Bernardo Kastrup is a philosopher and computer scientist known for advocating "analytic idealism," the view that reality is fundamentally mental. He has published influential books and articles challenging materialist views of consciousness and has a background in artificial intelligence research. Susan Blackmore is a psychologist, writer, and visiting professor known for her work in consciousness studies, including research on memes, out-of-body experiences, and the nature of self. She is the author of The Meme Machine and has contributed extensively to debates on consciousness and the role of cultural evolution.
True or false.. memory is redundant in a block universe.. why store a license plate number of you view it forever and ever amen. Idiots assume brain memory because mankind is in a materialistic separate religion. . Memory is forever external and easily accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock if they go half as fast as your entangled external mind. Kastrup is 20 years behind smarter folk . Minimum Dying is safe because ALL religions have validity if death is a waking up. external mind means common (not solipsism) dream.... Kastrup was fun a decade ago.. but he's stuck in a loop.. Dream toast and psychedelic trip toast.. are exactly the same as kitchen toast.. Kastrup needs to be born to a smarter mom to escape this moronic Republican loca
Is this your first acquaintance with Bernardo? I ask because you suggested he didn't have evidence/logical reasons to support his idealist position -- when the logical and empirical rigor he displays (on this topic) is what he is famous for; indeed, it is the only contribution he makes.
he DOES NOT HAVE ANY contributions to philosophy , that's NOT how the world works , my friend ALL this guy is doing , we already KNOW is a Composition Division Fallacy , you can't just make connections that ARE NOT THERE , from OUR consciousness to A consciousness being a FUNDAMENTAL part of the universe , that's NOT possible ... TO DO ... , that IS the fallacy he is making , you CAN NOT DO THAT !!! and certainly not when ALL OF THE SCIENCE GOES AGAINST IT , which he knows it does and have him on tape confessing to this , NOTHING in science that's EVER been tested , has been conscious , like protons , electrons , photons , NONE OF IT , that's IS the consensus in science AND philosophy , i would watch his ''debate'' ( got SLAUGHTERED LIKE A DEAD FISH ) , with Tjump and get the ACTUAL EXPLANATION OF WHAT HE IS DOING WRONG , while being LAUGHED AT !!! he is taking OUR SUBJECTIVE consciousness and just MAKING AN OVERAL OBJECTIVE CONSIOUSNESS from it , ... all from HIS tiny mind , this DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ACTUALLY ANYTHING IN REALITY THAT CORRESPONDS TO HIS NONSENSE !!!!
Bernardo out here convincing one famous consciousness researcher at a time... Annaka Harris, Philip Goff, Christof Koch, now Susan here--an illusionist no less! Doing Mind-At-Large's work ❤️🔥
This comment will teach more than those names... Dying is safe because memory is forever and ever amen stored as simultaneous block universe events accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock if they had the USS enterprise or a 1981 Delorean Brain memory is redundant if you're viewing every license plate number simultaneously to forever (true or false) Mankind assumes separateness because they are dreaming dogs that wake up and are still dreaming A dreaming dog is NOT separate from the dream squirrel you chase Even if you feel invested in this common (not solipsism) COMMON dream...a shared dream of sorts Bernardo is 20 years behind the smarter folk.. minimum
@@waynehilbornTSS I hear ya, brother! Though, really, Bernardo is like a few millennia behind the smart people on this one ;) (if not more! Gotta give those hunter-gatherer shamans their due.)
@@ark-L Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my TH-cam homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, to correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my TH-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
@@FilipinaVegana Interesting points! I'll just say: Bernardo readily admits that he is not enlightened, and that, though his project is based on analytic rationality, he sees direct experience as the "royal road" to the truth. Sounds like we share a broadly similar syncretic understanding. I'll likely take you up on your offer to hear more. Thank you for your post. I do have a preemptive question though: Where do the strict metaethical notions you espouse in your reply originate vis-a-vis your understanding of the nondual teachings? Seems dangerously close to affirming a kind of ethical dualism, which I've always taken to be at odds with the deeper precepts of any of Advaita Vedanta, Trika Shaivism, Taoism, Neoplatonism, etc. I may be mistaken, of course. And apologies if you explain this in the document you mentioned-just curious! :)
Metaphysical idealism is far more parsimonious and compelling than materialism/physicalism. The former is congruous with quantum weirdness and the latter suffers from an impasse: the hard problem of consciousness.
Conceptually congruous with doesn't mean scientifically credible. If consciousness is produced by the brain as evidence overwhelmingly shows that's not a hard problem even if we don't know exactly how this occurs. It just means our understanding is incomplete so it's more of modest soft problem.
@@alankoslowski9473 Are you familiar with Bernardo's work at all? I think you might benefit from checking it out. But a quick primer as it relates to your comment: Analytic idealism is in exactly the same position as physicalism, theory-wise. That is, both are theories about metaphysics-which means they are both, in principle, compatible with science, as science is the study of how reality BEHAVES not what reality IS. Which means that science in no way entails physicalism (unfortunately, few pop-sci/internet people not familiar with philosophy grok this). The true test of their merits as theories is how much they can explain with the fewest assumptions-i.e. how parsimonious they are. Both theories are monistic theories (they posit a single ontological primitive), and as covered, are compatible with science. So, there, they are even (although, idealism is arguably more compatible with quantum physics, but we'll skip that digression here). But physicalism has no explanation, even IN PRINCIPLE, for how consciousness/subjectivity/qualia can arise from non-subjective physical stuff; while idealism avoids that problem entirely by taking consciousness/qualia as its sole theoretical given. Physicality, under idealism, is merely the image of a fundamentally mental substrate. After all, do you ever experience anything other than consciousness? No? Right. Idealism takes this sole pre-theoretic datum of existence, and then gets all of reality out of it. Physicalism fails at the starting block. And on the "brain creates consciousness" point: I understand why you think this. I get the arguments for it. I know the evidence. You mess with the brain and you mess with consciousness. Bingo! Obviously, the brain must thus create consciousness! Except, all that that shows is that there is a *correlation* between the brain and consciousness, not a causative arrow. Surely, you know that there are interactions that seem to go the other way, right? As people meditate, their brains develop more gray matter and the size of their amygdalas shrink. That's consciousness seemingly affecting the brain. But even beyond that, idealism actually has a very simple explanation for this in both directions... Let's take what idealism is saying seriously (and don't accidentally slip back into a physicalist frame) and see where it gets us: To restate, if consciousness is fundamental, that means the physical is merely an appearance within consciousness (Kant and/or Schopenhauer can help elucidate this). The apparent physical world we encounter is a kind of dashboard/interface that renders this fundamental field usable for us as (seemingly) separate centers of awareness within consciousness (Bernardo uses "dissociation" as an example in nature where this occurs--that is, as a reference to show that one mind can split into multiple minds). This "dashboard", which we encounter as the physical world, is thus akin to a GUI making using a computer easier than a terminal. So, if you get all that, then you might be able to see how even the brain would necessarily be an appearance within the single unitary field of consciousness. Which means that when the "thing" we see as a brain is damaged and then one's mind apparently changes, what's actually happening is that some process/interaction occurs at the fundamental layer of consciousness and that process affects one's mind (which is, under idealism, no more separable from the one field of consciousness than is a ripple from the ocean) and the result is that the brain-as an appearance within consciousness-is altered accordingly. Again, Bernardo (and Donald Hoffman) can shed more light on this if you read/watch their stuff and take in their dashboard analogy in more detail. But this was just to lay out that idealism has no problem accounting for what the brain is and the nature of its relationship to consciousness. Hope it helped!
@@ark-L Physicalism is the claim that reality is exhaustively described by the laws of physics. It doesn't make an ontological claim about that which the equations of physics describe! But many people do use that word with an ontological claim in mind (namely, that that which equations of physics describe is not phenomenal).
@MasoudJohnAzizi in idealism, the world is a mental representation-a kind of collective dream shared by multiple conscious observers. In other words, the dream is not necessarily the dreamer. The universe would be a collective mentation in a cosmic consciousness of which we are temporarily dissociated alters. We, as humans, are personal minds birthed by the Mind at Large. Panpsychism, on the other hand, says that there is a physical world out there made of indivisible units which are proto-conscious (whatever this means) which then come together to form higher-order complex systems which become conscious. In this view, the world is not a dream in consciousness, but rather, like physicalism, it produces consciousness by way of a hypothetical intrinsic property which is a potential for consciousness. If one wants to be semantically pedantic, one could say that metaphysical idealism is a kind of panpsychism because 'pan' means 'all' and 'psyche' is mind/consciousness. But in academic circles physicality is emphasised and the term panpsychism is then taken to mean that everything has a mind as opposed to everything is mind. This is probably why Kastrup refers to the proposition that everything has a mind as 'constitutive panpsychism' whereas the proposition that it is all mind or consciousness (or that the world we perceive is a dream in consciousness) is what is usually meant by idealism.
