a reading between the lines of the rational mind so one directly sees, knows (the gnosis of the instinctual Will) and tacitly understands that to ask such a question (what is the implication that the conclusion that the reality is mental?) means one has merely applied thinking to the thoughtless ground of all thought. As Jung said, “We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect. The judgement of the intellect is only part of the truth.”
why schopenhauer though and not Bradley? Bradley's idealism has a unifying principle more consistent than Schoppy's "Will" and has an answer to solipsism
Berkeley, however, Schopenhauer is heavily influenced by Buddhism and some people argue that Buddhist was heavily influenced by the Gnostics. Modern-day Gnostics were Carl Jung who Bernardo's new book is about and Philip K Dick who wrote science fiction with many of his books being turned into films, Total Recall, Minority Report and his best-known Blade Runner. Over on FB I am friend's with PK's widow Tessa who wrote: “Anecdotal evidence, which the skeptics so readily dismiss, is actually empirical observation and ought to be the beginning of investigation, not the end of it.” Tessa B Dick I can only agree with Tessa and people who have NDE's are confirming empirically exactly what Bernbardo is arguing for, we are all manifestations of the Cosmic Mind. People return from these experiences with veridical information corroborated by others.
If anyone remembers A Fish Called Wanda... Sometimes I feel like Kevin Kline when Jamie Lee Curtis says “Apes do read philosophy Otto... they just don’t understand it” 😂
I don’t want to be a dissociated part of a whole. Because that means the people I love will just dissolve into one thing, and I like them as beautiful and separate as they are. This life has just feels like some awful thing that happens to me, the only good part has been the distinct and amazing characteristics of those I love. The fact that they are separate and sovereign is what fills me with happiness and life. I want them to have their own lives, not be some thing that only manifested because the universe is under pressure. And if we are only part of one thing, it would be so lonely. I don’t want to be part of one thing.
Some near death experiences suggest one can be totally individual and completely part of the whole, simultaneously. Omniscient and localised sounds good.
Delving deep into the essense of reality. Anyone ever read Philipp Meyers, The Son? Many insights, some so small that they’re barely noticed, like this one: “Man, today, lives in a coffin of flesh.” Or: “The body shrank. It shrank and shrank, while the soul grew - grew until the body could no longer hold it.”
I liked the way Paul Brunton explained it, that the world as an idea in the mind of God exists for us all, but the World Mind gives us the 'What' we shall experience, while our individual minds the 'How' we shall experience it.
You know, I find it very hard to understand how any scientist could even begin to think that idealism is out of the question. Science is populated with these entities - fields, particles, etc. - that have behaviors. They've done a great job organizing and categorizing those behaviors in ways that explain many many things. But at the bottom of it all, how can they even start to have an opinion of whether those entities are "mental" or "physical"? As long as the behaviors are right, how would they even start to tell the difference? To me it seems like a question that can't be addressed by science.
Always found Idealism pretty persuasive, but I've never been convinced by any of the arguments for free will, I'm glad Schopenhauer manages to combine both.
Timothy Sprigge was an absolute idealist as an academic philosopher in the 20th century (before social media)... referring to "un-understandable" Hegel. Curiously enough Sprigge came up with a panpsychist version of his idealism... I. Kant is more a (transcendental) phenomenalist, and agnostic when it comes to ontology... The problem of "free will" is that it means different things for different people, and in any case is a misnomer...
If we can speak of MATERIALIST IDEALISM , its supporters would be DAN BENNET & JAMES RANDY. It is as crazy to believe in pur material monism, than to believe in spiritual monism. Professor STAN DEHAENE ( College de France - Paris ) who has spent his life working on the human mind & consciousness, without finding a better way to know if "a subject is conscious" than to ask him : " If you are conscious, say YES " or for patients who had lost every mean of communication ( locked in patients) with the help of brain electronic imagery: " If you are conscious, imagine yourself slapping your hands (or an other action of the mind that is visible on the brain scan ).
Can anyone help me out with what Bernado says at around 13:27. He says “it still exist but it exists as____” ... sound like he says ‘will’? Then he says “it exists as a set of _____ states” a word that starts with a V? Really interested in this point.
He's forgetting that Ontological Idealism has several important branches. This discussion is restricted to the Schopenhauer version, but Ontological Idealism goes was back to Plato, Plotinus, then to Nargajuna (150-250), then to Advaita Vedanta, the foremost proponent being Shankara (788-820). These Schools would be non-dualist. At about 54 min he states "We are all string for the collapse of duality, but he only mentions the word "Advaita" once without further comment except to say that he writes nothing about it since his tool of logic doesn't venture there. Hello?
Dual aspect monism doesn't declare that mind and matter are from a third thing, only that they are of the SAME substance. This substance doesn't have to be separate and abstract. In fact the substance could be 'minded' with a dual aspect or property of matter. I.e. two sides of the same coin. This is how a dual aspect monism can be an idealism.
There is only “ONE” Ultimate Truth. And it is this: Every new thought that you have, is literally an exact NEGATION of your previous thought! And this applies to “ALL” your thoughts. So each new thought that you have, cancels out the previous one. It’s a negation, a cancellation, a contradiction. Etc. This is because your mind/soul is made of eulerian sinusoids. Mathematical sine and cosine waves. And they always have to balance to zero. This is why you have a positive thought, immediately followed by it’s negative counterpart to create and maintain a value of zero (0). This is also why the soul/monad is dimensionless and not detectable by any scientific method. Reality is all about creating and maintaining a zero level groundstate, because only that can be stable. Go ahead and try paying attention to it next time you’re having a thought. And you will see that they always negate eachother. This is why we are always confused and why doubt exists. The previous thought is the answer to your current thought! So you see.. It’s about understanding “WHY” you have the thoughts that you do! Rather than engaging with the actual content of the thoughts. (Which is what every single human on this planet is currently already doing and has always done). And once you become good enough at it, you can see that your current thought is always an EXACT *negation* of your previous thought! It’s also WHOLLY dependent upon the previous thought. The previous thought is what DEFINES the current thought. So for example, you may think about something being a certain way.. and than boom! Immediately a thought arises in your mind that contradicts it! So quite literally, your mind is made of negations! It’s all about opposites. Why wouldn’t our minds work this way? Why wouldn’t every new thought cancel and negate the previous one? This is the true version of universal balance. So your job is simply to become aware of it and to be able to see it clearly. And when you hit the limit of seeing it, you achieve enlightenment and gain the perspective of the mental frequency singularity outside space and time. +-+-+-+-+- = 0. I have checked this countless times. And it’s always accurate. This is the one thing that does not change or deviate in any way. It’s the one and only thing you can always 100% rely on. It’s the truth that you can check for yourself. So simply put, Your mind is made of negations! Even the negations themselves get negated. “Everything” gets negated. This is the only way that reality can ever be fair and all-inclusive. This is what Hegel was actually talking about all those years back when he spoke about the “negation of the negation” In fact, this is what Gnosis actually is.. Fully seeing the negation process! If this information reaches enough people, it will cause a global shift in consciousness.
Doesn't the witness, or pure awareness, underlie volitional states? That which is aware of any and all states? Isn't that the only non-sublatable (no)thing or substrate? The cosmic will that Bernardo refers to here seems to correspond to Ishvara, rather than Brahman, in Advaita Vedanta, with Brahman being the ultimate or absolute Reality.
Will take me another "tien" (😉) years to catch up with & understand Bernardo but I'm relieved in the knowing he's taking it 'easy'... 😋 Have a great week, everyone! 🤗
yes of course and guess what physicists has done the experiments that prove bilocation exist:www.livescience.com/2000-atoms-in-two-places-at-once.html?fbclid=IwAR3HXR1oyUwFzVzSfNHCJ_J_ST8hvPvZNSPwh8GPy60wv3kF1gf34XSVaaI
Just a thought on the unintentional/instinctive nature of the will of mind-at-large. Could it not just be that the mind at large is too pre-ocupied with the grander picture to interfere in our tiny lives on our tiny planet? The observable universe is mind mindbogglingly vast, and the time scale of the universe also, so perhaps we're as significant to it as a single skin cell in your body is to you, or even less. Alternatively, if we are actually a deliberate creation of the universal will then perhaps we're just one tiny little germinating seed in a gigantic field of alike seeds. We may be a little more significant in that case, but not directly attended to.
I now have all of his books and look forward to the one on Jung I wish he would write one on the grandfather of Idealism Bishop George Berkeley and I do implore Bernardo to get to grips with the Near-Death literature and the psi literature in the latter he should read the papers of Dean Radin et al in the former read the book Dying to be Me by Anita Moorjani because her NDE reinforces Bernardo's arguments. You can hear her testimony here in a talk she did for Ted X: th-cam.com/video/rhcJNJbRJ6U/w-d-xo.html The research of the late neuroscientist Dr John Lorber torpedoes the idea that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain Sheldrake has written articles on Lorber's work and Stuart Hameroff alluded to it in a talk he gave with Roger Penrose last year.
If consciousness is fundamental, where does unconsciosness appears from. Archetypes might be made purely of a "mental stuff", yet what they are representing is prior to consciousness, therefore inaccessible for it. Consciousness can only know a reflection of "that" in time and space - within itself. In this sense consciousness is merely a dispersed projection - seen only to (metacognitive) selfaware being - of a timeless and spaceless noumenon.
On idealism consciousness is the only existing substance. In other words: Everything that exists is consciousness (aka that which experiences and that which is experienced). Usually when we use the term unconsciousness we mean something that is outside our personal mind. And this is of course correct, but on idealism nothing is outside consciousness.
@@MidiwaveProductions Even if consciousness is regarded as a substratum, content and experiencer of every possible experience, this still doesn't mean that it is all there is. For, actuality of what is - being itself all there is - does not need to be experienced. In contrary - even if consciousness may also be what there is - the experience of what is, actually mean a contraction, due to (apparent) separation of actuality on what there is and experience of it. In this sense, the consciousness is always secondary. Again, what is, does not need to be experienced - conscious of. It does not need duration and location - time and space. It only is - unconditionally. Yet even this is saying too much, for it equally may be regarded as not being there - as own absence. Nevertheless, the consciousness can not comprehend nor contain what is. It can only comprehend and contain a reflection of what there is, within and as itself. A reflection which brings it an illusion - of being all there is.
@@ales1us1 You say: Even if consciousness is regarded as a substratum, content and experiencer of every possible experience, this still doesn't mean that it is all there is. Response: I am not expressing personal opinions. I am describing what idealism is. Idealism is the opposite of materialism. In other words: Idealism is the idea that the only ontologically real substance is consciousness. On materialism everything that exists is made of matter. On idealism everything that exists is made of consciousness.
Monist Idealist. Note that I am starting a new comment, because nesting has gone too far. Gonna call it a day there for today, but perhaps it will be useful for you if I essentialize (especially since I am asking you to do so) key points of mine, so that you can refer to them from this if necessary. Obviously this has to be short so can't be nuanced in the way that longer discussional paragraphs are, but this captures the essence of it. 1) why do I believe the term “pre-conscious” or “life force” is necessary and more nuanced over “consciousness”? Because consciousness is a human term for our experience, and it is not a secure assumption that it can be downwards-extrapolated beyond a given point. And yet there is plenty of evidence that “something” extrapolates downwards, eventually terminating in forms of “awareness” that seem to be entirely nonreflexive and non-self-seeing. The terms “consciousness” and “awareness” do not work well for these situations and are thus more confusing than not. This applies even to our own human state. I maintain that we don't even know what we actually mean when we say that a baby is “conscious.” 2) Why do I criticize the concept of a universal mind? Basically, I see no evidence for it. The universe does not look like it has something “mind like” that spans over it, and there ought to be clear symptoms that disclose such a monumental claim in my view. I am also not clear where individual beings are supposed to fit into that picture. Also scant (or almost non-existent) evidence for whole-over-parts influences. 3) Why do I believe that the world is primarily bottom up ontology? Basically most of the real world evidence from biology. Such top-down as exists does not appear to be strong. This problem not dismissed by claiming “all is mind” because the facts of the causal ladder in biology do not change. 4) Do I think that there is hard “non-being-ness” (notice that I am using this term, please, and not “unconsciousness”) No I don't. But I must confess that it appeared to be suggested by my undergoing of general anaesthetics. There is no lying going on here and no attempts at prevarication. Conflicted? Yes, possibly. But that was my response to a situation. I don't really intend for you to mount a critical reply to this post. More that it should serve as a go-to reference for my positions on each of these sub-issues. Thanks.
