Constitutive Panpsychism: Hidden Flaws | COURSE (3/7)| Dr. Bernardo Kastrup
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ค. 2024
- In part 3 of Essentia Foundation's Analytic Idealism Course, we investigate the insoluble problems of constitutive panpsychism, a fashionable metaphysics that postulates consciousness to be a fundamental property of matter. Subscribe to the channel: bit.ly/EssentiaYT
00:00 Recap part 2
02:38 Constitutive panpsychism
11:36 First problem of panpsychism
17:13 Second problem of panpsychism
23:23 Third problem of panpsychism
34:50 Conclusion
36:38 Analytic idealism
Did you enjoy this video? Be sure to give it a like!
Watch part 4 here: • A Revolutionary Theory...
Watch part 2 here: • Physicalism: More Brok...
Do you want to support our cause?
Have a look at our website → www.essentiafoundation.org/co...
----------
Relevant literature:
blogs.scientificamerican.com/...
sciendo.com/article/10.1515/s...
iai.tv/articles/will-we-ever-...
iai.tv/articles/the-universal...
On the insolubility of the ‘combination problem’ of panpsychism:
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...
uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/...
faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pca...
www.jstor.org/stable/24706312...
Refutations of the 'de Broglie-Bohm' interpretation of quantum mechanics:
www.quantamagazine.org/famous...
motls.blogspot.com/2009/01/bo...
www.researchgate.net/publicat... (see pages 103-112)
----------
Science of Consciousness conference | Essentia Foundation
The Science of Consciousness' conference 2021 is organized by the Sentience and Science Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study of the University of Amsterdam and Essentia Foundation. During this conference thinkers came together to discuss consciousness and its various states and manifestations. Find all talks from the conference here: bit.ly/ConsciousnessConference
Analytic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup | Essentia Foundation
In the playlist “Analystic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup” you will find a carefully produced but free, online, video-based course on Analytic Idealism with over 6 hours of content, conducted by Essentia Foundation’s executive director, Bernardo Kastrup. Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. Find the course here: bit.ly/AnalyticIdealism
2020 Work Conference | Essentia Foundation
In the playlist “2020 Work Conference” you will find various talks given by scholars, thinkers, scientists, entrepeneurs, professors, authors and journalists during Essentia Foundation's 2020 online work conference. Find the talks here:
bit.ly/EFworkconference
----------
Welcome to the TH-cam channel of Essentia foundation. Essentia Foundation is an information hub that aims at communicating the latest analytic and scientific indications that metaphysical materialism is fundamentally flawed. Our community of authors, including Bernardo Kastrup, lists a growing number of academics, scholars, philosophers, scientists and authors whose works are opening the way for a new, more functional and true understanding of ourselves and reality at large. By closing the communication gap Essentia Foundation hopes to communicate new evidence of metaphysical idealism to human culture at large.
And this is what our TH-cam channel is perfectly suited to do. By posting interviews, discussions, lectures, informational video’s and other short formats we hope to share new developments in the quest to understand reality. Do you also wonder whether we actually live in a physical universe? Then be sure to check out our video’s and subscribe to our channel.
----------
Want to know more?
Take a look at our websites and socials.
Website: bit.ly/EssentiaWebsite
Vimeo: bit.ly/EssentiaVimeo
Twitter: bit.ly/EssentiaTwitter
Facebook: bit.ly/EssentiaFB
Copyright © 2021 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.
#EssentiaFoundation #Panpsychism #BernardoKastrup
![รวมเพลงลูกทุ่ง 6 หนุ่มไทบ้าน ฮิตติดกระแส ชุดที่ 1 l มนต์แคน ไมค์ ไผ่ เสถียร ไหมไทย พี [Longplay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD2v1OjMw5I/mqdefault.jpg)
This whole series is an absolute gem!
I am so grateful to you for this wonderful teaching! Goes hand in hand with dzogchen Buddhism and advita vedanta which scaffold my view of "reality". Science and spirituality finally complementing each other
Referring to the entire teaching, not just this video 👍
Well said!
Not to nitpick, but this is not science. This is philosophy, albeit philosophy that is trying to remain consistent with science.
Aren't both an investigation into the nature of reality? Different paths though.
Since when do you need science or philosophy to enable you to accept or adopt a religion?
Amazing content! I'm so glad this is available for people to learn from. Thank you.