In Dream states too we experience matter as real as in waking state. So Dreams are a soild evidence to conclude matter arises from consciousness and not the other way around.
Argument 1: Semantic and Etymological Dependency on Duality Premises: All words derive their meaning through distinctions between referents and their opposed referents. (Principle of relational meaning) The word "consciousness" derives its meaning from the distinction between subject (the knower) and object (the known). (Etymological and semantic claim) Denying the subject-object distinction removes the relational foundation necessary for the word "consciousness" to have meaning. Conclusion: Therefore, denying the subject-object distinction undermines the coherence of the concept of "consciousness." Argument 2: The Necessity of Duality for Metaphysical Claims Premises: All metaphysical claims require defined referents to have intelligible meaning. (Principle of metaphysical coherence) Defining a referent requires making distinctions between what the referent is and what it is not. (Principle of distinction for reference) Distinction inherently relies on duality (e.g., subject-object, self-other). (Principle of relational structure for meaning) Consciousness, as the proposed metaphysical "pre-theoretic given," must therefore rely on duality for its definition or exposure. Denying duality makes it impossible to define or expose the referent "consciousness." Conclusion: Therefore, any metaphysical claim that consciousness is pre-theoretic while denying duality collapses into incoherence. How They Complement Each Other Argument 1 focuses on the semantic and conceptual roots of consciousness, showing that the denial of duality undermines the coherence of the concept itself. Argument 2 shifts to the metaphysical realm, arguing that denying duality makes it impossible to make meaningful claims about consciousness as a pre-theoretic reality. Together, they create a comprehensive critique: denying duality is incoherent both in defining consciousness as a concept and in exposing consciousness as a metaphysical reality. This double critique leaves no room for defending the exclusivity of consciousness as a pre-theoretic given while rejecting duality.
In dream states we can experience matter as though it is as real as in waking state. In this example, where would the distinction be drawn between the subject and object? Would we have to point to different areas of the brain?
"Illusionist DESTROYED by logic and nuance." Jks. The new name is much better. I think "consciousness discussed. Bernardo Kastrup and Susan Blackmore" would be optimum (probably not for the algorithm tho lol). Thanks for the video nonetheless😊
Words gain their semantic value through contrast: a word refers to something by virtue of distinguishing it from something else (e.g., "light" versus "darkness"). The word consciousness inherently implies a relationship between a subject (the one who is conscious) and an object (what the subject is conscious of). For consciousness to exist as a meaningful concept, there must be: A subject that is aware. An object that the subject is aware of. A distinction between the two, which is essential to the concept itself. Thus, it would be impossible for Kastrup to claim that the subject-object distinction is a mere contingency of consciousness, because it is not only essential to its concept but also foundational to its linguistic and logical coherence.
Idealism offers a more compelling view of reality than materialism, but it faces the challenge of solipsism. Non-dualism, in particular, risks collapsing into solipsism by erasing the boundary between self and the external world, which can lead to feelings of isolation or even nihilism. This risk was evident in the discussion between Bernardo Kastrup and Michael James on Advaita Vedanta, where Kastrup, despite his valuable insights, struggled to defend idealism against deeper questions of God-realization. Without a clear argument to counter this, there's a danger of guiding people down a path that may leave them in a difficult or destabilizing position. Understanding and addressing these risks honestly is essential in any philosophical exploration
this kind of person-centered solipsism is generally speaking rooted in the assumption of closed individualism. This assumption can be easily questioned by other approaches like empty or open individualism.
Realize memories are actual simultaneous first kisses and that external.ond/memory would point at GROUP solipsism... (Not solipsism).. If memory is Forever and ever stored as block universe events easily accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock because they verify exist FOREVER.. Philosophers seem to fail in the understanding memory is redundant in a block universe External memory means we are all.. all.. personifications away from the center...and you will Alway have that form of separate.. Death is very safe.. Einstein taught us how memory works.. but our Republican loca is very dumb
@@OngoGablogian185 - If memory is more logically simultaneous block universe SEPARATE events.. then you must be WITHIN a mind or consciousness to begin with. Materialists will all be born to smarter mothers. Repeating this earth air existence is not the wisest choice. There are better locas There is no such thing as a "reality",,, we share (not solipsism) a common dream to simplify.. Mankind assumes separateness and brain memory.. dying is safe and akin to waking up
Con choice nest: Propensity to choose. A where nest: Curiosity. Inversely related like focus and perspective. The aperture of awareness closes as focus is drawn toward details and is required to affect every choice. And it ain't easy being in two places at once.
“There is no such ‘thing’ as Bernardo.” Well, that’s sort of true; but there is such a process as Bernardo. It is essentially the available/evolving states of Bernardo’s brain, or rather the most recent state (which includes previous recent states).
Sense. Sense, or consciousness, is an inherent quality of all matter. In other words: sense is the key to understanding the universe. All matter senses, this is self evident. We get bogged down in separating our conscious experience from the world out there. I agree with what Kastrup is saying, but I would say it in another way.
I don’t think BK would agree with what you are saying. Sense or consciousness is a quality of all matter?! All matter senses?! BK does not think that matter space and time are fundamental. Only Consciousness is fundamental. (he is not a panpsychist) Matter space and time are experiences/excitations in consciousness.
@sxsmith44 sure, that's fine. I like his line of reasoning, but recently I imagine it to be as I characterise in my comment. A fascinating area of thought, and I value Kastrup's ideas.
Fine, I can go along with our mental states as being what our consciousness IS, in other words our experiences. And the external world, so what is external to our consciousness is what we experience and therefore is that which we call our conscious awareness of the external, but what is the nature of that which is external to us? What makes that up? What is the origin of the rules by which it works (laws of nature) that we are constantly discovering by that process we refer to the scientific method? If it is more mental stuff…what is this stuff in terms of its origins or how it works (it’s structure/it’s processes) or why it works in the way it works? Why isn’t it pure chaos for example? Where does the order that is within its workings come from? Why is it the way it is? Why isn’t it different from the way it is? I need to have something that once and for all grounds me so I can somehow build on it. Otherwise you are just presenting woo-woo. I wish to add a little bit to the definition of consciousness. The current definition in its simplest form is defining it as our experience(s). It’s the awareness of our reality. I would add to that that this conscious state is: Automatically discerning patterns, formulating possible associations and establishing relationships. We inherently seem to do this for predictability and thus survival purposes..
I think you might be too focused on the "vs" in the title. They're just having a friendly conversation. In a comment the uploader said "Can you give me another idea of what I should title this video? I'll change it"
Is there a coherent way to distinguish the several possible answers to the questions: "What is like to be me?", "What is it like to be a human?", "What is it like to be?", "What is it like to be a bat?" and "What is it like to be (me, imagining that I am) a bat?", or do not all of the these questions reduce simply to the single ineluctable query: "What is it like to be (me imagining modalities and nuances of me imagining variations on the theme of myself)?"?
When meditating, “It’s not happening in time or space.” I disagree: it may not be happening in space, but it MUST be happening in time. Happening/change always requires time.
@@richardatkinson4710 try reading einsteins 1905 paper and learn captain kirk and Spock can visit all of your memories if they had a 1981 Delorean that could go 1/4 the speed of entanglement.. a fifth grader knows you can watch your own history if you could see a mirror 10 light years away.. and that if anything travel faster than light as 2022 Nobel prize does... It moves into history. Time is not real.. only the illusion of. Memory is logically external from body as actual simultaneous block universe events idiots deem mythical brain memory. So dying is safe and timeless.. Nirvana is not just a band. Having a belief which counters proven twin paradox is an effort in childishness Manufactured brain memory as a reason for consciousness is also an effort in stupidity Mankind ASSUMES a separateness... Because their mommies told them memory is internal If Marty MCfly uses the USS Enterprise he can film and participate in all of your memories .. which STILL exist.. true or false. You reside in a Republican loca.. don't expect this mankind to have a clue Too many people think science is about assumptions and beliefs.. They should prove brain memory before claiming it as true, etc.. Nobel prize if you could.. ha Think for yourself.. a dragon could fly by in a nocturnal dream.. and what we deem reality is akin.. so manifest and pay attention.. many things you manifest won't make linear time sense .. any magic you do will teach you the common dream scenario (not solipsism).. is valid...so you can learn truth by yourself. Memory is redundant.. why store a license plate number we've proven you'll see forever (block universe) The entire notion of memory is weird and unnecessary.. nothing needs a brain if they are entangled faster than light speed... Your toaster void of brain is aware it simultaneously elsewhere.. as does all
The key to this question lies in the study of near death experience. I don't know why they can't see it, It's so very simple and obvious. If consciousness persists when the brain is off line (during cardiac arrest) then consciousness is a separate entity. I realise that that is anathema to academics who simply can't stomach such a thing, but that is what the data is showing. Blackmore just keeps ignoring the really interesting data and refers to her work which is wrong and outdated.