1. I really don't like that you ignored my point about how youtube comments are not appropriate for what we're trying to accomplish here. You've just proven that you don't think long-term since by starting a new thread here you haven't solved the problem of "nesting" you've merely pushed it back a step by posting here. If "nesting" was the problem before then it's going to show up again here... It's time we start exploring a new medium. Where else would you like to have this discussion? Are you more comfortable with something like Skype or email or something else? If we're going to end the problem of "nesting" then let's actually solve the problem... 2. you still haven't told me what exactly you want me to essentialize despite me asking you explicitly multiple times now... We've talked about so many things I don't know what you're getting at. "human term for our experience" I addressed this in a very crucial point that you ignored entirely. You need to address my point about the conceptual problem of other minds. We're keeping it short so you'll just have to go back and read my points from our earlier discussion. "life force" I addressed this as well, you're going to fall prey to eliminativism. If you want to eliminate consciousness from our concepts and vocabulary you're no different than dan dennett. "I see no evidence for it." I've cited Schaffer's paper, kastrups case for idealism, and my playlists. I've given plenty of evidence. Your only hope is to sneak in your epistemology and equivocate on what "evidence" means but as I explained what I've cited goes over philosophical arguments and scientific evidence so you can't hide behind that excuse. Again: do not stoop to lying about my position. feel free to disagree with me but don't lie and pretend I didn't bring evidence, that's simply dishonest of you. "Basically most of the real world evidence from biolog" you're not even giving an argument or evidence you're just saying the word "biology." I cited an entire paper going over an ontology that puts the whole as fundamental to the parts and the paradoxes that rise from a bottom-up ontology that you failed to address.
@@MonisticIdealism @Monistic Idealism You might be right about TH-cam comments, but it is not as serious if we aren't generating as many posts in real time. The conversation clearly has a finite life span anyway, because we are not going to agree. Fundamental differences about key terms are involved. In my experience, those issues don't usually become resolvable in discussions. I did ask you not to mount a response to this particular post, but to use it as a reference, yet I see you've gone ahead and done it anyway. It still stands my quick-reference for you. I have already answered each of the objections you have raised above, and/or explained why they are not applicable to the position I hold, as I hold it. "conceptual problem of other minds" - I already answered you on this. "eliminate consciousness" - we don't agree on a definition of consciousness so when you use the word you use it on your terms and not on mine. On mine, it is not a sufficiently nuanced vocabulary. "evidence" Arguments are nor empirics. I already addressed this with the "fairy behind" discussion. "biology" I gave specific examples of neo-cortical and sub-cortical compromise in the brain, of growth and development, and of how lower levels are always necessary to support higher levels. Asked you for a single example of an organism developing from the top down where the lower levels aren't in place yet. Understand that we are talking about causal chains, which cannot be dismissed simply by definitional collapses.
@@marineboyecosse What happened, I thought you were "Gonna call it a day there for today"? You just couldn't stop yourself from responding could you? lol I'm not being passive aggressive when I ask this I'm simply curious: do you have some kind of OCD or anything like that? You seem to be responding compulsively. You keep saying you're going to stop for the day but can't seem to control yourself. If this is so I'm not sure how comfortable I am enabling problem behavior. Anyway: If you insist on youtube comments then whatever but you really can't be upset at me for referencing papers your way since these are mere comments so it's irrational for you to expect me to fit what is necessary to make an air-tight case. I will reference research since in all practicality we simply do not have the space to fit everything in a comment and it's quite frankly stupid to believe otherwise. We need to have realistic expectations here, come on now... "I did ask you not to mount a response to this particular post" You didn't say that, you said: "I don't really intend for you to mount a critical reply to this post." If this is just some ruse to get the last word then just be real and come out with it, I'm not here for childish pissing contests I'm here to discuss the issues. "I have already answered each of the objections you have raised above, and/or explained why they are not applicable to the position I hold, as I hold it." I then listed my rebuttals to your rebuttals which to this day stand un-refuted by you since you cut the conversation short. I have several replies that you haven't addressed, you've explained this is for practical reasons and I understand but still my arguments stand un-refuted. "I already answered you on this." No you did not, you literally didn't even address it let alone give an answer to it. This is the first time you've even noticed that I've brought up the conceptual problem of other minds. "a definition of consciousness" I've given my definition of consciousness: what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. This is a definition that has been used extensively the past decades and is widely accepted by scholars in philosophy of mind. I don't recall you giving a definition of consciousness... Still, if you're trying to remove mental concepts and vocabulary you're just another eliminativist. "Arguments are nor empirics." That's very nice but proof=proof. If an argument is valid and the premises are true then the conclusion _must_ be true, that's how logic works. Also I've cited scientific evidence that you keep conveniently ignoring... Again, if you want to play this game you can't be a sneak about it and hide your epistemology. What is your epistemology? Come out from the shadows and stop hiding. Are you afraid if you tell me I'll knock it down and hence your objections crumbles at the foundation? "examples" I noted how you have the burden of proof not the burden of examples. All of these "examples" can be interpreted in a priority monist lens and fit perfectly with idealism, unlike your dualism which leads you right into the mind-body problem that idealism does not suffer from. Also I'm pretty sure I've referred you to Schaffer's paper where he goes into philosophical arguments and scientific evidence where he goes into detail about how priority monism works which you suspiciously refuse to read... you say you want answers but then refuse to read the answers when they are provided to you. I ask you again: _why are you really here?_ are you actually trying to gain truth and understanding or are you here to just bicker? Please be honest with me about this, I don't want to waste my time with someone who is just really bored and wants to bicker about nonsense
Are you sure I haven't noted how you fall prey to the mentalism suspicion with this response? Perhaps if you can define for me exactly how you are using the term “the mental suspicion” I can more sufficiently address that question. At present, I don't really know exactly what you mean by it, mostly because your definitional use of the term mental seems to me only applicable to human-proximal lifeforms. "Existence is always concrete. What I am talking about is human models or abstractions, which, as sponsored by a parochial survival-oriented monkey unit on an average sized burning gas ball, is unlikely to be able to capture, let alone speak for, existence as a whole." Thanks for proving my point: your ontology commits you to all sorts of abstractions while an idealist ontology has a more direct line to reality in a concrete way while avoiding many abstractions. Existence is what we are called upon to explain. If a model or standpoint doesn't much account for actually encountered phenomena, it can't really be said to do much work. A universal mind is currently in that situation. "No, I disagreed (and still disagree) that consciousness or mental is the right terminology to use for it." This is no different than eliminativism then. You're trying to tell me we can do away with mental concepts and mental language. " As said multiply, I don't think the language is nuanced enough. I don't think we know enough about lower forms of life to assume them to be any kind of “experiencer.” I don't think we can downward extrapolate human terms like consciousness and mental. I don't think we can know that lower life strata have a “mentality”. I don't think we are certain, nor do I think that we even can be certain, that lower forms of life can distinguish themselves as “entities” at all and I deeply suspect thaqt the lowest cannot. You don't seem to believe that any of that is serious. Whereas I believe it is ALL serious. The term “neutral” monism is in a sense unfortunate, because there is actually nothing “neutral” about it" I remember saying this all the way from the beginning the very first time neutral monism was even mentioned lol "so long as you don't try to deform the character of my central arguments." I have absolutely no intention of doing so. I don't want to straw man your arguments, I want to steel-man your arguments. As even noted in the SEP, neutral monism in particular should be examined on a case by case basis since there isn't a unified view of neutrality and if you recall I asked you what your version of neutrality was before I launched criticism. As an idealist I'm all too familiar with how important it is to understand a position first before you begin criticizing a view. I can't tell you how many times people have objected to me with "arguments" along the lines of "well I can't change my computer in a unicorn with my thoughts, checkmate idealism!" which only proves they don't understand idealism in the first place. I'm not seeing something for me to reply to here. "human sensorium." I refer you to my point about the conceptual problem of other minds. you saw off the branch you sit on "which I have given pretty good reasons at this point for implausibility." I have responded about the issue of other minds. This has actually always been the point I've been making to you - you have now simply expanded to include humans. I don't have a problem with that. Ultimately (as Bernardo himself said in the video) everything other than solipsism is inference (and he is right about this). You really haven't and have only proven you flip flop on your position. You said you agree with the spectrum, now you think the spectrum is implausible. make up your mind... I don't know what statement of mine you are referring to here. Please quote me in context. I don't flip flop in my position. My position hasn't changed. "Neutral monism has always had a relationship to Idealism, but it is wrong to call it Idealism." As noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The most frequent type of objection to the traditional versions of neutral monism is that they are all forms of mentalistic monism: Berkleyan idealism, panpsychism, or phenomenalism. The argument is simple: sensations (Mach), pure experience (James) and sensations/percepts (Russell) are paradigms of non-neutral, mental entities. Hence there is nothing neutral about these versions of neutral monism. Good. I like this paragraph because it gives me something of substance to respond to. All these positions take as their starting point an underlying assumption that a basic “experiencer” must exist at all levels of existence where the expression of a cosmic principle is germane to awareness. And I just don't think that's a secure assumption. I think there is a non-dual state prior to all “experience” in which the possibility of experience is nonetheless implicit. You may not like the idea, but I know for a fact that you cannot disprove it either because I am talking about a soft rather than a hard emergence. I think too that this was something of a blind spot among these thinkers. It seems that schopenhauer himself comes closer to understanding it with his “Will” that is not necessarily any kind of mind. My view is in that kind of terrain, but not identical. Incidentally, as an aside, it's kind of bewildering to me why Bernardo favours Schopenhauer. Schop. Was a deep, deep pessimist and his philosophy is not a joyous one at all. Not sure why Bernardo feels himself drawn to it. Returning from my aside...so yes, I think it is possible that there is a more basic cosmic level than all experiencers, and that this in some sense the ground. It is not the same thing as mute matter, because there is not contained, anywhere in the concept of mute matter, the possibility of the ground blossoming to experientiality when it first starts to encounter itself in contexts sufficient to have dual complexity. This is not a deep, far off mystery either, I reckon it is this same ground we were emerging from as infants...every one of us...and which we sink into each night during deep sleep...when there is no experiencer to be found...no Berkleyan Ideals, no psyche fluorescing in dreams, no sensations, no “pure experience.” And yet this ground is not matter. This is a philosophical subtlety that has yet been insufficiently explored. You say that of Idealism, and this is why I am saying it here of Neutral Monism. The prima facie plausibility of this objection is beyond doubt. " They have indeed had a relationship together, and that's primarily because neutral monism essentially lapses into idealism. The versions that don't lapse into idealism fall prey to eliminativism, and this is the first objection brought up in the SEP. "Look..." I think you're a little lost, we were talking about defining awareness and consciousness and so forth. "muh flatworms" The conceptual problem of other minds, my dude Read carefully what I just wrote and don't respond in a knee-jerk way. I'm trying to explain to you a kind of world view you may not be familiar with, and which (may have) escaped your philosophical attention. Whether it has or not, the fact is, the objections you are raising here cannot correctly be taken to apply to it, so you must internalize it properly first before you can comment on it sufficiently. Or you are going to continue to repeat this “eliminativist” point despite it being dissolved. An analogy might help: A mirror has the inherent ability to reflect things. But if a flat mirror that cannot see itself is the only existentium, then nothing will be seen in it despite “existence being a mirror.” If the mirror becomes curved, so that now it can glimpse and reflect itself, now things will be seen in the mirror, a circumstance that we call consciousness...but which is not a hard emergence. Nothing "new" has come into being, except a recursive way in which the existentium relates to itself.