Panpsychism is simply a justification to cling to matter as fundamental.
There is nothing but matter in this universe so it is fundamental.
@@matterasmachine but that is factually false.
@@matterasmachinethe universe is just an evolutionary fitness payoff put in place by evolutionary mechanics to help an individual distinguish itself from the objective reality
In a recent interview Sam Harris seemed to say he was agnostic but entertains an unspecified neutral monism. But his critique of idealism assumed materialism and conflated science and materialism.
The assumption goes incredibly deep. Especially with those obsessed with neurons, computation, and information/systems theories.
I almos feel bad for Sam Harris, because his entrenched view is simply obsolete.
Another very enjoyable episode - I really appreciate the personal passion that motivates your analytical and philosophical approach; this communicates well to the listener, along with the clarity of the presentation.
Sheer brilliance
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with the world!
23:00 What I understood is that no concept can be reality. The concept is only the dial on the dashboard. That the subatomic properties have consciousness is just a concept and hence cannot be a reflection of reality.
I am excited to figure out where this is going. Probably, like Nisargadatta Maharaj said, you can never know the Truth, you can only be it.
20th Century Western philosophers Deleuze and Guattari argue the same in their paper What is the concept?
Essentially they argue concepts in philosophy creates concepts - same too for artists and scientists. They bring concepts into being which is a creative process.
Thank you so much Bernado Kastrup. ❤
Thanks for making this series, very interesting.
A possible physical expression of Constitutive Panpsychism is a starfish. I was taught that a starfish is made up of individual biological entities, each complete in and of themselves, and when combined in a group called a starfish, becomes a greater entity with more mobility where groups of individual entities take on specific properties and functions within the starfish as a whole. Another is to watch a swarm of fish or birds move as one body. How is the consciousness of each member able to unify in the whole? The DNA of our own body cells can replicate an entirely new and identical to the original body. What is the consciousness within our cells that is able to coalesce in the whole as one consciousness, yet still be able to retain identity, function, and purpose in separate organs? So rather than declare, as would panpsychism, that consciousness is a property of matter, there must be a property of consciousness that can impart itself in matter, as matter, not of matter. What is it about consciousness that allows it to take on any form, any function. To me, that means consciousness is not an effect or property of consciousness, and my one NDE confirmed that for me.
I like what you wrote, but where does that take you? What's the bottom line?
@@aisthpaoitht The bottom line for me is that who I really am is an eternal being. The "I" that I am was never "born" and will never "die." My physical appearance is for exploration and the accumulation of experience. The origin and destiny of the universe is in every atom. In a sense, I am the universe and the universe is in me, as are we all. Everything is connected. These concepts are not new.
Right, but the statement(s) of jcinaz points to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, not panpsychism. The entire universe is Consciousness, the flock of birds and a rock. It's all Pure Consciousness.
Thank you Bernardo!
YES! The human body is the DOING of the field of consciousness! Well put! Thank you. You have been reading my mind. This is the way that I have been thinking all along. Or have I been reading your mind?
Just yesterday I was listening to an Advaita Vedanta class (Swami Sarvapriyananda, Bhagavad Gita Class 66) where this point came up--i.e. it's not that "the chair exists" but that "existence is chair-ing". It's interesting to see people following very different paths to a similar conclusion.
Nice. I am reminded of the great Buddhist Madhyamaka philosophers who argued against Indian atomism being fundamental. The same ideas just keep popping up again and again in this world.
As the thinking mind has risen to the throne, it needs it's food. Bernardo Kastrup serves up a banquet.
I find myself able to follow his reasoning pretty well, and have no problem in grasping its principles .
I also find myself exasperated by what seems to be ridiculously obvious, only he is more patient and gentler than I'd be.
Other than providing food for hungry minds, I'm blown away by the absolute need of the western mind to "prove" knowledge that's currency
in the ancient cultures of the world, including our own in North American tribal peoples.
I'm allergic to science, the word and the practice.
It is the male who seems to find such "excitation" (love this term! it's sexy) in dissociating themselves from the whole
to prove its existence.
Bernardo is the exception in that he is full of feeling, emotionally connected with his, to me, faultless thinking. I believe this is why he is so loved
in addition to being respected. (The nay-sayers are dry and boring.)
When my intelligence-hungry mind is satisfied, I can go back to a state of knowing that everything without exception is alive.