Why do you say the brain is offline during cardiac arrest? That mean the heart stopped, not the brain. (Though it obviously will die in a short time with no blood circulating.)
@@RobinFaichney When the heart stops pumping blood into your head as in cardiac arrest, you lose consciousness instantly (you fall down on the floor dead, I've seen this now several times). You are now unconscious in the first stage of death. Within ten to twenty seconds, all electrical activity ceases in the brain. The brain is now offline, non functional. It's not brain death as in the destruction of the brain nerve cells (neurons) but it is no different a state consciousness/experience wise, than if your head was vapourised. There should be nothing at all going on in there, however ten to twenty per cent of people that are revived from cardiac arrest (the first stage of death) report being conscious and able to have accurate perceptions of their surroundings which contain reasoning and memory formation. This should literally be impossible if the brain produces consciousness, it's that simple. Evasive psychologists who are firmly wedded to reductionist materialism, deny these experiences actually occur when the brain is offline, however, the data is pretty clear now and that's why near death experiences are so important and that's why people like Susan Blackmore keep up the pretence that there's nothing going on.
@@tim59ism I may not know much about cardiac arrest but I can tell you for a fact the idea that there's any conspiracy around this kind of thing is arrant nonsense.
@@RobinFaichney I don't recall saying there was a conspiracy theory, you've added that in to try to make my comment look unreasonable. I'll spell it out to you. Mainstream science does not want to look beyond the brain for consciousness. It's complete anathema to them and the reason why they won't look fairly at the evidence which is abundant. You don't know, I get that, so off you go and enjoy your evening. I do know, I've been around for nearly seven decades and I've studied NDE's since 1975.
@@RobinFaichney I don't recall saying there was a conspiracy theory, you've added that in to try to make my comment look unreasonable. I'll spell it out to you. Mainstream science does not want to look beyond the brain for consciousness. It's complete anathema to them and the reason why they won't look fairly at the evidence which is abundant. You don't know, I get that, so off you go and enjoy your evening. I do know, I've been around for nearly seven decades and I've studied NDE's since 1975.
Why doesn't Susan understand analytical idealism, there are basic concepts and tenets she hasn't grasped. Surely, you are supposed to understand your opponent's view as well as your own? Imagine Bernardo failing to explain her monism or someones dualism.... that wouldn't happen
Kastrup’s idealism is the best T.O.E. out there; but it’s not perfect. The idea that selves are analogous to dissociative alters is a wrong step. Dissociative alters lack the very thing - the self/universe boundary - which he is anxious to explicate. (The alters are personalities sharing the same boundary/skin…) A far better model is this: that the self is the perception by the universal consciousness of an extremely tiny part of its history - corresponding to the most recent state of the brain (the hub of the sensory system). Selves are microcosms. They - and the innovative societies they enable - are the latest creation of the universal consciousness. (If this lazy self ever gets round to it, I’ll put a full account out there.)
A good analogy is the two hands of a pianist. Since the invention of contrapuntal music, the two hands may play different but “socially” compatible melodies. The right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing; but there is an overarching consciousness which orchestrates and perceives the whole performance.
@@richardatkinson4710 kastrups an idiot.. consciousness is Simply external events Idiots deem memory.. captain kirk and Spock have easy access to all your memories that EXIST if they can travel HALF as fast as entanglement. Idiots assume brain memory.. but brain memory is defacto redundant in a block universe You're more simply...viewing every license plate number now. Death is safe because Albert Einstein taught us where memorybisc stored...and wheeler (retrocausality) taught smart folks the .mechanisms of free will.. Not that anyone here is as smart as a fifth grader
@@JHeb_ Ditto.. You ASS/U/ME brain memory (mythical or PROVE IT)... Memory is de facto redundant in a universe void of time.. seeing 20 years into teh past is as simple as placing a mirror 10 light years awya.. and if you could travel half as fast as entanglement,.,. you could VISIT all of your memories.. (true or false).. because they will ALWAYS exist (true or false). Atheist are idiots because they have exactly TWO (2) ways of proving they are living teh dram like the rest of us 1) mommy woo: you're mommy told you you're a real boy and you must assume she isnt an idiot. or 2) Self pinching: and not waking up in our COMMON (not solipsism - external memory as simultaneous events)... impossible! You insulted my intelligence.. ha.. but YOU must manufacture a weird brain memory system.. to make you separateness work,k >> Th e dreaming DOGGY feels liek tehg dream squirrel he is chasing HAS BRAIN MEMORY... Because the doggy is an idiot that cannot garso 5th grade science of block universe.. to DUMB IT DOWN.. Captain kirk and spock can FILM all of your memories if they had a 1981 delorean. If I AM CORRECT there are ways smart people can realize they are in a group solipsism or a solo solipsism;.. energy would follow all thought.. they could simply think of stuff and pay attention,,. if non moron.. ... then you will need to be born to a smarter mom in a perceived future lifetime. because there is only one way off this rock.. graduarte. Solipsism is the notion this is all a dream.. and we wake up.. and its a fun story.. But HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE 'REALITY' (notice quotes) uf we share a common actual events we deem memories.. What if you are merely looking at every license plate number concurrently to forever and ever as albert einstein taught us (and has been proven with atomic clocks) a simultaneous block universe.... IQ test (are you smarter than a fifth grader): Are you learning every word in this sentence concurrently to exactly forever. My channel teaches magic,,, Im an accidental philosopher because i'm tired of all the same garius matt dillahunty type drivel out there,. Atheism is rooted in stupidity./. plain and simple.. MEMORY IS NOT REQUIRED.. how simple is that? If you merely tune into the actual events if your mind could go half as fast as entanglement... (entanglement has been proven to be instant - retrocausality is involved.. and also proven ask any positron - retrocausality should also be a given in a sunivers void of time.. so time.. is surpassable.. by the 2022 nobel prize in physics (true or false) Recently science argues memory is in the cells.. NOT brain.. but the brain is as nikola tesla sais.. he knows it is a receiver,. What mankind FOOLISHLY deems memory... is simultaneous events YOU CANNOT PROVE youre a real boy by jumping up and down and waving... To ANYONE in possession of lofic or reasoning.. my stance is irrefutable.. You must ASS/U/ME youre a real boy and that the earth is somehow not a common dream'; --------------SIMPLICITY... Expectations cause quantum collapse even into the perceived past. Maybe YOU don't think I am clever or know how reality works.. I do have three well reviewed books (2 free on you tube), and started teaching reality to atheists on youtube in june,,, From my perspective.. you will be born to a smarter mother. GROUP solipsism. isnt a thang... but we are in a shared dream... but external memory does imply a common dream of sorts.. describe it how you like. Materialism is based on self pinching and mommy woo.. sam harris is the high priest of our current religion of fools.,, he will not only be born to a smarter mother.. he must answer for the damage he does in this lifetime.. how many people do atheist mongers scare... Memory is redundant.. and if you knew that then you could look at deeper questions.. like.. if you don't need a brain for consciousness.. then what about your toaster... is it entangled with the factory that made it? IN A DREAM... you could see a dragon fly by and that might seem normal.. In our FIRST HERMETIC PRINCIPLE (oops I added dogma.. ) UNIVERSE everything has a rudimentary memory/consciousness.. Darwin was also wrong.. aristotle's teleology was right... our present now makes DEMANDS upon our previous incarnations. you personally were crab to learn opposable thumbs.. a plant to learn to breath You will feel separate forever... because you are a uniqure 'personification"... but dying is very safe.. akin to waking up.. I am not wrong.. In a common dream.. positive thinking causing good.. is a given... and every religion would be vindicated (true or false). Good luck Consciousness can be explained by fifth grade 120 year old theory of relativity. Someone should read the thing. Why would anyone think memory is a thingy? How vain are we?... You're just looking at every license plate number.. forever and always.. Brain memory is mythical. despite the number of morons seeking it. Manifest things enough to see retrocausality at play (or dont)_. Those who manifest can lean many things we manifest do not make linear time sense. PROVE IT.. isnt that the atheist anthem.. how would YOU prove youre not in a dream without self pinching or mommy woo? This earth air is a republican loca.. don't expect mankind to be very brilliant. There are better versions of earth.. (higher locas) These philosophers are like infants compared to those who are spiritual in knowledge. Maybe this comment goes against everything youve ASSUMED... If you don't get it,.. perhaps you're not meant to. I have personally converted over 1000 atheists.. minimum.. on quora, websites, youtube, and books... atheism is rooted in stupidity.. nothing more. Be blessed
Good point: alters share the same physical body. So, in your opinion, where does my personal consciousness come from..? (If not split-off of universal consciousness?)