@UCtMQBYpedLgsQVEYe8h_91g "how you are using the term “the mental suspicion”" From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Neutral Monism section 7. Objections to Neutral Monism-7.2 The Mentalism Suspicion: "The most frequent type of objection to the traditional versions of neutral monism is that they are all forms of mentalistic monism: Berkleyan idealism, panpsychism, or phenomenalism. The argument is simple: sensations (Mach), pure experience (James) and sensations/percepts (Russell) are paradigms of non-neutral, mental entities. Hence there is nothing neutral about these versions of neutral monism. The prima facie plausibility of this objection is beyond doubt. " You yourself have noted there really isn't anything neutral about neutral monism. The problem is if you're going to have a non-physicalist monism with irreducible consciousness that is fundamental your position is identical to a form of idealism. "human-proximal lifeforms." The conceptual problem of other minds, my dude. you saw off the branch you sit on "A universal mind is currently in that situation." The complete opposite is true as David Chalmers argued you earlier. If you want more details about Cosmic Idealism I suggest you read his paper: "Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem" " I don't think we can know that lower life strata have a “mentality”." So one minute you believe there's as spectrum, the next you don't. You just can't stop contradicting yourself "I'm not seeing something for me to reply to here." Are you even human? lol I was just speaking candidly about not misrepresenting you and how I can relate is all, ya know human stuff. "I have responded about the issue of other minds." No you literally have not addressed _anything_ about the conceptual problem of other minds. Your point about flatworms applies to other minds in general, you're failing to see how your turning up of the skepticism dial ends up hurting yourself more than it hurts me. "I don't have a problem with that." Yes you do, you have to give an answer to the conceptual problem of other minds. You seem to think this problem applies only to flatworms when really it applies to all other minds in general, thus you're shooting yourself in the foot. "you cannot disprove it either " Yes I can: as long as you're talking about the mental emergent from the non-mental you will always grapple with the hard problem of consciousness as well as the mind-body problem. "And yet this ground is not matter. This is a philosophical subtlety that has yet been insufficiently explored. You say that of Idealism, and this is why I am saying it here of Neutral Monism." Why do you give neutral monism a break despite it's being explored so much while you don't for idealism despite it's neglect? you have this strange prejudice against idealism that is starting to seem more psychological than philosophical at this point. If you were just consistent and gave idealism a bit of slack like you do for neutral monism it wouldn't seem that way I assure you. "Or you are going to continue to repeat this “eliminativist” point despite it being dissolved." only after you've successfully dissolved it. "Nothing "new" has come into being" yes it has, you're saying there's non-consciousness and then boom somehow there's consciousness. That's just the hard problem of consciousness all over again...
@@NewThinkingAllowed Delusion is when you think something exists but in reality it does not. Example: flying teapot. Illusion is when what you think exists actually exists but not in the form you previously imagined. Example: fatamorgana. So philosophers like Sam Harris may think free will maybe an illusion, but not delusion. Richard Dawkins may claim God is delusion, not illusion.
@@kimyunmi452 Would you nonetheless agree that an illusion presuppose consciousness? Because yes you're right when you say "Illusion is when what you think exists actually exists but not in the form you previously imagined. Example: fatamorgana." but even then an illusion always exists in consciousness. If you say conciousness itself is an illusion there remain the question: illusion of what, of matter? Then we are confronted again with the hard problem of consciousness, because we have to ask how can such an "illusion" emerge from pure abstraction. Best regards, Yannick.
@@descartes6797 yes i agree illusion presupposes consciousness. That much is clear. I just dont think Dennet denies the existence of consciousness as such. His book title is "Consciousness Explained", not "Consciousness Delusion". But i have to say i have not yet read dennet's book. So, i will have to stop here since i dont want to misconstrue his position on the subject.
Mr Dennett makes many different mistakes, maybe that's because he abandoned trying to convince people with reason, and just shows cool illusion tricks. One mistake he makes is a contradiction, first he claims that our 5 senses perception is true with which he infers the existence of brains, cells and matter, and then he claims that 5 senses perceptions is false, showing us illusion tricks.
Everything is an inference except solipsism - how true! There are no functioning solipsists, outside secure hospitals at least. For materialists there is no "I" outside matter, yet instead of being confined for mental instability, they are elevated to the chair for the popular understanding of science and sit at the high tables of academia. At least Daniel Dennett is honest enough to admit he's not actually conscious. School maths exams demand the pupil shows their working-out, not just the answer. If only the philosophy of science was taught on the same principles magical thinking might disappear very quickly.
Some questions that Idealism needs to answer in order to be credible. If everything is consciousness, where does consciousness "go" during sleep and during the administration of a general anaesthetic? What exactly are long term comatose patients and how is their vegetative state illustrative of "consciousness"? Why do we emerge from a background of unknowing and unconsciousness (birth) and sink back into it (death)? Why do those patterns we refer to as material systems (even if they be considered relatively less flexible systems of "consciousness") hold more sway over our fate than our conscious state or our desires? Unfortunately, Alzheimers pulls the punches, not our desire or will for it not to be there. I am with Bernardo on the idea that consciousness (although especially "proto-awareness") is more important ontologically than it has been given credit for, and in some sense (especially a "proto" sense) may be equivalent to a ground of being. The problem for Bernardo's position though, is that if that ground is not *conscious of itself* and if it essentially needs the world to become aware of itself, then that isn't consciousness, that is a neutral monism that we would have to call "proto-awareness" or some such similar term. Specifically, the growth of a plant can function with the godlike "will" of life but at the same time be unaware of doing so, and is therefore an unconscious or pre-conscious system. But the difficulty here is that if there are unconscious or pre-conscious systems at all, then we cannot be inhabiting an Idealism. Many things in our own bodies and minds give all the signs of being pre-conscious systems (indeed as I see one commenter has already mentioned below). Minds are found, always, sitting on top of these pre-conscious stems, not existing without them. Consciousness, therefore, seems to need a "pre-conscious stem" in order to exist, and the stem, moreover, can exist without the flower, as evidenced by (most of) nature. But again, while it would claim some relation with it, that cannot really be Ontological Idealism. This becomes a matter of language, though it is an important matter and not just the splitting of hairs. Because if awareness is not actually aware of itself most of the time, but is simply "aware" in terms of expressing a primitive, vegetative kind of living urge or impetus that is itself, then it is not really appropriate or accurate to use the term "consciousness" with respect to it. That vegetative kind of pre-awareness might be irreducible, but consciousness is not. And indeed, this is our experience, as I indicated with the sleep / coma/ anaesthetic examples, and many other examples which could be taken. It is not sufficient for Idealism that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. If the awareness element of consciousness can be subtracted leaving only a vegetative primal action groping in the dark, and for which we can say that consciousness is necessary but not yet sufficient, then the noumenon is not consciousness, but is pre-aware or neutral monist in character.
@Nerian hi. I am fairly familiar with Bernardo's work. Again, while I am not opposed to it, and favor it well over materialism, I have not seen some of these issues addressed to my satisfaction. However, if you have a specific video reference with time stamps for specific points you are referring to, I will take a look again at whatever you have in mind. Thanks.
@can't look anymore thank you for an interesting reply. I certainly don't want to dismiss what you bring up, which seems to me the same question that near death experiences bring up (the core existential fact of them rather than their content), but I also do think that this still poses some problems. Foremost among these is the issue of whether these experiences (including yours) are actually sponsored from human consciousness, and are therefore "post flower" rather than "pre flower" if you take my meaning. That is a very real question, because it is not at all clear that such a thing as a near death experience can exist without first having a blossomed human consciousness even capable of describing one. The trouble here, then, is that a human consciousness might, under unusual circumstances, be capable of transporting part of itself back down the "stem" into the pre-conscious, and there (at least temporarily) altering the pre-conscious, thus giving the impression of a consciousness there that doesn't really reside there. I can, unfortunately, think of no straightforward empirical way to test that question over the assertion that NDE-style consciousness is one that lucidly abides. The vegetative intelligence, but lack of reasoned intelligence, in the systems of the body again suggest that those systems are pre-conscious rather than sponsored from actual consciousness. In addition, the issue that I originally raised is not answered by this. I don't doubt for a second that your experience is real. On the other hand, I have had GAs on multiple occasions and never been conscious during one. The question of where consciousness was if consciousness is irreducible in those circumstances is thus a pressing one. Because, evidently, my consciousness was "reduced"...so far as I know, to zero. One could perhaps argue that I was conscious but do not remember it, but I would respond again that memory is so wrapped up with what we call consciousness that I am not especially persuaded that any "consciousness" without memory isn't...once again...really "pre-conscious." This also relates back to a comment I (believe I) made on an earlier video. If some noumenon state is already fully conscious and knowing, it becomes problematic as to why consciousness would venture at all into our animal condition. On the other hand if the pre-conscious senses instinctively that it can somehow enrich or complete itself (i.e. perhaps by "becoming aware of" itself) in the embodied condition, this makes at least some kind of partial sense of our condition in the cosmic ecology. Perhaps this is what makes such experiences as NDEs possible. This is also akin, I think, to what Schopenhauer was actually arguing in TWAWAR. The Will of being isn't attached to an "entity" of some kind, and does not have knowledge for specifics beyond the knowledge won in the world itself by unfolding context. Specifically: existence cannot know what it is like to be a fisherman in China, until both fishermen and China exist in a fully conscious, experientially realized world. Hope this makes sense.
I'm not seeing why idealism in particular _needs_ to answer these questions in order to be "credible." These questions can be asked of materialism or dualism just as easily. I don't know of any answers they would give to these questions, yet they are still seen as "credible" philosophies of mind that are mainstream. Idealism is a heavily neglected philosophy, to say it's underexplored is an understatement. Contemporary idealism is primarily motivated as an alternative due to the failures of mainstream views like materialism or dualism (the hard problem of consciousness and the interaction problem respectively) so a lot of details about idealism still need to be filled in since there's very few authors on the topic and most of them are addressing problems that press on contemporaries like the ones I mentioned earlier. So if there are certain details that idealism doesn't have specifics for, I'd say give it time as it's just now beginning to be explored a tad more and I'd be happy to recommend some contemporary idealists who are getting more into specifics. I'd also note to not forget about the distinction between easy problems and a hard problem. If these questions do pose problems for idealism they may simply be easy problems in which case they can be resolved by hammering out some details. Only if you present a hard problem is the integrity of idealism threatened, in which case the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there is a hard problem of sorts for idealism. I'm going to attempt to give some answers to your questions, but please keep in mind what I've noted in my initial paragraph: consciousness doesn't "go" anywhere, facts about space and time are reducible to phenomenal/phenomenological facts. Concepts of the body and of "long term" and duration in general are logical constructions of phenomenal/phenomenological facts. A comatose patient is someone with impaired cognitive faculties and when they're repaired so are their mental states. Maybe we don't emerge from a background of unknowing and unconsciousness, I'd recommend checking out a video called: "The Dream Of Life - Alan Watts." To give a bit more detail on that answer I believe more thorough scientific studies of dreams and dream characters may give us more insight into this as they may actually be conscious themselves which means we have a real world case of minds within a mind which may help explain how our minds are grounded in the single mind that is fundamental to reality. Maybe those "material systems" don't hold more sway: it may seem like Alzheimers pulls the punches but if you look at the ways of preventing Alzheimers they're things that you pull the punch for: smoking cessation, regular exercise, eating a balanced and nutritious diet, lifelong learning and so forth. I'm not saying these are "proven" ways of preventing this disease but there's good evidence that essentially taking care of yourself in general wards of such diseases, and that choice is all up to you. But in general I want to note that as a monist and an idealist I don't make a distinction of two types of causes: all causation is mental in nature, but we shouldn't equivocate mental causation with volition, something can be mental in nature without being in your control. I think this issue of proto-consciousness or pre-consciousness emerges because the parts are taken to be prior to the whole. A monistic idealist like myself doesn't take these proto-mental states as the ground of being or as ontologically foundational, it is the whole that is foundational rather than the parts. If there are such things as proto-mental states it's because they fragment (or de-compose) from a mental state that is already whole. So there's no non-conscious substance or property or anything beforehand, the whole is indeed conscious and the whole is prior to the parts. I believe a single subject is fundamental and that they are conscious of themselves, so I think I can definitely avoid this charge of neutral monism, not so sure about Kastrup though. If I'm missing anything here or if there's any questions you have feel free to let me know.