Why would I need to prove what is so deeply felt? Only if it were my task/destiny to do so, in service, as does Bernardo, and others.
I do not give a hoot about analyzing, proving, disproving, or any of the verbiage, other than to enjoy this wonderful discourse.
I know, as humans have quietly known since forever, especially saints, roshis, Buddha, Mary, children, madmen, poets, artists - that
all is alive to some degree of vibration or another.
Bernardo knows. All is alive. The only thing, then, is to know it more deeply, fully, cellularly, soulularly, because to be truly alive
is to live in wonder and awe.
"That we should exist!" -- Oscar Wilde.
Awesome !
this lesson helps me as in early 70s a South African at 9 Rutland Ave, a deceased estate of Miss Darling, walked up to me and said, I don't need to speak with you I can read your mind. It proved untrue. That Beatle song Oh Darling etc.
Thanks Bernardo and Essentia. How can regular Joe contribute to the work that Essentia is doing, other than sharing the content?
This part is not really necessary to understand Analytic Idealism. Maybe it helps to make the distinction between both positions. And when you never heard about panpsychism, here you get a glance at it. A good brain exercise it surely is.
Thank you very much
Wow. Amazing video
Bravo!!!
I like your description that since we see our bodies as made up of elementary particles, it is simply a limitation of the resolution of our sensory perception. Let me take this one step further. If our resolution of perception were so fine as to "see" individual frequencies beyond the range of visible light at both ends, our "reality" would appear either as nothingness, no definition, or we would be endowed with the power to "perceive" as we wish to capture meaning and value out of the chaos of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. And that latter part is exactly what we do within the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is not that the "brain" responsible for this interpretation of light, but it is an act of consciousness - despite the "hard evidence" that portions of the brain appear to be the center of interpretation of our sensory perceptions. There is yet one more aspect that Materialism cannot explain and that is "how" all those localized areas of the brain, the dials and meters, result in a subjective experience. Materialism cannot explain "experience" without in invoking matter as the source of that which is experienced (panpsychism) - which is a circular argument (like describing the color red by showing the color red). The koan "show me the sound of one hand clapping" is applicable here. Who, what, and where is the "perceiver" of that which is perceived?
👏👏👏Essa aula foi uma salto quântico aqui na minha mente!!!!!!
Thank you once more!👏 Some english subs please🙂
YES! English subtitles would help understand some of the terminology tossed around since the words are not being shown on the screen for clarity.
@@jcinaz The standard YT cc are available now, with only a few creative renderings, such as the Broccoli Bomb interpretation (33.01) .......
Also, if they add English subtitles the TH-cam system will make translations to several other languages available
Thank you so much for sharing this amazing series for free! Could you add a donation button or PayPal link? I would like to show my appreciation also with a donation and support the important cause of making this worldview known to more people.
Thanks for this amazing course Bernardo! However, as a ripple has properties, one could postulate that one of the properties of a particle in a field would be, spin, charge, etc, and maybe even consciousness? Can one prove or disprove that I do not know! haha! Thanks in anycase! 🌿
I don’t know why ppl take Sam Harris seriously?!
He clearly is just a pop philosopher.
I would really love seeing you talk with matt from the channel footnotes2plato whos into whitehead a lot. I really find it hard to grasp the conflict in both of your view.
Thank you Bernardo and Essentia Foundation team, for this course and 3rd lesson. Acording with Ken Wilber’s "Integral Theory" and "Spectum of Consciosness", consciousness and his higher levels in the spectrum of counsciousness arise side by side with the growing of complexity of systems or Holons (a whole-part unity). Is that idea compatible with your theroy?
I am interested in a Wilbur-Bernardo debate.
Telepathy could be said to be the "combination" or blending (matriculation) of two or more minds. That in and of itself is an example of the "separateness" and yet the "unity" of mind (consciousness).
Yes - I’d have to listen again to map out his argument, but I don’t agree with the notion that we can’t read each other’s thoughts. Unless he means something that I misunderstood, I believe we can and do read each other’s thoughts, although that capacity is not developed culturally.
All minds are conected eachother at the same reality broadcasting transmition, They are in the same movie theatre…its one movie for all in the same room with a litle diferences of point or angle of personal view…
I think Bernardo overstates the value of parsimony and understates the value of intuition, which is a mistake materialists make.