CONSCIOUSNESS DEFINED: The English-language word, “consciousness”, means “the state of being aware”, or “that which knows”, or even more literally, “characterized by knowing”, from the Latin prefix “con” (“with”), the stem “scire” (“to know”) and the suffix “osus” (“characterized by”). To put it succinctly, the phenomenon of consciousness refers to the SUBJECTIVE component of any subject-object relationship. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of localized knowing within the cognitive faculty of vertebrates (that is, a hierarchy of subject-object relationships), as well as a more Universal Awareness (more appositely called “Brahman” or “Sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit, or “Tao”, in Chinese), as explicated in the following paragraphs. Consciousness is essentially impersonal, yet it can be expressed via a personal being, such as many species of animals, including we humans. Exactly how consciousness can be detached from a personal agent may be a rather bizarre concept to comprehend, at least in the initial stage, yet after careful study of this chapter, in conjunction with a profound yogic practice, one will eventually understand this to indeed be the case. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom, is a matter of contention, but judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds, reptiles and fishes). Those metazoans that are evolutionarily-lower than vertebrates, do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for genuine knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts, notwithstanding certain notable exceptions to this rule, such as octopuses. For instance, an insect or a jellyfish does not consciously decide to seek food, but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when an insect (such as a cockroach) flees from danger, it is not experiencing the anxious emotions that a human or other mammal would experience. See Chapter 11, regarding the concept of will. SENTIENCE EVOLVES INTO TRUE CONSCIOUSNESS: Undoubtedly, the lower species of animals, alluded to above, embody, if not true consciousness, varying degrees of SENTIENCE, depending on how many senses it possesses and how complex is its nervous system. Very few would consider a blind worm to be more sentient than a frog! Plants are also sentient, but use lower-level mechanisms for their perceptions. To give just a couple of examples, both land-based and water-born plants respond to sunlight (as witnessed by the opening of flowers upon the rising of the sun), and some carnivorous plants can detect arthropods crawling on their leaves. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too!”, they may be justified, according to some ambiguous sense of the term, so the most logical reason for being vegan, is not because plants are completely insentient, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. No sane person would advocate for veganism if humans were omnivores! Furthermore, fruit trees indirectly benefit from the consumption of its fruit, since their seeds are spread. So, those carnists who criticize vegans for killing sentient plants for their sustenance, ought to know that it is indeed possible to consume a nutritious diet without killing any living being whatever. I, personally, have been completely frugivorous for lengthy periods of time, and those periods were, by far, the healthiest times of my entire life! Those with an ounce of nous, will question the above claim that lower species of animals (insects, just for a start) are WITHOUT consciousness (although, to be fair, the adjective “true” was used to qualify the noun “consciousness”), since most all insects have eyes and other senses, so there seems to be the subject-object relationship, vital to the definition of the term “consciousness”. Of course, that seems to be a valid thesis, but in the opinion of this author, the degree of consciousness exhibited by such lower creatures, is most accurately seen to be purely electro-mechanical in nature - a wasp detects a wall in its flight path, and automatically flies around it, without any thought processes being involved whatsoever. Obviously, if one prefers to refer to the wasp as a “conscious” agent, that would be acceptable, but at some point, there needs be a line drawn in the animal kingdom between sentience, and consciousness, for it would be truly absurd to call a bacterium “conscious”, I would contend. This may explain the reason why microbes were lately given their own kingdom, in addition to the fungi, animal, and plant kingdoms, since a microbe is, strictly speaking, neither a plant nor an animal, though it may embody features of both the major kingdoms of living beings. Just as it is impossible to discern the precise micrometre where the trunk of a tree becomes a root of the same tree, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to point to the exact division between sentience and consciousness, for the latter is an extension of the former, in the same way that the trunk of a fig tree is an extension of the root system, or in the same way that a freshwater river merges into a saltwater estuary. When crustaceans, amphibians, (most) reptiles, and (most) birds, flee from danger, they are exhibiting a purely mechanical, “fight or flight” response, not dissimilar to a carnivorous plant’s reaction to the feeling (see the Glossary entry, “sentience”, which refers to sensual feeling) of an insect crawling on its leaves. When those animals that are truly conscious (as opposed to merely sentient), display the same behaviour, it may be accompanied by rudimentary EMOTIONS, such as grief, anxiety, fear, and confusion, due to the appropriate parts of the brain being developed to a higher degree. Human beings, who have the most advanced brains of all animal species in the history of our planet, are capable of emotions that are so innovative, that they could be considered detrimental to our contentment, such as the fear and anticipation we feel concerning events that have yet to eventuate. Personally, in my own past, I have dreamed-up a host of possible negative scenarios that might take place in the future, yet failed to eventuate, and the fear and dread I experienced was all for naught! Hence, an extra layer of suffering is practically unavoidable for species that have a particularly advanced level of consciousness, such as Homo sapiens, and possibly our ancestors. CONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH: Recently, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, involving fields such as philosophy of mind, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. Many such researchers have seen evidence that the brain is merely a conduit or a TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 re: the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processor of a supercomputer must necessarily be far larger in size, more complex, and more powerful than the processing unit in a pocket calculator, obviously. Therefore, it seems logical to extrapolate that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness, is chiefly dependent on the brain capacity of a specific animal. So, then, in response to the assertion made in the previous paragraph, one could easily complain thus: “That’s not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: First of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence, on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That is unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak sweet and gentle words to a rabid dog, to prevent it from biting you. Cont...
Copied the definition part to my notes, but tweaked it a bit with the help of an AI: Consciousness From Latin con “with” + scire “to know” + osus “characterized by”; literally “characterized by knowing”; that which knows; the state of being aware. Consciousness relates to the subjective aspect of any subject-object interaction. Within the cognitive faculties of vertebrates, there exists a hierarchy of localized knowing, representing a hierarchy of subject-object relationships. This is accompanied by absolute Awareness, often referred to as “Brahman,” “Satchidānanda” (being-awareness-bliss), “Tao,” or “the One.” Consciousness is fundamentally impersonal but can manifest through personal beings, such as various animal species, including humans. The concept of consciousness existing independently of a personal agent may initially seem unlikely; however, through careful study of certain scriptures and dedicated yoga practice, this understanding becomes clear. [Non-English terms should be italicized, but this platform doesn't provide that option.]