@@MonisticIdealism Hi and thanks for the reply. I won't address the weaknesses of materialism or dualism, as I take it as given that they have such weaknesses. My issue is with whether the concept of an already completed consciousness tallies with nature, and I cannot easily see that it does. Consciousness cannot have "parts" if it is fundamental to being (unlike mind, for instance, which can easily have parts, or at least something akin to them). Therefore if it is possible for consciousness to be subtracted, then consciousness cannot be the fundamental. There cannot be any "unconscious" circumstances. One can argue from a "top down" kind of ontology, from some kind of completed consciousness into progressive states of contraction and forgetfulness (philosophical equivalent of the religious idea of the Fall) and then somehow nature begins working back up again from the lowest states to make the natural world "appear" as if it is bottom up, but I think that would be a fudge to be honest. Conscious mind looks like it emerged out of the pre-conscious, and the pre-conscious out of the bluntly vegetal. And by the way I think that there is a hard problem for Idealism: namely that pre-conscious and unconscious states appear to exist. This is what I think happens to me and others when we experience a general anaesthetic, knockout concussion, coma etc. I was of course being metaphorical when I asked "where does consciousness go?" But the fact is, if I have no practical experience of being conscious under Circumstance X, I don't see how it can plausibly be argued that somehow I was conscious nonetheless. If consciousness can be switched off like a light bulb with a (relatively simple) chemical switch like this, then the Occamish conclusion has to be that both the bulb and the switch are ontologically precedent over the "light." I think what happened when I had a GA was that the "flower" of consciousness contracted, and what remained was what it originally emerged from...the pre-conscious "stem." Only when the stem was once more disinhibited could consciousness (the flower) once more express. Likewise with brain damage, brain disease, learning, growth and development, somnambulism, and so many other things. Organic systems in general give all the signs of being pre-conscious. If the stem is attacked, the flower cannot sustain, rather than the other way round (to take but the simplest and most greatly evidenced example). It is an interesting point you raise about "the whole being the fundamental" although, in pragmatic terms, I'm not really sure what it means. If the Ground needs self-reflection in order to see itself, hence the universe and embodied beings, then consciousness itself becomes a kind of "process dialectic" and not an ontological substance as in conventional Idealism. In that dialectic, if the "universe" side of the conversation were withdrawn, there would not be any principle left capable of knowing itself. I would have to say that it is difficult to know what the import of the world is at all - assuming that it has one - if it is not something as far reaching as this, namely a modification of sorts upon the Fundamental. What does it mean to "modify" something that already contains time within itself? Who knows....but again, if we are talking about a dialectic this is an entire other matter from conventional idealism. The real million dollar question about all mystical experiences, NDEs etc, is whether in fact they continue off the end of the medical crisis, or whether that blossom of lucidity is lost again and consciousness fades back (either gradually or swiftly) to a pre-conscious stem, perhaps from which it can later (though somewhat unconsciously) re-emerge into manifestation again via life as another embodied being. I haven't found any of the arguments that pose the idea that it does continue in lucid glory especially convincing, though neither do I dismiss the possibility offhand. Specifically, I think I am inclined to take the cosmic ground state as "that which has the inherent potential to blossom as consciousness but does not yet have such consciousness without the unfolding of multitudinous contexts in which to perceive itself." It's a bit of a mouthful perhaps, but hopefully the meaning is clear enough.
@@marineboyecosse Thanks for the reply as well. My point wasn't that materialism and dualism are weak (though they are), my point is I'm simply not seeing why it is necessary for idealism specifically to answer these questions in order to be taken to be "credible" while materialism and dualism do not. It comes off as a sort of double standard when one philosophy, especially one as neglected as idealism, is held to this really high bar while the others are arbitrarily let off the hook. If materialism and dualism are "credible," (which they are as mainstream views) without having an answer to these questions then I'm not seeing why idealism too can't be "credible" without having an answer to these questions, especially with idealism being so underexplored and how in time we may be getting a lot more details which could provide the exact answers you seek with just a little bit more patience. The whole (in this case: consciousness) can indeed have parts if it is fundamental, you must not be familiar with the strongest contemporary form of monism known as _Priority Monism._ I highly recommend you check out a paper by one of the leading contemporary defenders of monism named Jonathan Schaffer who wrote a great article entitled: "Monism: the priority of the whole." He comes at it from a materialist perspective, but he makes the general case that the whole is indeed more fundamental than the parts and that the whole does have parts. There are no unconscious circumstances: a single mind is fundamental, with metaphysical explanation dangling downward from this one mind that subsumes everything. Nothing happens "outside" of this fundamental consciousness because nothing exists independently of this consciousness. If you think the parts are before the whole then the burden of proof is on you to support this. I've provided a paper for priority monism so you can delve into that if you wish. I'm not seeing any reason to believe there is such a thing as "pre-conscious" and "unconscious states," hence I've been given no reason to believe idealism has hard problem as you so put it. You are not the totality of reality. Even if you never existed and were never a conscious agent, consciousness would still be fundamental and exhaustive of reality. Just because you have mental states you don't entirely remember, or are themselves not fundamental, that doesn't mean there is a non-mental reality. The point about comas and so forth is pretty moot given this: if you were a fundamental entity this would be a problem but you're a mere contingent being so there's no problem if your consciousness were to "go" (which it doesn't). Just because you lack memories of mental states that doesn't mean they didn't happen, and it's possible for mental states to lack certain intensity so just because you may not have experiences as vivacious as waking life that doesn't mean you're not having them. Many people have many dreams overnight but they simply don't remember them. It takes effort to improve dream recall, dream frequency, and lucidity, and even then it's not always achieved unless you're a natural like some lucky people. I don't believe consciousness or this self-reflection is non-fundamental, the whole is itself consciousness so there is fundamentally awareness and awareness of awareness. That is a bit of a mouthful you said earlier, but with an approach like mine the issue you try to raise appears to be dissolved. I seem to have a purer form of idealism than the one you're attacking. I hold to what David Chalmers calls "Cosmic Idealism" which is defined as: all concrete facts are grounded in facts about the mental states of a single cosmic entity. This cosmic entity is a pure subject of experience whose being is exhausted by its being conscious, by there being something that it is like to be it. So there is no pre-conscious or unconscious, there is only consciousness.
![Rick Roderick on Heidegger - The Rejection of Humanism [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sDqDJJcJAOg/mqdefault.jpg)
Kastrup on Dennet: "Outright nuts!" had me in stitches for a minute. Wonderful.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that Dennet is a poet, who loves to play with obvious inconsistencies and meaninglessness to make me, as a listener or reader, think and wonder. For sure, if I really were about to take his words literally, I couldn't complain if everyone else would call me outright nuts!
@@LaughingStock71 Yes, Dennett is a Situationist who has managed to introduce Dada into materialist philosophy. I think of him as the St Peter of physicalism, holding the keys to a heaven his followers refuse to enter lest it offends him.
Totally nuts...so glad we have moved beyond Dennet, he must have retired by now. Chomsky on the other hand IS an idealist, it is the best we can do, even John Cleese said something like," I don't know how you can argue for materialism after the recent work of quantum physics"....he has plenty of experience of illustrating nutty ideas so he should be able to spot one
@@bradmodd7856 Yes, I just heard Chomsky talk about how Newton 'exorcised' the machine and how 'all is ghost'. He's absolutely right.
Literally just LOL @ Dennet !
I love these interviews with Bernardo Kastrup and everyone else you interview Jeffrey Mishlove! It gives me knowledge and understanding in my own consciousness development as a non-academic!
Love from Norway. Thank you !
Bernardo Kastrup is my favorite guest on Thinking Allowed. I've been waiting for a new interview to come out. At last!
yeah he is really interesting!
Vannessa VA I hope he has him back
Can never get enough of BK, an absolute treat as always.
A fascinating conversation, thanks again Jeffrey and Bernardo, this was a real treat!
If you haven't googled his book titles yet, you are in for a treat because they sound amazing.
Thanks for making philosophy great again.
This guy knows his stuff, great new ideas. Thank you. Downey California 🇲🇽🇯🇵🇺🇸✊✊🙋🙋🙋
Wow - I really like Kastrup's certainty about his intellectual positions. Guy knows his stuff. :-)
I love the way he spent time searching for the subtle meaning behind Dennett's meaningless "argument".
Love Bernardo's viewpoint......excellent interview.
Amazing , what an eye opening program. Thank you
As usual, well done, with a rapport that always teases out some deeper nuances, along with some great teasers for the upcoming Schopenhauer book. Would still like to see JM moderate a discussion between BK and other thinkers inclined toward the primacy of consciousness, to see if some consensus can be arrived at ... In any case, keep them coming.
Great guest. Thank you for sharing. I’ve benn fowling Bernardo’s thought and analytical idealism concepts about consciousness.😃
What a fantastic interview! Kudos to both... it is absolutely revolutionary..
ONE OF THE BEST EPISODES 😃😃😃😃
If you would like to contribute non-English subtitles for this video, please visit th-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=HaziRLpJ20g&ref=share.
Wow - Bernardo's enthusiasm makes me want to go study philosophy.
Well Done.
I was lost at times however not as lost as trying to understand the repetitious nature of the mind and body being independent and separate.
As we grow and progress, the new way of thinking will emerge for digestion of its nature.
I wonder how Bernardo relates to Donald Hoffman's work; especially Hoffman's new book "The Case Against Reality".
Bernardo mentions Hoffman's work in his defence of his thesis.. Tho he forgot the guys name in the video!
Cheerleaders for dead philosophers...we need them, to shine up centuries old theories....for physicists to create quantum experiments to test for
He mentions Hoffman a few times in other vids.
@Language and Programming Channel EXACTLY!!!
@Language and Programming Channel yeah, but in a different time and place tho.
Great host, great guest, great subject = great interview!
Their Degrees of Freedom interact beautifully...A rather reliable guide to truth is presented , for me.
Dean Radin has suggested adding a new assumption below physics to our hierarchy of knowledge pyramid with "consciousness" as fundamental.
books mentioned:
3:14
19:31
21:42
23:50
28:01
30:53
32:33
32:52
38:10
53:53
57:38
57:49
1:01:28
1:04:33
1:08:10
Your a tough man Jeffrey... I hope I can be as tough and relaxed as you ...being able to have these conversations is miraculous...and accessing all this info...time for me to call it a night...so much info...hahah. Thank you.
consider the possibility that it is merely a language trick which makes this paradox possible. if one can declare oneself to be BOTH a subjective AND an objective idealist, one can just as easily declare oneself to be BOTH an idealist AND a dual-aspect monist. the unifying (or unified) monism is: perception itself. also curious about parallels with key aspects of Buddhist psychology.
I love listening to these exchanges with Dr. Kastrup and yourself. I don't know if I've ever heard Dr. K discuss the notion that the realm of mind will behave with the same rules of logic that he uses to develop his philosophy, since the rules of logic we use are largely based on a materialist worldview. (ie, cause must precede effect)
I am impressed that there are apparitional floating books in the thinking allowed perception of the universe.
Emotions always outweigh reason. We only use logic or reason to justify our inner experiences but it is emotions that rule. However those that are able to move beyond both are able to cultivate intuition which can only occur when somebody is soul, atman, God, aligned
One of the major contributions of contemporary idealism stems from Charles S. Peirce "objective idealism". I would like to know what Bernardo has to say about Peirce, Whitehead and Bergson.
To quote Robert Price (about his own works), "they don't debunk my works, they just harrumph them".
It becomes a chorus of "harrumphs", then more people want to join in.
It seems that "harrumphing" is a sign of great intelligence... ;P
BK is a BOSS.
A pleasure as always guys. Regarding Libertarian free will: Libertarian free will is the idea that mind is not determined by space and time. This is experientially true: The body is determined to need food and water. Mind is free to give or not to give the body food and water. If Libertarian free will did not exist mind would not have a choice but to give the body food and water.