There’s no reason to expect the simplest theory to most correctly map onto reality, especially in something like metaphysics (see Michael Huemer), and we’re justified in accepting our intuitions on face value unless they’re met with a defeater.
I’d be interested in seeing Bernardo’s take on hylomorphism and why he thinks idealism is preferable.
“Parsimony is a virtue of empirical theories. Is it also a virtue of philosophical theories? I review four contemporary accounts of the virtue of parsimony in empirical theorizing, and consider how each might apply to two prominent appeals to parsimony in the philosophical literature, those made on behalf of physicalism and on behalf of nominalism. None of the accounts of the virtue of parsimony extends naturally to either of these philosophical cases. This suggests that in typical philosophical contexts, ontological simplicity has no evidential value.”
Just wondering if those constitutive panpsychic subatomic particles get dizzy with all that spinning? Are they cautious about becoming overweight or being wrongly charged? I wonder what it is like to be a subatomic particle? Just curious.
in fact we call matter our interaction with the reconstructed world of our perceptions. Is this world outside of us, completely independent of us? While we are correlated with it we cannot be external to this correlation and therefore we cannot know the reality of a world which would be outside of us. Like a character in a movie who could come off the screen and see the movie from the outside? Is that correct Bernardo? Is that what you mean?
So this is described in the Seth Material as 'Idea Construction'
Combined combination of consciousness could be said to happen within a society. A nation is a good example.
Joke, right?
Can anyone help me understand why Bernardo found it necessary to prefix panpsychism with constitutive and idealism with analytical? Also, what other types are there and do the same arguments apply?
He mentions an alternative approach to panpsychism called cosmopanpsychism, which would be very similar to analytical idealism. He also says there are many other types, but doesn't name them. And, about idealism, there's at least one more type - Berkeley's version of it, known as subjective idealism.
After listening to Bernardo Kastrup most of the other current thinkers pale into insignificance… so wish he would look in to philosophy of the Nile Valley thinkers from whence ‘Greek Philosophy’ was ‘borrowed’ ….. hope colour or ‘race’ isn’t an issue when it come to truth!!! Anyways, thanks for uploading.
Here is explanation. All matter in universe are conscious very primitive discrete machines. Everything the rest are combinations of those discrete machines. And our consciousness is group consciousness of all causally connected data of our brain and nervous system.
Just a technical question about Quantum Field Theory: If there are 17 types and if you can distinguish them one from another, don't they then have boundaries? I cannot understand how there can be a continuum of fields and yet they a distinguished somehow...
And another question: How did we find out about quantum fields? If the answer is 'by instruments', then we know about them via the dashboard of dials you mentioned in Part I. Hence we can not really know that there are 'fields' don't we?
Good questions. Regarding the second one, I would say (and I could be wrong) that we can only know quantum fields, apples, desks--everything--by the dashboard in the first place. It's the same situation when we look at a scattering of particles and conclude that the Higgs Boson exists, as when we look at a desk and see an apple, and conclude that the apple exists. It's all dashboard. I don't know if that helps. Aloha!
"Just a technical question about Quantum Field Theory: If there are 17 types and if you can distinguish them one from another, don't they then have boundaries? I cannot understand how there can be a continuum of fields and yet they a distinguished somehow..."
Things can be distinguished not just based on spatio-temporal position, but also based on physical constitution.
"And another question: How did we find out about quantum fields? If the answer is 'by instruments', then we know about them via the dashboard of dials you mentioned in Part I. Hence we can not really know that there are 'fields' don't we?"
Of course there aren't literal fields, but science is still a useful way of describing the behaviour of reality. Reality doesn't behave in particles, it behaves in fields, which means that reality is spatially unbound and thus panpsychism cannot be true.
If brains can't creat experience, I guess it might be a little bit harder for subatomic particles to create it.
The "information" of experience is "felt" at every level of materiality. It is consciousness that applies and organizes the information. The human body (and other organics) plays the role of giving "meaning" to that information. This is how the One consciousness discovers and learns about itself. From one perspective, we are not a "piece" of the One consciousness, we ARE the One consciousness. From another perspective, we are individualized (individuated) consciousness of the One consciousness. It is clear to me that both perspectives are plausible. To this end, the smallest so-called "particle" (which is really just a vortex of energy) is one with (inextricably linked) the whole of energy (the One consciousness). What happens to one, happens to all without regard to space or time.