Since there is ambiguity about the meanings of the terms awareness and consciousness, it is helpful to collect a set of definitions of concepts directly related to these terms. To start with, there follows a set of five pairs of definitions. For each pair, the first definition reflects the way the term is typically used in a Western (W) academic context. The second definition is for a comparable Advaita (A) Vedānta term. 1 (W) Awareness is pure cognition, i.e., the simple ability of a being to notice something. 1 (A) Chit is pure, non-objective, transcendental awareness/consciousness that illuminates and passively observes the flow of mental objects. 2 (W) Attention is selective awareness, which, when taken to a more intense level, becomes concentration. 2 (A) Manas, the sensorial mind, controls and focuses the ten senses. 3 (W) Consciousness is discerning attention, e.g., the ability to differentiate whether the object of cognition is internal or external. 3 (A) Manas processes sensorial impressions of the apparent external world and is itself an internal sensory organ; the sense behind the senses. 4 (W) Intelligence is operative consciousness, i.e., the capability of using information obtained in experience to develop knowledge. 4 (A) Buddhi is the intellectual faculty that has the capability to form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, and understand. 5 (W) Wisdom is developed intelligence. 5 (A) The higher capabilities of the buddhi are able to acquire and assimilate jnāna, which refers to “knowledge”; in a spiritual context this means direct knowledge of transcendental truth, which is synonymous with wisdom. Note from the first Advaitin definition that there is overlap of the meanings of the terms “awareness” and consciousness,” as both can be used to translate the term “chit.” There follow a set of detailed definitions that further explore the Advaitin understanding of what consciousness is. chit Pure, transcendental, and absolute Consciousness; pure Awareness. Chit expresses the nature of absolute reality, Brahman. Note from the definition of the term “chit” that absolute Consciousness is synonymous with pure Awareness, and that these terms express the nature of absolute reality, Brahman. To distinguish this transcendental level of consciousness from lower-level consciousness and awareness, it is helpful to include adjectives such as “absolute” and “pure.” Although it is best to avoid excessive capitalization, it is reasonable to use capitalization for the terms “pure Awareness,” “pure Consciousness,” “Soul,” and “the Self.” Brahma-chaitanya Literally “Brahman-Consciousness”; absolute Consciousness; the supreme spirit considered as the essence of all being and source of all awareness. chaitanya Absolute Consciousness, i.e., the same as Brahma-chaitanya; the supreme spirit considered as the essence of all being and source of all awareness; may be used in a more general “consciousness” sense to refer to cosmic consciousness (Ishvara-chaitanya), witness-consciousness (sākshi-chaitanya), and individual consciousness (jiva-chaitanya). sākshi Witnessing principle; seer; the pure Awareness in each human that witnesses the world but does not get affected or involved. sākshi-chaitanya Witness-Consciousness; absolute Consciousness as witness of mental functions; indwelling consciousness. Whereas the term sākshi refers only to the witnessing principle, the term sākshi-chaitanya includes the idea that the witness is absolute Consciousness (Brahma-chaitanya). Note from the preceding definitions that: chit = absolute Consciousness = pure Awareness = Brahma-chaitanya = chaitanya = sākshi-chaitanya Ishvara-chaitanya Cosmic Consciousness; the absolute Consciousness as reflected through Ishvara, the wielder of the power of māyā who created and controls the universe; the highest level of consciousness that the relative human mind can conceive of, in contrast with Brahma-chaitanya (absolute Consciousness), which cannot be comprehended by the relative human mind and is only to be experienced as the Self. chidābhāsa The reflection (ābhāsa) of Brahman, the absolute Consciousness (chit or chaitanya), on or through the mind; the reflected universal Self in the jiva (individual self); diminished reflection of absolute Consciousness that is mistakenly taken as being independently real. chetana Transactional consciousness; individual consciousness; sentience; a diminished reflection (chidābhāsa) of absolute consciousness; consciousness as defined from a physicalist perspective; the typical level of consciousness that manifests in a body-mind complex in the waking state; the same as jiva-chaitanya. jiva-chaitanya The same as chetana. See chetana. Note from the preceding definitions that: chidābhāsa = diminished reflection of absolute Consciousness = chetana = jiva-chaitanya = transactional consciousness = individual consciousness = physicalist definition of consciousness = psychology definition of consciousness 🙏
I don't think "illusion" is the right word to describe it. I'd say it is more of an interpretation by the specific processing parts of the brain that create that representation, which is sufficient to maintain survival. We can't see infrared, but we perceive the spectrum of colors that we need to navigate and survive sufficiently. This doesn’t mean that what we do see is just an illusion. A dog may see a box of dog food with big letters spelling D-O-G on it and recognize it as the box that contains his food, but he doesn’t understand that the letters on the box symbolize certain sounds that mean "dog food" to an English-speaking Homo sapiens. So, he is not aware of that particular aspect of reality, but what he sees is still a part of reality-an interpretation by his nervous system that allows him to navigate and survive in his environment. Similarly, we are "conscious" and aware of that which we evolved to perceive in a way that serves our need to survive. As humans, we are also aware that there are aspects of reality that are invisible to us, but that doesn’t mean our interpretation of the world is a trick or an illusion.
idiots ass/u/me brain memory because they are too stupid to grasp all of your memories could be relived by Captain Kirk and Spock if they had a 1981 Delorean or the USS enterprise. Can the speed of light be surpassed? Yes.. anyone as clever as a fifth grader knows entanglement is instant (retrocausal origins) and can surpass light speed. Dying is safe because memories are EXTERNAL from brain as actual first kisses, etc Kastrup is an infant Prove memory is in the brain with a note from your mom or realize death is as every religion has told us. Illusion Gaia...you are in a forest and cannot see the trees.. EXTERNAL memory means dream toast kitchen toast.. and not solipsism.. a group dream is the truth of it Do not fret... All atheists are scheduled for smarter mommies
Sorry, but you gotta read more Bernardo (and, like, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Christoph Koch, Annaka Harris, Kant, Schopenhauer, the whole philosophy of mind literature, really.). Your idea doesn't really get to the heart of the matter-or, well, heart of the qualia, I guess...
@@ark-L Why are we conscious at all? This is how we evolved; there was no plan, it was simply the shape the organism needed to survive. Meaning the organism that we are evolved this awareness that we have named 'consciousness' - it is a definition we humans have created to define the nature of the way our brain and nervous system interpret the external (and internal i.e., thoughts, memories, feelings) world. Why did we evolve to this cognitive state? The answer is it served our need to survive and it is a function of our brain. Every person is different genetically, and also is influenced by another set of environmental factors and influences since no one ever occupies the same space and time... This is why there is some degree of subjectivity in experience. Cilantro tastes great to me, but to someone else it tastes like soap, and this is for a genetic reason. Why is red red? Why is red more red to someone else? Is their red the same as my red? Since we evolved as a species to detect and respond to the same environmental stimuli, and our visual systems follow the same basic architecture, it's reasonable to assume our experiences of red are similar and individual variations likely exist on a spectrum due to small genetic differences and how they are influenced by environmental factors throughout life. What I don't understand about Idealists is why they need to invent this very strange and unlikely idea that all in the universe is a substance that just happens to be made of the thing, a word that describes the characterristic of our human awareness. With all due respectm to me it seems fantastical, almost like a primitive myth or a comic book. Why would everything be made of thought and not matter? I mean you can make up very imaginative story and use logical gymnastics and rational to confirm it, and that can be fun, but why take it seriously when the material world is right in front of us and in contact with us every moment...why such a mystical reach? At the heart of the matter is it a discust with the corporeal form and a desire to live forever?
@@coreywiley3981 Thanks for the reply! So, you assume physicalism. Got it! May I ask a few questions? (1) (a) What is your definition of "physical"? And (b) what form(s) of reductionism (if any) do your ascribe to? (2) Why do you think the physical is the best candidate for ontological primitive? (3) What is your understanding of (a) the "hard problem" and (b) the meta-problem of consciousness? "What I don't understand about Idealists is why they need to invent this very strange and unlikely idea that all in the universe is a substance that just happens to be made of the thing, a word that describes the characterristic of our human awareness." Consciousness/qualia/subjectivity is the one thing we are each acquainted with before anything else. It's literally as far away from "strange" as anything could be. It is only through consciousness that you are aware of anything at all. Everything you made reference to... evolution, time/space, the environment, tastes, species, the color red... all of these things happen within/through/and by way of consciousness. You have to take that primacy seriously. And the idealist does! They start with what can be known for certain: there is awareness (though not self-awareness--that's an additional step). They then ask: what can I build out from here with the fewest assumptions?: "Well, if the entirety of my experience is, as far as I can tell, within consciousness, then positing anything else other than consciousness is an unjustified leap." After that, one is forced to conclude that, just as one exists only as consciousness, so too must the objective outside world-which, again, one only knows anything about at all because of perceptions and knowledge gained about it THROUGH CONSCIOUSNESS! The only rational answer is that there is one single unitary spatially-unbound field of awareness and we are just temporarily dissociated centers of self-awareness within it. Now, I, of course, agree we have evolved (at least, from the perspective of embodiment/time-space/causation) to have the particular kind of conscious experience that we have as humans. But that doesn't actually give us any explanation for consciousness quo consciousness. Why there is anything it's like to be anything at all? Just invoking evolution does not get you anywhere on this.
@@ark-L I think the Consciousness is simply put, just the brain interpreting the environment. Saying the universe is made up of consciousness is sort of like saying the universe is made of sight or respiration. Consciousness is more a definition that describes the characteristic of our brain's awareness and functioning. The reason for subjective experiences is simply that every person is different and separate. We all have a very similar blueprint, but our subtle genetic differences, along with our different environments, create different experiences even between identical twins. We have a brain and nervous system that evolved a certain way, and what we have defined and named "consciousness" is just a function of that comparatively (compared to our animal cousins) complex brain. To suggest that it is a non-physical substance that exists in the universe outside of our nervous system, and which makes up everything we see, seems a far greater, stranger, and less likely theory than to hypothesize that the stuff in the universe is made up of material like atoms and other particles and that it is our brain processing that information. To me the "hard question" isn't so hard, the answer is that the subjective consciousness we each experience is nothing more than the experience of our complex brain process which is part of the body of a larger whole organism which has adapted and been sculpted and mutated over the course of evolution to manifest the way we experience...just complex systems of stuff, or materials organized in a certain way that brings about the characteristics of how we interpret the environment around us.
But why not say for example that Bernardo IS the summarization or the narrative. There appears to be a subject of the narrative, or the subject is a component of the narrative. And narratives don’t exist, they only appear to exist.
Susan should read some books of Bernardo... They are very easy to understand. I kinda don't understand how Susan doesn't understand. Perhaps she doesn't want to give up the worldview in which she has invested ...or she just really doesn't understand reason.
No one can say what consciousness is because as soon as one does it has reduced it to a concept. There’s a vast difference between the conceptual and the actual.
which is why we use very inelegant definitions that point towards something we all innately understand. Like "that which goes away in dreamless sleep".