This philosophy’s mental ! I love it.
This is not philosophy. This is pseudo philosophy sir.
Yeah!! bernardo is the best!!
I like your youtube name
Bernardo, I think you put this ditty in one of your books which explains what happens when we remove our mind from physical objects:
God in the Quad
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
Ronald Knox
perceiving is receiving, my belief is All has giving this to us, to perceive and receive, to subjectively learn that everything is objective, no more and no less, matter and mind it is existing in all because we are all part of All.
I enjoy how frank can candid this interview was. IDK if ive ever heard 'foul' language used in any of your other interviews but it certainly made me laugh.
@45: thank-you for finally elucidating the idea of the material demiurge--blind instinct. Of course, we can quibble about the idea of the material world:-p
Outstanding! So good to hear this being discussed, and so well (even though it was Bishop Berkeley, not Barkley.) :P
My understanding is that, while the spelling is Berkeley, the pronunciation is Barkley.
@@NewThinkingAllowed You're right. I looked it up after and was surprised to find it is indeed pronounced Barkley. LOL
Great discussion. Thanks!
23:50 , 26:19 steal and switch: confusion b/w materialism and idealism
He is discussing the person when he mentions the will to do something or not to do something. When he is discussing free will he is only focusing on preference and not values. There is a difference between the two. All of this has to do with personage and if you are going in that direction the Artificial intelligence should also be discussed as well as nature.
Could it be that as we age, and as we gather our experiences, the illusion of time accelerates because we speed through events that are similar to prior experiences (much like fast forwarding through a video). During the course of my day people and events will literally pop in and out of my life, as if I'm declaring that I've been there, done that, and don't need to experience that again.
Clarification on Schopenhauer: you can have will, but you cannot WILL will. Will is its own energy flowing through us.
Yoda said it first a long time ago in a galaxy far far way.
Who is having consciousness, is it consciousness that is conscious, or is there a higher level of us having a conscious experience?
My Q to Bernardo, Jefffrey or anyone interested in answering: What is the implication of conclusion that reality is mental? How does it affect our day to day attitude to reality? One may assume anything about reality, but what difference does it make?
Anyone?
I hope Bernardo will answer this question in future interview, or Jeffery will do an interview on this.
The same questions appear to persist no matter what: what is truth, what is belief, what's for dinner ;-)
@@peggyharris3815 I think implications are here in this interview of Gary Lachman:
th-cam.com/video/Sr0Zw4tDDVA/w-d-xo.html
That conclusion is more than intellection. It must be experienced at a level beyond/before mentation, what we may call intuition, a reading between the lines of the rational mind so one directly sees, knows (the gnosis of the instinctual Will) and tacitly understands that to ask such a question (what is the implication that the conclusion that the reality is mental?) means one has merely applied thinking to the thoughtless ground of all thought.
As Jung said, “We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect. The judgement of the intellect is only part of the truth.”
why schopenhauer though and not Bradley? Bradley's idealism has a unifying principle more consistent than Schoppy's "Will" and has an answer to solipsism
Berkeley, however, Schopenhauer is heavily influenced by Buddhism and some people argue that Buddhist was heavily influenced by the Gnostics. Modern-day Gnostics were Carl Jung who Bernardo's new book is about and Philip K Dick who wrote science fiction with many of his books being turned into films, Total Recall, Minority Report and his best-known Blade Runner. Over on FB I am friend's with PK's widow Tessa who wrote:
“Anecdotal evidence, which the skeptics so readily dismiss, is actually empirical
observation and ought to be the beginning of investigation, not the end of it.”
Tessa B Dick
I can only agree with Tessa and people who have NDE's are confirming empirically exactly what Bernbardo is arguing for, we are all manifestations of the Cosmic Mind. People return from these experiences with veridical information corroborated by others.
If anyone remembers A Fish Called Wanda... Sometimes I feel like Kevin Kline when Jamie Lee Curtis says “Apes do read philosophy Otto... they just don’t understand it” 😂
This help answers the question of the donut existing without the whole.
Thanks!
I don’t want to be a dissociated part of a whole. Because that means the people I love will just dissolve into one thing, and I like them as beautiful and separate as they are. This life has just feels like some awful thing that happens to me, the only good part has been the distinct and amazing characteristics of those I love. The fact that they are separate and sovereign is what fills me with happiness and life.
I want them to have their own lives, not be some thing that only manifested because the universe is under pressure.
And if we are only part of one thing, it would be so lonely. I don’t want to be part of one thing.
Some near death experiences suggest one can be totally individual and completely part of the whole, simultaneously. Omniscient and localised sounds good.
What enables (gives energy to) the Will?
Been following Kastrup and New Thinking Allowed for awhile, so weird to see them collide.
Delving deep into the essense of reality. Anyone ever read Philipp Meyers, The Son? Many insights, some so small that they’re barely noticed, like this one: “Man, today, lives in a coffin of flesh.” Or: “The body shrank. It shrank and shrank, while the soul grew - grew until the body could no longer hold it.”
I liked the way Paul Brunton explained it, that the world as an idea in the mind of God exists for us all, but the World Mind gives us the 'What' we shall experience, while our individual minds the 'How' we shall experience it.
Vast numbers of humans have been disenfranchised those at the top of society have suppressed knowledge and enslaved billions.
Many thanks
You know, I find it very hard to understand how any scientist could even begin to think that idealism is out of the question. Science is populated with these entities - fields, particles, etc. - that have behaviors. They've done a great job organizing and categorizing those behaviors in ways that explain many many things. But at the bottom of it all, how can they even start to have an opinion of whether those entities are "mental" or "physical"? As long as the behaviors are right, how would they even start to tell the difference? To me it seems like a question that can't be addressed by science.
Lots of scientists are very poor philosophers and heavily influenced by mainstream materialism.
I hope he talks about Hegel, who is one of the most important idealists; in his PhD he didn’t really talk about him he said…
Always found Idealism pretty persuasive, but I've never been convinced by any of the arguments for free will, I'm glad Schopenhauer manages to combine both.
'Mind over matter'
Timothy Sprigge was an absolute idealist as an academic philosopher in the 20th century (before social media)... referring to "un-understandable" Hegel. Curiously enough Sprigge came up with a panpsychist version of his idealism...
I. Kant is more a (transcendental) phenomenalist, and agnostic when it comes to ontology...
The problem of "free will" is that it means different things for different people, and in any case is a misnomer...
If we can speak of MATERIALIST IDEALISM , its supporters would be DAN BENNET & JAMES RANDY. It is as crazy to believe in pur material monism, than to believe in spiritual monism. Professor STAN DEHAENE ( College de France - Paris ) who has spent his life working on the human mind & consciousness, without finding a better way to know if "a subject is conscious" than to ask him : " If you are conscious, say YES " or for patients who had lost every mean of communication ( locked in patients) with the help of brain electronic imagery: " If you are conscious, imagine yourself slapping your hands (or an other action of the mind that is visible on the brain scan ).
Can anyone help me out with what Bernado says at around 13:27. He says “it still exist but it exists as____” ... sound like he says ‘will’? Then he says “it exists as a set of _____ states” a word that starts with a V?
Really interested in this point.
Thx
it's a pleasure to listen to people with so much higher IQ than myself :)
He's forgetting that Ontological Idealism has several important branches. This discussion is restricted to the Schopenhauer version, but Ontological Idealism goes was back to Plato, Plotinus, then to Nargajuna (150-250), then to Advaita Vedanta, the foremost proponent being Shankara (788-820). These Schools would be non-dualist. At about 54 min he states "We are all string for the collapse of duality, but he only mentions the word "Advaita" once without further comment except to say that he writes nothing about it since his tool of logic doesn't venture there. Hello?
Ontological Idealism can also entail solipsism. It’s a very broad term.
Oh my god - I love this guy JUST for his opinion of Dennett. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE.
Dual aspect monism doesn't declare that mind and matter are from a third thing, only that they are of the SAME substance. This substance doesn't have to be separate and abstract. In fact the substance could be 'minded' with a dual aspect or property of matter. I.e. two sides of the same coin.
This is how a dual aspect monism can be an idealism.
I agree, and after hearing this wrong definition, my mind respectively decided to not continue with this video
Thank you for the clarification
There is only “ONE” Ultimate Truth. And it is this:
Every new thought that you have, is literally an exact NEGATION of your previous thought!
And this applies to “ALL” your thoughts.
So each new thought that you have, cancels out the previous one. It’s a negation, a cancellation, a contradiction. Etc.
This is because your mind/soul is made of eulerian sinusoids. Mathematical sine and cosine waves. And they always have to balance to zero. This is why you have a positive thought, immediately followed by it’s negative counterpart to create and maintain a value of zero (0). This is also why the soul/monad is dimensionless and not detectable by any scientific method.
Reality is all about creating and maintaining a zero level groundstate, because only that can be stable.
Go ahead and try paying attention to it next time you’re having a thought. And you will see that they always negate eachother. This is why we are always confused and why doubt exists. The previous thought is the answer to your current thought!
So you see..
It’s about understanding “WHY” you have the thoughts that you do!
Rather than engaging with the actual content of the thoughts. (Which is what every single human on this planet is currently already doing and has always done).
And once you become good enough at it, you can see that your current thought is always an EXACT *negation* of your previous thought! It’s also WHOLLY dependent upon the previous thought. The previous thought is what DEFINES the current thought.
So for example, you may think about something being a certain way.. and than boom! Immediately a thought arises in your mind that contradicts it! So quite literally, your mind is made of negations!
It’s all about opposites.
Why wouldn’t our minds work this way?
Why wouldn’t every new thought cancel and negate the previous one?
This is the true version of universal balance.
So your job is simply to become aware of it and to be able to see it clearly. And when you hit the limit of seeing it, you achieve enlightenment and gain the perspective of the mental frequency singularity outside space and time.
+-+-+-+-+- = 0.
I have checked this countless times. And it’s always accurate. This is the one thing that does not change or deviate in any way. It’s the one and only thing you can always 100% rely on.
It’s the truth that you can check for yourself.
So simply put,
Your mind is made of negations!
Even the negations themselves get negated. “Everything” gets negated. This is the only way that reality can ever be fair and all-inclusive.
This is what Hegel was actually talking about all those years back when he spoke about the “negation of the negation” In fact, this is what Gnosis actually is.. Fully seeing the negation process!
If this information reaches enough people, it will cause a global shift in consciousness.
Hegel was aware of his obscurantism and perceived it as OK!!
45:36 Bernardo is so cute here, haha
There you go, fueling my Bernardo crush again (^^,)
Doesn't the witness, or pure awareness, underlie volitional states? That which is aware of any and all states? Isn't that the only non-sublatable (no)thing or substrate? The cosmic will that Bernardo refers to here seems to correspond to Ishvara, rather than Brahman, in Advaita Vedanta, with Brahman being the ultimate or absolute Reality.
When we turn ideas into objects are we engaged in the logical fallacy of reification? This is what some Materialist argue.
Sam Rowbotham Into objects of thought?
@@markriva4259 How do objects become thoughts I am intrigued?
Will take me another "tien" (😉) years to catch up with & understand Bernardo but I'm relieved in the knowing he's taking it 'easy'... 😋
Have a great week, everyone! 🤗
Do you believe in bilocation or l
Teleportation or even materialization of objects?
And how imagination creates reality
See "The Apports of Amyr Amiden" -- th-cam.com/video/RUTzjK_GvdA/w-d-xo.html
yes of course and guess what physicists has done the experiments that prove bilocation exist:www.livescience.com/2000-atoms-in-two-places-at-once.html?fbclid=IwAR3HXR1oyUwFzVzSfNHCJ_J_ST8hvPvZNSPwh8GPy60wv3kF1gf34XSVaaI
Just a thought on the unintentional/instinctive nature of the will of mind-at-large. Could it not just be that the mind at large is too pre-ocupied with the grander picture to interfere in our tiny lives on our tiny planet? The observable universe is mind mindbogglingly vast, and the time scale of the universe also, so perhaps we're as significant to it as a single skin cell in your body is to you, or even less. Alternatively, if we are actually a deliberate creation of the universal will then perhaps we're just one tiny little germinating seed in a gigantic field of alike seeds. We may be a little more significant in that case, but not directly attended to.