There's an error in his model toward the end where BK states that inanimate objects are "in" Consciousness. Only partially true. The complete statement would have to add AS consciousness, since using his example of the ripples in the lake or ocean, it's true that the ripples are "in" the ocean, but more important, they are AS the same Substance (Spinoza's term.) The term "in" alone suggest that one entity is "inside' a different entity, when in fact, the two entities in question (ripples and waves), are the SAME Substance, thus the waves are an expression AS and IN, both.
To use a metaphor from the Chandogya Upanishad, imagine an infinity of objects (our conventional apparent world), but we discover (in the state of non-duality), that all of the objects are made of clay, the underlying reality. The apparent separate objects are the same Substance just as the ripples on the surface of the Ocean. It's the delusion of ignorance (Maya), that leads into the false belief that there is an intrinsic identity separate from the whole (the unbounded sea of Pure Consciousness, Sat-Chit-Ananda or Brahman.
Until our screen of perception is granular to the scale of Planck energy, size, and time, even that screen will inaccurately represent the physical world, let alone be even potentially mappable to the underlying reality of mind.
Creative Intelligence functions consciously and unconsciously simultaneously.
Great content. What strikes me at the first glance is the similarity between the pixels metaphor and the 'coarse-grained' picture of our world as it is perceived by us. I mean of course atoms and all the physical subatomic particles. Is there perhaps any idealist-philosophical work that elaborates the potential influences between those two possible ways of reality presenting itself to us? I don't know if it is not far-fetched but this somewhat reminds me of the - perhaps non-accidental - arguable fractal nature of reality: the dissociated alters perceiving the world as pixelated as they themselves are if the dissociation of the primarily unitary field of consciousness should be seriously considered.
Doesn't panpsychism also have the same parsimony problem as physicalism? It offers a sort of explanation of the hard problem of consciousness but seems to try to keep physicalism as well and therefore all the other problems of physicalism - other than the hard problem of consciousness.
Right, BK's model is monist,; but physicalism and panpsychism are still in the dualist category. This is shown by BK in the connectivity problem. This is the same problem proponents of the "Elan Vital" idea had, popular in the late 19-th century going into the 20th. Basically, this the philosophical "ghost in the machine" problem. Where's the ghost vs the "non-ghost"?
❤
Anyone familiar with Chronon Field Theory?
Apparently it’s a theory, and I’m paraphrasing here, that gets rid of any language terms used as metaphors to describe a mathematical function, like spin, weight, gravity, etc. The only remaining language metaphor that this theory cannot get rid of is Time....and everything in the Chronon Field that has potential can be observed consciously because the entire Chronon Field observes it, meaning it is recognized by Time. Something like that.
34:21 bookmark
👍
Just when I thought I had life figured out... 😟
We can separate your brain in 2 parts and left part will not agree with right part. And you will see that you are your brain.
No panpsychism is not the answer. How can a consiousness attach to matter? The same body-mind problem, but now not as a reduction but consiousness as an add on to matter. But consiousness does not have physical properties, how can it have quantitative boundaries? Then it would be like lego blocks fitting in each other. Each fundamental particle is different, but every add on element consiousness will be same. At what about emergence, is there then an extra level of consiousness? How many consiousness are there? They vary in relation to the combinations of matter. Break up an emergence, then the bigger consiousness evaporates or disperse again in many consiousnesses? Conciousness is then acting like a property of matter, and not as a constant unified whole. If a body dies then each part of the body with many consiousness go their own way again? Also if matter moves does consiousness then also then internally moves? This is not in how consiousness is experienced. The biggest problem with panpsychism is the problem of perspective. Each consiousness has a unique specific perspective. If each particle has its own consiousness then each particle consiousness has a specific perspective. How then if these particles combines? What happens with all these perspetives? Does an new global perspective arise? Based on what? And consiois perspective is related to unified sensory information. Does a particle has sensory information and theredore a perspective? It that is so, does that mean that every particle lives, feel pain, pleasure? This line of thinking goes nowwhere.
Perhaps physicalism is the defeated result of an utterly transcendent Platonism and panpsychism is the futile Aristotelian pseudo-remedy.
The presenter is too giddy in his attack. This topic deserves a more persuasive presentation. We need allies not opponents.
Panpsychism, animism, new age - they all see stuff that isn't there and pretend it's true 😊
This refers to what he says in the first half of part 2