@@ferdinandalexander8053 I think we would be talking about different things here. On some ultimate level, you can point at the futility of demanding a conceptual explanation of your true nature. But on a practical level, we can use practical definitions.
@ In order to speak of what is true or valid one must start with what IS. In other words, with what is present, existing, or being. There are no levels to ALL. There is no ultimate reality, only reality. What “we” seem to be talking about is neither a thing nor is it a no-thing, but that doesn’t mean it is nothing. Whatever word one chooses to mean ALL THERE IS of ALL THERE IS, sometimes the word now, or the present is used, often times, words like truth, reality, presence, consciousness, actuality, and there are many more terms. It doesn’t really matter as words or thoughts about TRUTH are not TRUTH ITSELF. Surely, the way LIFE is, would be the ONE that actually IS.
In "Theravada" Buddhism in Sri Lanka, all enlightened "Baghavath Buddhas" appear on earth , after eons of life times of purification of the mind, as a fulfilling universal qualification to perfecting qualities of "conscious energies" described in Sri Lankan Buddhist pali canon / texts "marghadi " Buddhas' spoken sound language,written Pali Tripitaka" as "paramitha kamma" (perfectible universal deeds). The Baghvath Buddha has described beings existing in 31 realms. All creations in this universe are "energies" with influence of the six ( 6 ) aggregates "elements" 1. sound (ears ), 2. taste ( tongue ), 3, smell (nose ) 4. seeing (eyes ). 5. touch (Body ), 6, feelings(heart ), under "causality" cause & effect . The Buddha has described how universal energy called "kamma" manifests in human form through human faculties of seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, touch & mind (past experiences) called aggregates, amalgamating with external world experiences of feelings through the Human "Heart Organ " as electrical waves signals to develop a "seed" to become "conscious energy" which continues to the brain as a "thought" and this continuation of experience is stored in the "subconscious" mind in the human brain called "mano" (pali ) (mind) in Buddhism. This" perception " action is called "thought". ThoughtIn "Theravada" Buddhism in Sri Lanka, all enlightened "Baghavath Buddhas" appear on earth , after eons of life times of purification of the mind, as a fulfilling universal qualification to perfecting qualities of "conscious energies" described in Sri Lankan Buddhist pali canon / texts "marghadi " Buddhas' spoken sound language,written Pali Tripitaka" as "paramitha kamma" (perfectible universal deeds). The Baghvath Buddha has described beings existing in 31 realms. All creations in this universe are "energies" with influence of the six ( 6 ) aggregates "elements" 1. sound (ears ), 2. taste ( tongue ), 3, smell (nose ) 4. seeing (eyes ). 5. touch (Body ), 6, feelings(heart ), under "causality" cause & effect . The Buddha has described how universal energy called "kamma" manifests in human form through human faculties of seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, touch & mind (past experiences) called aggregates, amalgamating with external world experiences of feelings through the Human "Heart Organ " as electrical waves signals to develop a "seed" to become "conscious energy" which continues to the brain as a "thought" and this continuation of experience is stored in the "subconscious" mind in the human brain called "mano" (pali ) (mind) in Buddhism. This" perception " action is called "thought". Thoug becomes a conscious energy, called "kamma/karma = consciousness in Buddhism.
“Mind… seeks actively to deceive itself.” What? If so, we should reject any attempt at understanding right now! I don’t know how/why Kastrup goes down that road. He is introducing an Axiom of Misunderstanding. If that were true, we should all pack up and become cynics or hedonists.
It is hard to convince materialists of anything. They understand matter and that is it. It has been said that in the higher ages those who were capable of understanding matter only were employed in sweeping the streets. They were the lowest caste.
The bridging he looks for between the idealism (which can also be fundamental forces of nature) and consciousness is actually the bioengineering which arises in the brain. The secret sauce or “happenings” he references is actually time or specifically the time domain of biology|consciousness.
Before we are born, there is nothing. Then we are conceived and develop in utero into an organism with a complex brain and nervous system. As we grow, our body (including the brain and nervous system) gathers information and experience, maturing into an organism struggling to survive and thrive within its given environment. What we call "consciousness" is simply a word we have invented to name and describe our experience of inner and outer awareness and memory-a process of our nervous system and how we, as organisms, navigate survival and reproduction. Other animals have awareness, memory, and some even exhibit self-recognition, which could also be called consciousness. However, it is fundamentally the same-a process of the brain and nervous system, which is a function of the body, matter, and material. We, as humans, have a particularly complex and unique nervous system that allows for abstract thoughts and capabilities that other animals do not possess, a result of evolutionary pressures to better survive and reproduce. Simply put, consciousness is not a field or a substance; it is just our experience of awareness as an organism. It is unique in certain ways, but why do we insist that it is something almost supernatural? When we die and our brains cease to function and decompose, our thoughts and the information contained within our neurons disintegrate with the rest of our body. As before we were born, there is nothing again.
But you have learned all that within consciousness. Nothing you have come to know or experience-nothing anybody anywhere has come to know or experience-has ever come into being independently or outside of consciousness. In this way “being” is indistinguishable from consciousness. There is nobody to assert or recognize “being” in the absence of consciousness. “To be” means “to be conscious”. But what about the geologic period before life appeared? We have come to know about that _within consciousness._ And we look back and make theories, assumptions, draw conclusions, etc, but all these occur within consciousness. There is essentially no universe outside of consciousness because none of us can ever step outside of consciousness to verify it. Also, time is relative and dependent on consciousness. In the absence of consciousness, time is non-existent. When consciousness arises, we can look around and say “this happened a relatively long time ago” and “this happened relatively recently” but essentially it all happened simultaneously with the arising of consciousness because before consciousness there was no time. Time exists within consciousness. (I don’t know if I’m making myself clear or if I sound high, lol.)
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs You're describing how we understand and conceptualize the past. We're doing that in the present though. None of your statements are evidence consciousness is fundamental or persists after death.
@@alankoslowski9473 there is no “after death” or “before birth” outside of consciousness. Anything you imagine about before birth or after death is all within the realm of consciousness. We simply cannot get out of it. When we try to conceive of anything at all that could exist independently of consciousness, we are just imagining that within consciousness. You literally cannot demonstrate that anything at all can exist without it being perceived within some form of consciousness. Everything-the entire universe-is literally nothing if there is not consciousness.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs Saying it is literally nothing is an extreme form of solipsism. It's more accurate to say we don't know if something else exists outside consciousness since consciousness is the basis of experience. But if perception is verified among many different people it seems likely that perception exists outside consciousness. We can't be certain but it's all we have to work with unless we're content to live entirely within our own mind. That doesn't appeal to me.
@@alankoslowski9473 it only appears as solipsism because you’re thinking of consciousness as an individual person’s consciousness. The point isn’t, “I can only be sure of what I am directly aware of: me.” No, the point is that absolutely nothing exists outside of consciousness. Name one thing that exists outside of consciousness. The very meaning of the word “exist” only makes any sense within the realm of consciousness. The distinguishing of any one thing from any other can only ever occur within consciousness. And it doesn’t matter whether or not it appeals to you. We are discussing what actually is the case.
Here's how to see why Kartrup's idealism is unworkable. According to him subjective/conscious qualities are the fundamental layer of reality. The physical things we perceive are at the fundamental level also conscious qualities they only appear to us physical because we only indirectly access them through the "screen or perception" . OK. Now according to him the "redness of the red" is one of the fundamental conscious qualities that we are "directly acquainted" with. Is this quality also reflected on the screen of perception ? First you might say, yes. When I think of red light or study it with scientific instruments what I'm accessing through the screen or perception is this conscious quality because of the correlation between things that happen to the "appearance" that I call EM radiation of ~590nm and the subjective experience of the redness of the red. But there is a problem. There are many other things "on the screen of perception" that I can change in a way that it will affect (even prevent) the experience of the redness of the red. Most obviously, I can change my brain . So are the relevant parts of my brain also "projections" of the fundamental quality of the "redness of red" onto the screen of perception ? More generally, we would be forced to conclude that everything in the world that affects my color experience is a part of the projection of this quality. Does thins mean all red objects , or only parts of the object ? Or is the process of light absorption a projection of color experience ? How on Earth could anyone make sense of trying to actually decipher what these "qualities" are and how they give rise to physical reality as "appearances" ?? Notice that this problem disappears if you start with physical things to try to derive the redness of the red. Starting with physical things we are working on stuff that we can actually study. We can figure what the brain is made of, how those things interact, how neurons behave how the activity of different cells correlate with precisely defined dimensions of subjective experience (say, hue, saturation or brightness), and we can (at some future point) study how and why introspection fails when we try to use it to reverse engineer the brain by sitting in an arm chair introspecting our internal landscape of "qualities" None of this explanatory work can be done starting with qualia, precisely because the only access to it is through introspection which does not allow us to decipher anything about the nature of these qualities. So Kastrup's grand theory is simply vague science fiction. He can only try to salvage it by claiming that he does not reject the findings of neuroscience just choses to have "conscious qualities" as the fundamental layer of what elementary fields/particles are made of. But this is simply a naming game and an empty one. Calling quantum fields "fields of phenomenality" (as he sometimes does) is pure science fiction- he is not adding anything to these constructs other than renaming them. Strikingly the very thing that his project fails at is finding an explanatory connection between the "appearances" and the "fundamental" qualities. What the above discussion of the redness of red shows is exactly that taking subjective qualities as fundamental does not make them in any way better understood. It's an embarassment that in the 21st century we are still entertaining these supernatural ghost stories
Sue’s meditation, Bernardo’s psychedelic trip… Those are both avoidance strategies. The down-to-earth, honest perception of the world works. (I nearly said “just fine”, but that is a good-ol’-boy, who’da-thunk-it meme…)
They are not avoidance but important in the sense that these experiences convey a truthful statement which is that there is something it's like to be when you are not specified as being something in particular. And for some reason all people who experienced this either through dicipline, NDE or psycedelics report this state of being as inherently blissful.