I now have all of his books and look forward to the one on Jung I wish he would write one on the grandfather of Idealism Bishop George Berkeley and I do implore Bernardo to get to grips with the Near-Death literature and the psi literature in the latter he should read the papers of Dean Radin et al in the former read the book Dying to be Me by Anita Moorjani because her NDE reinforces Bernardo's arguments. You can hear her testimony here in a talk she did for Ted X:
th-cam.com/video/rhcJNJbRJ6U/w-d-xo.html
The research of the late neuroscientist Dr John Lorber torpedoes the idea that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain Sheldrake has written articles on Lorber's work and Stuart Hameroff alluded to it in a talk he gave with Roger Penrose last year.
Interesting
If consciousness is fundamental, where does unconsciosness appears from. Archetypes might be made purely of a "mental stuff", yet what they are representing is prior to consciousness, therefore inaccessible for it. Consciousness can only know a reflection of "that" in time and space - within itself. In this sense consciousness is merely a dispersed projection - seen only to (metacognitive) selfaware being - of a timeless and spaceless noumenon.
On idealism consciousness is the only existing substance. In other words: Everything that exists is consciousness (aka that which experiences and that which is experienced). Usually when we use the term unconsciousness we mean something that is outside our personal mind. And this is of course correct, but on idealism nothing is outside consciousness.
@@MidiwaveProductions Even if consciousness is regarded as a substratum, content and experiencer of every possible experience, this still doesn't mean that it is all there is. For, actuality of what is - being itself all there is - does not need to be experienced. In contrary - even if consciousness may also be what there is - the experience of what is, actually mean a contraction, due to (apparent) separation of actuality on what there is and experience of it. In this sense, the consciousness is always secondary.
Again, what is, does not need to be experienced - conscious of. It does not need duration and location - time and space. It only is - unconditionally. Yet even this is saying too much, for it equally may be regarded as not being there - as own absence.
Nevertheless, the consciousness can not comprehend nor contain what is. It can only comprehend and contain a reflection of what there is, within and as itself. A reflection which brings it an illusion - of being all there is.
@@ales1us1 You say: Even if consciousness is regarded as a substratum, content and experiencer of every possible experience, this still doesn't mean that it is all there is.
Response: I am not expressing personal opinions. I am describing what idealism is. Idealism is the opposite of materialism. In other words: Idealism is the idea that the only ontologically real substance is consciousness. On materialism everything that exists is made of matter. On idealism everything that exists is made of consciousness.
@@MidiwaveProductions Ok, cool. But wouldn't then be better to call that consciousness-ism?! ☺
36:15 - Ah yes, Dennett and the Churchlands engaging in 'deepity'.
Going to kick a stone during my sleep tonight to make a dream come real!
Monist Idealist. Note that I am starting a new comment, because nesting has gone too far.
Gonna call it a day there for today, but perhaps it will be useful for you if I essentialize (especially since I am asking you to do so) key points of mine, so that you can refer to them from this if necessary. Obviously this has to be short so can't be nuanced in the way that longer discussional paragraphs are, but this captures the essence of it.
1) why do I believe the term “pre-conscious” or “life force” is necessary and more nuanced over “consciousness”?
Because consciousness is a human term for our experience, and it is not a secure assumption that it can be downwards-extrapolated beyond a given point. And yet there is plenty of evidence that “something” extrapolates downwards, eventually terminating in forms of “awareness” that seem to be entirely nonreflexive and non-self-seeing. The terms “consciousness” and “awareness” do not work well for these situations and are thus more confusing than not. This applies even to our own human state. I maintain that we don't even know what we actually mean when we say that a baby is “conscious.”
2) Why do I criticize the concept of a universal mind?
Basically, I see no evidence for it. The universe does not look like it has something “mind like” that spans over it, and there ought to be clear symptoms that disclose such a monumental claim in my view. I am also not clear where individual beings are supposed to fit into that picture. Also scant (or almost non-existent) evidence for whole-over-parts influences.
3) Why do I believe that the world is primarily bottom up ontology?
Basically most of the real world evidence from biology. Such top-down as exists does not appear to be strong. This problem not dismissed by claiming “all is mind” because the facts of the causal ladder in biology do not change.
4) Do I think that there is hard “non-being-ness” (notice that I am using this term, please, and not “unconsciousness”)
No I don't. But I must confess that it appeared to be suggested by my undergoing of general anaesthetics. There is no lying going on here and no attempts at prevarication. Conflicted? Yes, possibly. But that was my response to a situation.
I don't really intend for you to mount a critical reply to this post. More that it should serve as a go-to reference for my positions on each of these sub-issues. Thanks.
1. I really don't like that you ignored my point about how youtube comments are not appropriate for what we're trying to accomplish here. You've just proven that you don't think long-term since by starting a new thread here you haven't solved the problem of "nesting" you've merely pushed it back a step by posting here. If "nesting" was the problem before then it's going to show up again here... It's time we start exploring a new medium. Where else would you like to have this discussion? Are you more comfortable with something like Skype or email or something else? If we're going to end the problem of "nesting" then let's actually solve the problem...
2. you still haven't told me what exactly you want me to essentialize despite me asking you explicitly multiple times now... We've talked about so many things I don't know what you're getting at.
"human term for our experience"
I addressed this in a very crucial point that you ignored entirely. You need to address my point about the conceptual problem of other minds. We're keeping it short so you'll just have to go back and read my points from our earlier discussion.
"life force"
I addressed this as well, you're going to fall prey to eliminativism. If you want to eliminate consciousness from our concepts and vocabulary you're no different than dan dennett.
"I see no evidence for it."
I've cited Schaffer's paper, kastrups case for idealism, and my playlists. I've given plenty of evidence. Your only hope is to sneak in your epistemology and equivocate on what "evidence" means but as I explained what I've cited goes over philosophical arguments and scientific evidence so you can't hide behind that excuse. Again: do not stoop to lying about my position. feel free to disagree with me but don't lie and pretend I didn't bring evidence, that's simply dishonest of you.
"Basically most of the real world evidence from biolog"
you're not even giving an argument or evidence you're just saying the word "biology." I cited an entire paper going over an ontology that puts the whole as fundamental to the parts and the paradoxes that rise from a bottom-up ontology that you failed to address.
@@MonisticIdealism @Monistic Idealism You might be right about TH-cam comments, but it is not as serious if we aren't generating as many posts in real time. The conversation clearly has a finite life span anyway, because we are not going to agree. Fundamental differences about key terms are involved. In my experience, those issues don't usually become resolvable in discussions.
I did ask you not to mount a response to this particular post, but to use it as a reference, yet I see you've gone ahead and done it anyway. It still stands my quick-reference for you. I have already answered each of the objections you have raised above, and/or explained why they are not applicable to the position I hold, as I hold it.
"conceptual problem of other minds" - I already answered you on this.
"eliminate consciousness" - we don't agree on a definition of consciousness so when you use the word you use it on your terms and not on mine. On mine, it is not a sufficiently nuanced vocabulary.
"evidence" Arguments are nor empirics. I already addressed this with the "fairy behind" discussion.
"biology" I gave specific examples of neo-cortical and sub-cortical compromise in the brain, of growth and development, and of how lower levels are always necessary to support higher levels. Asked you for a single example of an organism developing from the top down where the lower levels aren't in place yet. Understand that we are talking about causal chains, which cannot be dismissed simply by definitional collapses.
@@marineboyecosse What happened, I thought you were "Gonna call it a day there for today"? You just couldn't stop yourself from responding could you? lol I'm not being passive aggressive when I ask this I'm simply curious: do you have some kind of OCD or anything like that? You seem to be responding compulsively. You keep saying you're going to stop for the day but can't seem to control yourself. If this is so I'm not sure how comfortable I am enabling problem behavior. Anyway:
If you insist on youtube comments then whatever but you really can't be upset at me for referencing papers your way since these are mere comments so it's irrational for you to expect me to fit what is necessary to make an air-tight case. I will reference research since in all practicality we simply do not have the space to fit everything in a comment and it's quite frankly stupid to believe otherwise. We need to have realistic expectations here, come on now...
"I did ask you not to mount a response to this particular post"
You didn't say that, you said: "I don't really intend for you to mount a critical reply to this post." If this is just some ruse to get the last word then just be real and come out with it, I'm not here for childish pissing contests I'm here to discuss the issues.
"I have already answered each of the objections you have raised above, and/or explained why they are not applicable to the position I hold, as I hold it."
I then listed my rebuttals to your rebuttals which to this day stand un-refuted by you since you cut the conversation short. I have several replies that you haven't addressed, you've explained this is for practical reasons and I understand but still my arguments stand un-refuted.
"I already answered you on this."
No you did not, you literally didn't even address it let alone give an answer to it. This is the first time you've even noticed that I've brought up the conceptual problem of other minds.
"a definition of consciousness"
I've given my definition of consciousness: what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. This is a definition that has been used extensively the past decades and is widely accepted by scholars in philosophy of mind. I don't recall you giving a definition of consciousness... Still, if you're trying to remove mental concepts and vocabulary you're just another eliminativist.
"Arguments are nor empirics."
That's very nice but proof=proof. If an argument is valid and the premises are true then the conclusion _must_ be true, that's how logic works. Also I've cited scientific evidence that you keep conveniently ignoring... Again, if you want to play this game you can't be a sneak about it and hide your epistemology. What is your epistemology? Come out from the shadows and stop hiding. Are you afraid if you tell me I'll knock it down and hence your objections crumbles at the foundation?
"examples"
I noted how you have the burden of proof not the burden of examples. All of these "examples" can be interpreted in a priority monist lens and fit perfectly with idealism, unlike your dualism which leads you right into the mind-body problem that idealism does not suffer from. Also I'm pretty sure I've referred you to Schaffer's paper where he goes into philosophical arguments and scientific evidence where he goes into detail about how priority monism works which you suspiciously refuse to read... you say you want answers but then refuse to read the answers when they are provided to you. I ask you again: _why are you really here?_ are you actually trying to gain truth and understanding or are you here to just bicker? Please be honest with me about this, I don't want to waste my time with someone who is just really bored and wants to bicker about nonsense
Are you sure I haven't noted how you fall prey to the mentalism suspicion with this response?
Perhaps if you can define for me exactly how you are using the term “the mental suspicion” I can more sufficiently address that question. At present, I don't really know exactly what you mean by it, mostly because your definitional use of the term mental seems to me only applicable to human-proximal lifeforms.
"Existence is always concrete. What I am talking about is human models or abstractions, which, as sponsored by a parochial survival-oriented monkey unit on an average sized burning gas ball, is unlikely to be able to capture, let alone speak for, existence as a whole." Thanks for proving my point: your ontology commits you to all sorts of abstractions while an idealist ontology has a more direct line to reality in a concrete way while avoiding many abstractions.
Existence is what we are called upon to explain. If a model or standpoint doesn't much account for actually encountered phenomena, it can't really be said to do much work. A universal mind is currently in that situation.
"No, I disagreed (and still disagree) that consciousness or mental is the right terminology to use for it." This is no different than eliminativism then. You're trying to tell me we can do away with mental concepts and mental language. "
As said multiply, I don't think the language is nuanced enough. I don't think we know enough about lower forms of life to assume them to be any kind of “experiencer.” I don't think we can downward extrapolate human terms like consciousness and mental. I don't think we can know that lower life strata have a “mentality”. I don't think we are certain, nor do I think that we even can be certain, that lower forms of life can distinguish themselves as “entities” at all and I deeply suspect thaqt the lowest cannot. You don't seem to believe that any of that is serious. Whereas I believe it is ALL serious.