@@Sam-hh3ry I suggest that anyone who is into psychedelics, sensory deprivation, etc and thinks they must be good or important on the grounds that they are pleasant should read Larry Niven’s “Death by Ecstasy”, or consider the behaviour of pigeons addicted to (inadequate) variable ratio food rewards. We’re not evolved for maximizing pleasure.
This is a good vein of thinking! To keep mining that, try this on: "The Cognitive Big Bang" from Bernardo. Dissociation is always (and never) happening; it's structural, beyond space and time. :)
Terms like "consciousness" and "mental" suggest they include memories and how memories construct identity, and these can demonstratively be altered physically. If we replace them with the term "experience," the incoherencies in such a position go away, but so does much of what idealism represents
Consciousness = simultaneous events (first kiss, graduation) IDIOTS deem mythical brain memory. Do I need a second sentence to explain why dying is safe, reality, conscious, or God?.. or do you grasp it now? Remember.. captain kirk and Spock can visit all your block universe memories in their 1981 Delorean.. if they can travel half as fast as entanglement (your entangled .ind is external) You will simply read this forever.. your wee noggin is meaningless to consciousness
@@aojbooker8650 that implies that after brain damage, intoxication, or similar, consciousness manipulates itself to lose its memories, indifferent to its own wishes. That's equivalent to solipsism
@@aojbooker8650 the arguments laid out about mind, as if it is separate from the external world, the external world that includes the body, are incoherent. Mind consists of experience (what's considered "internal" here) and body (as in, through memory) and which is not "internal" - unless we posit solipsism.
Our material brain does not create our consciousness - while we are in this material world is just resides there. Reductionism is the worst way to look at something ---- YOU MUST LOOK AT THE WHOLE to understand what is happening. Stick you hand close to your eyes and you can't tell what it is -- once you move back you see everything not just your hand but the body that it is attached to and the world in which you live. Bernardo is a gate keeper.
Warning : Long comment ahead. ‘Space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - ‘information’. Elementary elements of reality ? An only slightly more exacting examination of reality - of the world around us - of our situation in all of its fullness as whatever it is that we are & as to whatever particular ‘realm’ within which we are located (within which we live, & move,& have our being) - enables any serious student thereof recognise that at this precise moment in time - namely 2024 - although ‘information’ is widely believed to be - along with ‘space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - a basic, fundamental, elementary, even central component of reality, nevertheless - & however surprisingly - currently its - ‘informations’s’ - ontological identity remains completely unspecified - & totally unknown & wholly misunderstood. Not only has its correct - & fully verifiable - ontological identity not been established, but neither has a full, good, proper & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon also been first recognised, & then (verifiably) established. Put another way, the answers to the following questions remain completely unanswered. Worse. Even the most respected & widely referenced of investigators suggest answers which are manifestly incorrect. What is ‘information’ ? Is it a distinct & ‘stand alone’ phenomenon ? What is its standing in the existential hierarchy ? Is it elemental phenomenon or does it emerge somewhere above the first few ladder steps of the scala naturale ? What role does it play &/or fulfill here in the Universe ? What is its causal efficacy - if it has any ? How does it come into being ? Is it conserved regardless of the interactions in which it may be involved ? What role, if any, does it fulfill in any mental, or mindful, or sentient phenomena, such as, say, ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list). Is ‘information’ a strictly physical phenomenon ? Is ‘information’ (quintessentially) ‘digital’, & can (& do) digit-using machines, systems & devices ‘think’, &/or be ‘conscious’, & if so can these devices be ‘intelligent’ ? Are such phenomena as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’, digitally/computationally tractable, or is some other significantly different set of handling procedures &/or mechanical operations required by which any (dedicated) information-using machine, entity, system, gadget, contrivance or device can be, & is at least during operational times critically involved in any or all of these mental/mindful/sentient phenomena. Although I am a rank & raving, aging antipodean amateur, some time ago my own research not too problematically allowed me to recognise - & verify & establish - not only what ‘information’ is (its ontological identity) - as a phenomenon in its own right (& not just what any of it ‘says’, or means, or does), &, further, in addition, not only determine a full & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon, but also that of all of its closest cousins to boot, no less than such things as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena. With these particular (& fully verifiable) accomplishments under my belt, it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we (er, the current intelligentsia, nor yet ‘the common person’) have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that the current intelligentsia does not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding, or science, of ‘information’ itself - that is, the contemporary cadre of seriously inquisitive person do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable definition & understanding of ‘information’ itself - which is to say of ‘information’ as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it ‘says’, or means or does. Let alone any of its closest cousins cousins …. Just saying ….. reply to this comment if you wish to know more ….
Talking never does it, profound chatter with no value just intellectual gymnastics mere entertainment. It's like describing a tree but the description can never ever be the tree. At the end of these long winded discussions nothing has changed and what was always there and never left is silence. Silence is the beginning and the end.
Stop inviting Susan to things. Same issue she had with Jim Newman -- she is way out of her depth and her enormous ego won't ever get out of the way. Surely there are more qualified guests than this has-been?
@@janchmiel7302 Bro.... I hear the same stuff from Joscha Bach's mouth these days... You Numerologists need to get a life, or stop believing in Analytical Realism. And get an actually good definition of Number while you are at it!
@@ahmedkhan25 If it comes before, then its not software.... Software can not precede hardware, as I have not found any program running on absolute space yet! Have you!?
@@jaydenwilson9522 Imagine the set of all possible worlds. Now consider that all possible conscious experiences in all possible worlds are described at every level of granularity in the set of the Library of Babel (whether you understand them or not), which is necessarily finite. Do these possible worlds actually exist? If all possible worlds necessarily exist, then the fact of your consciousness is a result of its possibility... If you wrestle with that for a while, I think you'll find that the hardware and software conecessitate in a space of necessarily unbounded possibility (and yet, free will is still impossible).
Bernardo , consciousness can begin when a bambino is developing in the Mother ‘s womb after 7 1 / 2 months .. it ‘s like a light switch being turned on , an electrical connection has been made .. the Brain is only partially developed and over the next 2 weeks will complete All the hard wiring which will be used later in Life .. 🤫
I used to respect Bernardo until he started posting all of these ridiculous things about being “scared” of Donald Trump and how the world is going to end. Just such a loser.
He gives the tired old argument: if consciousness is an illusion, then there is an immediate contradiction, because there has to be a consciousness to experience the consciousness-illusion. Just a little thought shows that this argument does not work at all. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is experiencing the illusion of consciousness, and this thing is not the same as the consciousness-illusion. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is just a complex set of processes in the brain which include a capacity for representing, or giving an account of, internal states of the brain.
And your evidence for this claim that consciousness is a complex set of processes in the brain? At some point, materialists have to offer an actual solution to the hard problem, instead of just saying the equivalent of "trust us, it just sounds like magic, it isn't actually magic. No, we can't explain why it's not magic, but it's totally just complex processes. Trust me bro. Too complex for YOU to understand, but not magic. Just complex non magical processes. Trust me bro. Trust me." An ad hoc explanation with no evidence that is offered merely because of some metaphysical dogmatic commitment is no explanation at all.
Idk why physicalists are so emotional about this topic. You call a tired old argument, and you divide the idealist by saying it takes "just a little thought" to see that idealism is incorrect and physicalism is correct. Maybe you should try investing more than just a little thought.
@@alankoslowski9473you can't say an argument *seems* fallacious. Contend with it. You and the other guy commenting here both started with the assumption that underlies physicalism, and then you reasoned from there. You're missing the point.