The term “neutral” monism is in a sense unfortunate, because there is actually nothing “neutral” about it" I remember saying this all the way from the beginning the very first time neutral monism was even mentioned lol "so long as you don't try to deform the character of my central arguments." I have absolutely no intention of doing so. I don't want to straw man your arguments, I want to steel-man your arguments. As even noted in the SEP, neutral monism in particular should be examined on a case by case basis since there isn't a unified view of neutrality and if you recall I asked you what your version of neutrality was before I launched criticism. As an idealist I'm all too familiar with how important it is to understand a position first before you begin criticizing a view. I can't tell you how many times people have objected to me with "arguments" along the lines of "well I can't change my computer in a unicorn with my thoughts, checkmate idealism!" which only proves they don't understand idealism in the first place.
I'm not seeing something for me to reply to here.
"human sensorium." I refer you to my point about the conceptual problem of other minds. you saw off the branch you sit on "which I have given pretty good reasons at this point for implausibility."
I have responded about the issue of other minds. This has actually always been the point I've been making to you - you have now simply expanded to include humans. I don't have a problem with that. Ultimately (as Bernardo himself said in the video) everything other than solipsism is inference (and he is right about this).
You really haven't and have only proven you flip flop on your position. You said you agree with the spectrum, now you think the spectrum is implausible. make up your mind...
I don't know what statement of mine you are referring to here. Please quote me in context. I don't flip flop in my position. My position hasn't changed.
"Neutral monism has always had a relationship to Idealism, but it is wrong to call it Idealism." As noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The most frequent type of objection to the traditional versions of neutral monism is that they are all forms of mentalistic monism: Berkleyan idealism, panpsychism, or phenomenalism. The argument is simple: sensations (Mach), pure experience (James) and sensations/percepts (Russell) are paradigms of non-neutral, mental entities. Hence there is nothing neutral about these versions of neutral monism.
Good. I like this paragraph because it gives me something of substance to respond to. All these positions take as their starting point an underlying assumption that a basic “experiencer” must exist at all levels of existence where the expression of a cosmic principle is germane to awareness. And I just don't think that's a secure assumption. I think there is a non-dual state prior to all “experience” in which the possibility of experience is nonetheless implicit. You may not like the idea, but I know for a fact that you cannot disprove it either because I am talking about a soft rather than a hard emergence. I think too that this was something of a blind spot among these thinkers. It seems that schopenhauer himself comes closer to understanding it with his “Will” that is not necessarily any kind of mind. My view is in that kind of terrain, but not identical. Incidentally, as an aside, it's kind of bewildering to me why Bernardo favours Schopenhauer. Schop. Was a deep, deep pessimist and his philosophy is not a joyous one at all. Not sure why Bernardo feels himself drawn to it. Returning from my aside...so yes, I think it is possible that there is a more basic cosmic level than all experiencers, and that this in some sense the ground. It is not the same thing as mute matter, because there is not contained, anywhere in the concept of mute matter, the possibility of the ground blossoming to experientiality when it first starts to encounter itself in contexts sufficient to have dual complexity. This is not a deep, far off mystery either, I reckon it is this same ground we were emerging from as infants...every one of us...and which we sink into each night during deep sleep...when there is no experiencer to be found...no Berkleyan Ideals, no psyche fluorescing in dreams, no sensations, no “pure experience.” And yet this ground is not matter. This is a philosophical subtlety that has yet been insufficiently explored. You say that of Idealism, and this is why I am saying it here of Neutral Monism.
The prima facie plausibility of this objection is beyond doubt. " They have indeed had a relationship together, and that's primarily because neutral monism essentially lapses into idealism. The versions that don't lapse into idealism fall prey to eliminativism, and this is the first objection brought up in the SEP. "Look..." I think you're a little lost, we were talking about defining awareness and consciousness and so forth. "muh flatworms" The conceptual problem of other minds, my dude
Read carefully what I just wrote and don't respond in a knee-jerk way. I'm trying to explain to you a kind of world view you may not be familiar with, and which (may have) escaped your philosophical attention. Whether it has or not, the fact is, the objections you are raising here cannot correctly be taken to apply to it, so you must internalize it properly first before you can comment on it sufficiently. Or you are going to continue to repeat this “eliminativist” point despite it being dissolved.
An analogy might help: A mirror has the inherent ability to reflect things. But if a flat mirror that cannot see itself is the only existentium, then nothing will be seen in it despite “existence being a mirror.” If the mirror becomes curved, so that now it can glimpse and reflect itself, now things will be seen in the mirror, a circumstance that we call consciousness...but which is not a hard emergence. Nothing "new" has come into being, except a recursive way in which the existentium relates to itself.
@UCtMQBYpedLgsQVEYe8h_91g "how you are using the term “the mental suspicion”"
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Neutral Monism section 7. Objections to Neutral Monism-7.2 The Mentalism Suspicion:
"The most frequent type of objection to the traditional versions of neutral monism is that they are all forms of mentalistic monism: Berkleyan idealism, panpsychism, or phenomenalism. The argument is simple: sensations (Mach), pure experience (James) and sensations/percepts (Russell) are paradigms of non-neutral, mental entities. Hence there is nothing neutral about these versions of neutral monism. The prima facie plausibility of this objection is beyond doubt. "
You yourself have noted there really isn't anything neutral about neutral monism. The problem is if you're going to have a non-physicalist monism with irreducible consciousness that is fundamental your position is identical to a form of idealism.
"human-proximal lifeforms."
The conceptual problem of other minds, my dude. you saw off the branch you sit on
"A universal mind is currently in that situation."
The complete opposite is true as David Chalmers argued you earlier. If you want more details about Cosmic Idealism I suggest you read his paper: "Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem"
" I don't think we can know that lower life strata have a “mentality”."
So one minute you believe there's as spectrum, the next you don't. You just can't stop contradicting yourself
"I'm not seeing something for me to reply to here."
Are you even human? lol I was just speaking candidly about not misrepresenting you and how I can relate is all, ya know human stuff.
"I have responded about the issue of other minds."
No you literally have not addressed _anything_ about the conceptual problem of other minds. Your point about flatworms applies to other minds in general, you're failing to see how your turning up of the skepticism dial ends up hurting yourself more than it hurts me.
"I don't have a problem with that."
Yes you do, you have to give an answer to the conceptual problem of other minds. You seem to think this problem applies only to flatworms when really it applies to all other minds in general, thus you're shooting yourself in the foot.
"you cannot disprove it either "
Yes I can: as long as you're talking about the mental emergent from the non-mental you will always grapple with the hard problem of consciousness as well as the mind-body problem.
"And yet this ground is not matter. This is a philosophical subtlety that has yet been insufficiently explored. You say that of Idealism, and this is why I am saying it here of Neutral Monism."
Why do you give neutral monism a break despite it's being explored so much while you don't for idealism despite it's neglect? you have this strange prejudice against idealism that is starting to seem more psychological than philosophical at this point. If you were just consistent and gave idealism a bit of slack like you do for neutral monism it wouldn't seem that way I assure you.
"Or you are going to continue to repeat this “eliminativist” point despite it being dissolved."
only after you've successfully dissolved it.
"Nothing "new" has come into being"
yes it has, you're saying there's non-consciousness and then boom somehow there's consciousness. That's just the hard problem of consciousness all over again...
Have you guys seen Gumby? Great show.
Hebrews 4 v 12 is the true mind of God,we can't go inside people only ourselves.
om mani padme hum
for someone who is NOT stupid........still laughing
Dennet claims that consciousness is an illusion, not delusion. There is a difference between the two.
What is the difference?
@@NewThinkingAllowed Delusion is when you think something exists but in reality it does not. Example: flying teapot. Illusion is when what you think exists actually exists but not in the form you previously imagined. Example: fatamorgana. So philosophers like Sam Harris may think free will maybe an illusion, but not delusion. Richard Dawkins may claim God is delusion, not illusion.
So in this case we may disagree with Dennet on his view on consciousness, but he is certainly not an "outright nuts".
@@kimyunmi452 Would you nonetheless agree that an illusion presuppose consciousness? Because yes you're right when you say "Illusion is when what you think exists actually exists but not in the form you previously imagined. Example: fatamorgana." but even then an illusion always exists in consciousness. If you say conciousness itself is an illusion there remain the question: illusion of what, of matter? Then we are confronted again with the hard problem of consciousness, because we have to ask how can such an "illusion" emerge from pure abstraction. Best regards, Yannick.
@@descartes6797 yes i agree illusion presupposes consciousness. That much is clear. I just dont think Dennet denies the existence of consciousness as such. His book title is "Consciousness Explained", not "Consciousness Delusion". But i have to say i have not yet read dennet's book. So, i will have to stop here since i dont want to misconstrue his position on the subject.
Mr Dennett makes many different mistakes, maybe that's because he abandoned trying to convince people with reason, and just shows cool illusion tricks. One mistake he makes is a contradiction, first he claims that our 5 senses perception is true with which he infers the existence of brains, cells and matter, and then he claims that 5 senses perceptions is false, showing us illusion tricks.
Without samadhi there is only confusion
You have a point. Still confused as of how to stay there. 😉
@@JuliaHelen777 check out four foundations of unifying presence if you want my take on - (15 years monastic training) sati.co/coremaps/
Everything is an inference except solipsism - how true! There are no functioning solipsists, outside secure hospitals at least. For materialists there is no "I" outside matter, yet instead of being confined for mental instability, they are elevated to the chair for the popular understanding of science and sit at the high tables of academia. At least Daniel Dennett is honest enough to admit he's not actually conscious. School maths exams demand the pupil shows their working-out, not just the answer. If only the philosophy of science was taught on the same principles magical thinking might disappear very quickly.
Some questions that Idealism needs to answer in order to be credible. If everything is consciousness, where does consciousness "go" during sleep and during the administration of a general anaesthetic? What exactly are long term comatose patients and how is their vegetative state illustrative of "consciousness"? Why do we emerge from a background of unknowing and unconsciousness (birth) and sink back into it (death)? Why do those patterns we refer to as material systems (even if they be considered relatively less flexible systems of "consciousness") hold more sway over our fate than our conscious state or our desires? Unfortunately, Alzheimers pulls the punches, not our desire or will for it not to be there.
I am with Bernardo on the idea that consciousness (although especially "proto-awareness") is more important ontologically than it has been given credit for, and in some sense (especially a "proto" sense) may be equivalent to a ground of being. The problem for Bernardo's position though, is that if that ground is not *conscious of itself* and if it essentially needs the world to become aware of itself, then that isn't consciousness, that is a neutral monism that we would have to call "proto-awareness" or some such similar term. Specifically, the growth of a plant can function with the godlike "will" of life but at the same time be unaware of doing so, and is therefore an unconscious or pre-conscious system. But the difficulty here is that if there are unconscious or pre-conscious systems at all, then we cannot be inhabiting an Idealism. Many things in our own bodies and minds give all the signs of being pre-conscious systems (indeed as I see one commenter has already mentioned below). Minds are found, always, sitting on top of these pre-conscious stems, not existing without them. Consciousness, therefore, seems to need a "pre-conscious stem" in order to exist, and the stem, moreover, can exist without the flower, as evidenced by (most of) nature. But again, while it would claim some relation with it, that cannot really be Ontological Idealism.
This becomes a matter of language, though it is an important matter and not just the splitting of hairs. Because if awareness is not actually aware of itself most of the time, but is simply "aware" in terms of expressing a primitive, vegetative kind of living urge or impetus that is itself, then it is not really appropriate or accurate to use the term "consciousness" with respect to it. That vegetative kind of pre-awareness might be irreducible, but consciousness is not. And indeed, this is our experience, as I indicated with the sleep / coma/ anaesthetic examples, and many other examples which could be taken. It is not sufficient for Idealism that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. If the awareness element of consciousness can be subtracted leaving only a vegetative primal action groping in the dark, and for which we can say that consciousness is necessary but not yet sufficient, then the noumenon is not consciousness, but is pre-aware or neutral monist in character.
@Nerian hi. I am fairly familiar with Bernardo's work. Again, while I am not opposed to it, and favor it well over materialism, I have not seen some of these issues addressed to my satisfaction. However, if you have a specific video reference with time stamps for specific points you are referring to, I will take a look again at whatever you have in mind. Thanks.
@can't look anymore thank you for an interesting reply. I certainly don't want to dismiss what you bring up, which seems to me the same question that near death experiences bring up (the core existential fact of them rather than their content), but I also do think that this still poses some problems. Foremost among these is the issue of whether these experiences (including yours) are actually sponsored from human consciousness, and are therefore "post flower" rather than "pre flower" if you take my meaning. That is a very real question, because it is not at all clear that such a thing as a near death experience can exist without first having a blossomed human consciousness even capable of describing one. The trouble here, then, is that a human consciousness might, under unusual circumstances, be capable of transporting part of itself back down the "stem" into the pre-conscious, and there (at least temporarily) altering the pre-conscious, thus giving the impression of a consciousness there that doesn't really reside there. I can, unfortunately, think of no straightforward empirical way to test that question over the assertion that NDE-style consciousness is one that lucidly abides. The vegetative intelligence, but lack of reasoned intelligence, in the systems of the body again suggest that those systems are pre-conscious rather than sponsored from actual consciousness.
In addition, the issue that I originally raised is not answered by this. I don't doubt for a second that your experience is real. On the other hand, I have had GAs on multiple occasions and never been conscious during one. The question of where consciousness was if consciousness is irreducible in those circumstances is thus a pressing one. Because, evidently, my consciousness was "reduced"...so far as I know, to zero. One could perhaps argue that I was conscious but do not remember it, but I would respond again that memory is so wrapped up with what we call consciousness that I am not especially persuaded that any "consciousness" without memory isn't...once again...really "pre-conscious."
This also relates back to a comment I (believe I) made on an earlier video. If some noumenon state is already fully conscious and knowing, it becomes problematic as to why consciousness would venture at all into our animal condition. On the other hand if the pre-conscious senses instinctively that it can somehow enrich or complete itself (i.e. perhaps by "becoming aware of" itself) in the embodied condition, this makes at least some kind of partial sense of our condition in the cosmic ecology. Perhaps this is what makes such experiences as NDEs possible. This is also akin, I think, to what Schopenhauer was actually arguing in TWAWAR. The Will of being isn't attached to an "entity" of some kind, and does not have knowledge for specifics beyond the knowledge won in the world itself by unfolding context. Specifically: existence cannot know what it is like to be a fisherman in China, until both fishermen and China exist in a fully conscious, experientially realized world. Hope this makes sense.
I'm not seeing why idealism in particular _needs_ to answer these questions in order to be "credible." These questions can be asked of materialism or dualism just as easily. I don't know of any answers they would give to these questions, yet they are still seen as "credible" philosophies of mind that are mainstream. Idealism is a heavily neglected philosophy, to say it's underexplored is an understatement. Contemporary idealism is primarily motivated as an alternative due to the failures of mainstream views like materialism or dualism (the hard problem of consciousness and the interaction problem respectively) so a lot of details about idealism still need to be filled in since there's very few authors on the topic and most of them are addressing problems that press on contemporaries like the ones I mentioned earlier. So if there are certain details that idealism doesn't have specifics for, I'd say give it time as it's just now beginning to be explored a tad more and I'd be happy to recommend some contemporary idealists who are getting more into specifics. I'd also note to not forget about the distinction between easy problems and a hard problem. If these questions do pose problems for idealism they may simply be easy problems in which case they can be resolved by hammering out some details. Only if you present a hard problem is the integrity of idealism threatened, in which case the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there is a hard problem of sorts for idealism.
I'm going to attempt to give some answers to your questions, but please keep in mind what I've noted in my initial paragraph: consciousness doesn't "go" anywhere, facts about space and time are reducible to phenomenal/phenomenological facts. Concepts of the body and of "long term" and duration in general are logical constructions of phenomenal/phenomenological facts. A comatose patient is someone with impaired cognitive faculties and when they're repaired so are their mental states. Maybe we don't emerge from a background of unknowing and unconsciousness, I'd recommend checking out a video called: "The Dream Of Life - Alan Watts." To give a bit more detail on that answer I believe more thorough scientific studies of dreams and dream characters may give us more insight into this as they may actually be conscious themselves which means we have a real world case of minds within a mind which may help explain how our minds are grounded in the single mind that is fundamental to reality. Maybe those "material systems" don't hold more sway: it may seem like Alzheimers pulls the punches but if you look at the ways of preventing Alzheimers they're things that you pull the punch for: smoking cessation, regular exercise, eating a balanced and nutritious diet, lifelong learning and so forth. I'm not saying these are "proven" ways of preventing this disease but there's good evidence that essentially taking care of yourself in general wards of such diseases, and that choice is all up to you. But in general I want to note that as a monist and an idealist I don't make a distinction of two types of causes: all causation is mental in nature, but we shouldn't equivocate mental causation with volition, something can be mental in nature without being in your control.
I think this issue of proto-consciousness or pre-consciousness emerges because the parts are taken to be prior to the whole. A monistic idealist like myself doesn't take these proto-mental states as the ground of being or as ontologically foundational, it is the whole that is foundational rather than the parts. If there are such things as proto-mental states it's because they fragment (or de-compose) from a mental state that is already whole. So there's no non-conscious substance or property or anything beforehand, the whole is indeed conscious and the whole is prior to the parts. I believe a single subject is fundamental and that they are conscious of themselves, so I think I can definitely avoid this charge of neutral monism, not so sure about Kastrup though. If I'm missing anything here or if there's any questions you have feel free to let me know.
@@MonisticIdealism Hi and thanks for the reply. I won't address the weaknesses of materialism or dualism, as I take it as given that they have such weaknesses. My issue is with whether the concept of an already completed consciousness tallies with nature, and I cannot easily see that it does. Consciousness cannot have "parts" if it is fundamental to being (unlike mind, for instance, which can easily have parts, or at least something akin to them). Therefore if it is possible for consciousness to be subtracted, then consciousness cannot be the fundamental. There cannot be any "unconscious" circumstances. One can argue from a "top down" kind of ontology, from some kind of completed consciousness into progressive states of contraction and forgetfulness (philosophical equivalent of the religious idea of the Fall) and then somehow nature begins working back up again from the lowest states to make the natural world "appear" as if it is bottom up, but I think that would be a fudge to be honest. Conscious mind looks like it emerged out of the pre-conscious, and the pre-conscious out of the bluntly vegetal.
And by the way I think that there is a hard problem for Idealism: namely that pre-conscious and unconscious states appear to exist.
This is what I think happens to me and others when we experience a general anaesthetic, knockout concussion, coma etc. I was of course being metaphorical when I asked "where does consciousness go?" But the fact is, if I have no practical experience of being conscious under Circumstance X, I don't see how it can plausibly be argued that somehow I was conscious nonetheless. If consciousness can be switched off like a light bulb with a (relatively simple) chemical switch like this, then the Occamish conclusion has to be that both the bulb and the switch are ontologically precedent over the "light." I think what happened when I had a GA was that the "flower" of consciousness contracted, and what remained was what it originally emerged from...the pre-conscious "stem." Only when the stem was once more disinhibited could consciousness (the flower) once more express. Likewise with brain damage, brain disease, learning, growth and development, somnambulism, and so many other things. Organic systems in general give all the signs of being pre-conscious. If the stem is attacked, the flower cannot sustain, rather than the other way round (to take but the simplest and most greatly evidenced example).
It is an interesting point you raise about "the whole being the fundamental" although, in pragmatic terms, I'm not really sure what it means. If the Ground needs self-reflection in order to see itself, hence the universe and embodied beings, then consciousness itself becomes a kind of "process dialectic" and not an ontological substance as in conventional Idealism. In that dialectic, if the "universe" side of the conversation were withdrawn, there would not be any principle left capable of knowing itself. I would have to say that it is difficult to know what the import of the world is at all - assuming that it has one - if it is not something as far reaching as this, namely a modification of sorts upon the Fundamental. What does it mean to "modify" something that already contains time within itself? Who knows....but again, if we are talking about a dialectic this is an entire other matter from conventional idealism.
The real million dollar question about all mystical experiences, NDEs etc, is whether in fact they continue off the end of the medical crisis, or whether that blossom of lucidity is lost again and consciousness fades back (either gradually or swiftly) to a pre-conscious stem, perhaps from which it can later (though somewhat unconsciously) re-emerge into manifestation again via life as another embodied being. I haven't found any of the arguments that pose the idea that it does continue in lucid glory especially convincing, though neither do I dismiss the possibility offhand. Specifically, I think I am inclined to take the cosmic ground state as "that which has the inherent potential to blossom as consciousness but does not yet have such consciousness without the unfolding of multitudinous contexts in which to perceive itself." It's a bit of a mouthful perhaps, but hopefully the meaning is clear enough.
@@marineboyecosse Thanks for the reply as well. My point wasn't that materialism and dualism are weak (though they are), my point is I'm simply not seeing why it is necessary for idealism specifically to answer these questions in order to be taken to be "credible" while materialism and dualism do not. It comes off as a sort of double standard when one philosophy, especially one as neglected as idealism, is held to this really high bar while the others are arbitrarily let off the hook. If materialism and dualism are "credible," (which they are as mainstream views) without having an answer to these questions then I'm not seeing why idealism too can't be "credible" without having an answer to these questions, especially with idealism being so underexplored and how in time we may be getting a lot more details which could provide the exact answers you seek with just a little bit more patience.
The whole (in this case: consciousness) can indeed have parts if it is fundamental, you must not be familiar with the strongest contemporary form of monism known as _Priority Monism._ I highly recommend you check out a paper by one of the leading contemporary defenders of monism named Jonathan Schaffer who wrote a great article entitled: "Monism: the priority of the whole." He comes at it from a materialist perspective, but he makes the general case that the whole is indeed more fundamental than the parts and that the whole does have parts. There are no unconscious circumstances: a single mind is fundamental, with metaphysical explanation dangling downward from this one mind that subsumes everything. Nothing happens "outside" of this fundamental consciousness because nothing exists independently of this consciousness. If you think the parts are before the whole then the burden of proof is on you to support this. I've provided a paper for priority monism so you can delve into that if you wish.
I'm not seeing any reason to believe there is such a thing as "pre-conscious" and "unconscious states," hence I've been given no reason to believe idealism has hard problem as you so put it.
You are not the totality of reality. Even if you never existed and were never a conscious agent, consciousness would still be fundamental and exhaustive of reality. Just because you have mental states you don't entirely remember, or are themselves not fundamental, that doesn't mean there is a non-mental reality. The point about comas and so forth is pretty moot given this: if you were a fundamental entity this would be a problem but you're a mere contingent being so there's no problem if your consciousness were to "go" (which it doesn't). Just because you lack memories of mental states that doesn't mean they didn't happen, and it's possible for mental states to lack certain intensity so just because you may not have experiences as vivacious as waking life that doesn't mean you're not having them. Many people have many dreams overnight but they simply don't remember them. It takes effort to improve dream recall, dream frequency, and lucidity, and even then it's not always achieved unless you're a natural like some lucky people.
I don't believe consciousness or this self-reflection is non-fundamental, the whole is itself consciousness so there is fundamentally awareness and awareness of awareness. That is a bit of a mouthful you said earlier, but with an approach like mine the issue you try to raise appears to be dissolved. I seem to have a purer form of idealism than the one you're attacking. I hold to what David Chalmers calls "Cosmic Idealism" which is defined as: all concrete facts are grounded in facts about the mental states of a single cosmic entity. This cosmic entity is a pure subject of experience whose being is exhausted by its being conscious, by there being something that it is like to be it. So there is no pre-conscious or unconscious, there is only consciousness.
IT amazes me how pseudo philosophy is so popular.
I think, therefore I skipped this video. :)
@@TheSoteriologist grahamkartna.bandcamp.com/track/cute-blue-skirt
@@TheSoteriologist th-cam.com/video/tS7cHwAmjV4/w-d-xo.html
@@TheSoteriologist th-cam.com/video/tY7QV24JxGU/w-d-xo.html
@@TheSoteriologist th-cam.com/video/6fVE8kSM43I/w-d-xo.html
@@TheSoteriologist lmgtfy.com/?q=google