Consciousness is just a subjective illusion that has been poetically depicted and discussed over centuries. It is a complete illusion that is a clean functional whole instead of a top level simplification of a massively noisy and chaotic machine (the brain). A machine cannot comprehend itself as it would need be more than itself to so to speak model and virtualize itself. This is why the actionable summation of an infinite firing neurons is as accurate as an economics report is in explaining what happens in a country. There's little difference between mammal brains at this level of analysis so forgetting about humans is a good way to start and avoid being mislead into further delusion. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains, but not in the normal way where a mix of effects causes a more complex function to emerge, but quite the opposite similar to macro economics.
Ah, the classic refrain: “consciousness is just an illusion” - the sweet irony of an argument that collapses under the weight of its own introspection. If consciousness is an illusion, one must ask: for whom? Illusions, by definition, require a subject to be deceived; nothing can be “illusory” without an experiencer. By likening consciousness to an “economic report of firing neurons,” this argument not only indulges in a dubious analogy but also falls into the trap of conflating description with ontology. Just as economic data describe but do not constitute an economy, firing neurons do not explain-much less constitute-the conscious subject observing those neurons. This materialist reduction suffers from a categorical error: it mistakes the sum of observable processes for the essence of the observer, ignoring that neurons, synapses, and their activity are themselves objects of experience, not the foundation of it. The invocation of emergence, while attempting a poetic veneer, fares no better. To claim that consciousness is “emergent” in a chaotic, macroeconomic sense is to misunderstand emergence itself. Emergent phenomena presuppose coherent structures; you cannot derive order from undifferentiated chaos without presupposing the very mental faculties that distinguish chaos from order. As Kastrup demonstrates, this reductionist approach to consciousness conflates abstractions with reality, ignoring that any perception of chaos or structure is already a mental act. Furthermore, the claim that brains cannot "model themselves" paradoxically presumes that the conscious subject is both absent and present in the same analysis, a glaring contradiction. The deeper illusion here is not consciousness, but the belief that it, the inescapable foundation of all experience and cognition, can be reduced to neural activity or statistical metaphors. The firing of neurons, like the tick of a clock, may correlate with the passage of time, but it is no more the essence of time than it is the essence of being.
@hitaloaquino6477 I'll need to spend more time on this, but anything to add about the point of other animals? Or do you consider human consciousness categorically different and if so then why? An overlap could be found in comparing young children with measurably less at least cognitive function than some animals.
Your toaster (void of brain) is aware (memory = consciousness) it is simultaneously (block universe accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock). True or false.. brain memory would be redundant if you're viewing every license plate number concurrently to forever. Sadly weak minds like kastrups assume materialist brains
@@hitaloaquino6477 You are wrong. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is experiencing the illusion of consciousness, and this is not the same as the consciousness-illusion. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is just a complex set of processes in the brain which include a capacity for representing, or giving an account of, internal states of the brain. The illusion it is experiencing is that there is some central identity that is host to the manifold of experienced qualities in an aware manner. Therefore your circular fallacy charge against illusionists (the charge that there has to be some consciousness experiencing the illusion of consciousness) amounts to nothing. The two things named by the word 'consciousness' are completely different.
Kastrup’s idealism is the best T.O.E. out there; but it’s not perfect. The idea that selves are analogous to dissociative alters is a wrong step. Dissociative alters lack the very thing - the self/universe boundary - which he is anxious to explicate. (The alters are personalities sharing the same boundary/skin…) A far better model is this: that the self is the perception by the universal consciousness of an extremely tiny part of its history - corresponding to the most recent state of the brain (the hub of the sensory system). Selves are microcosms. They - and the innovative societies they enable - are the latest creation of the universal consciousness. (If this lazy self ever gets round to it, I’ll put a full account out there.)
Bernardo Kastrup is a philosopher and computer scientist known for advocating "analytic idealism," the view that reality is fundamentally mental. He has published influential books and articles challenging materialist views of consciousness and has a background in artificial intelligence research.
Susan Blackmore is a psychologist, writer, and visiting professor known for her work in consciousness studies, including research on memes, out-of-body experiences, and the nature of self. She is the author of The Meme Machine and has contributed extensively to debates on consciousness and the role of cultural evolution.
True or false.. memory is redundant in a block universe.. why store a license plate number of you view it forever and ever amen.
Idiots assume brain memory because mankind is in a materialistic separate religion.
.
Memory is forever external and easily accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock if they go half as fast as your entangled external mind.
Kastrup is 20 years behind smarter folk
. Minimum
Dying is safe because ALL religions have validity if death is a waking up. external mind means common (not solipsism) dream....
Kastrup was fun a decade ago.. but he's stuck in a loop..
Dream toast and psychedelic trip toast.. are exactly the same as kitchen toast..
Kastrup needs to be born to a smarter mom to escape this moronic Republican loca
"...Kastrup is a philosopher..."
Is this your first acquaintance with Bernardo? I ask because you suggested he didn't have evidence/logical reasons to support his idealist position -- when the logical and empirical rigor he displays (on this topic) is what he is famous for; indeed, it is the only contribution he makes.
Bernardo's delivery is very powerful and convincing. For his contributions to philosophy, we are very fortunate. Thank you Bernardo.
he DOES NOT HAVE ANY contributions to philosophy , that's NOT how the world works , my friend
ALL this guy is doing , we already KNOW is a Composition Division Fallacy ,
you can't just make connections that ARE NOT THERE ,
from OUR consciousness to A consciousness being a FUNDAMENTAL part of the universe , that's NOT possible ... TO DO ... , that IS the fallacy he is making ,
you CAN NOT DO THAT !!! and certainly not when ALL OF THE SCIENCE GOES AGAINST IT , which he knows it does and have him on tape confessing to this ,
NOTHING in science that's EVER been tested , has been conscious , like protons , electrons , photons , NONE OF IT , that's IS the consensus in science AND philosophy ,
i would watch his ''debate'' ( got SLAUGHTERED LIKE A DEAD FISH ) , with Tjump and get the ACTUAL EXPLANATION OF WHAT HE IS DOING WRONG , while being LAUGHED AT !!!
he is taking OUR SUBJECTIVE consciousness and just MAKING AN OVERAL OBJECTIVE CONSIOUSNESS from it , ... all from HIS tiny mind ,
this DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ACTUALLY ANYTHING IN REALITY THAT CORRESPONDS TO HIS NONSENSE !!!!
Bernardo out here convincing one famous consciousness researcher at a time... Annaka Harris, Philip Goff, Christof Koch, now Susan here--an illusionist no less!
Doing Mind-At-Large's work ❤️🔥
This comment will teach more than those names... Dying is safe because memory is forever and ever amen stored as simultaneous block universe events accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock if they had the USS enterprise or a 1981 Delorean
Brain memory is redundant if you're viewing every license plate number simultaneously to forever (true or false)
Mankind assumes separateness because they are dreaming dogs that wake up and are still dreaming
A dreaming dog is NOT separate from the dream squirrel you chase
Even if you feel invested in this common (not solipsism) COMMON dream...a shared dream of sorts
Bernardo is 20 years behind the smarter folk.. minimum
@@waynehilbornTSS I hear ya, brother! Though, really, Bernardo is like a few millennia behind the smart people on this one ;)
(if not more! Gotta give those hunter-gatherer shamans their due.)
@@ark-L
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my TH-cam homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, to correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my TH-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
@@FilipinaVegana Interesting points! I'll just say: Bernardo readily admits that he is not enlightened, and that, though his project is based on analytic rationality, he sees direct experience as the "royal road" to the truth.
Sounds like we share a broadly similar syncretic understanding. I'll likely take you up on your offer to hear more. Thank you for your post.
I do have a preemptive question though: Where do the strict metaethical notions you espouse in your reply originate vis-a-vis your understanding of the nondual teachings? Seems dangerously close to affirming a kind of ethical dualism, which I've always taken to be at odds with the deeper precepts of any of Advaita Vedanta, Trika Shaivism, Taoism, Neoplatonism, etc. I may be mistaken, of course. And apologies if you explain this in the document you mentioned-just curious! :)
@@ark-L "analytic rationality"
Metaphysical idealism is far more parsimonious and compelling than materialism/physicalism. The former is congruous with quantum weirdness and the latter suffers from an impasse: the hard problem of consciousness.
Conceptually congruous with doesn't mean scientifically credible. If consciousness is produced by the brain as evidence overwhelmingly shows that's not a hard problem even if we don't know exactly how this occurs. It just means our understanding is incomplete so it's more of modest soft problem.
@@alankoslowski9473 Are you familiar with Bernardo's work at all? I think you might benefit from checking it out.
But a quick primer as it relates to your comment: Analytic idealism is in exactly the same position as physicalism, theory-wise. That is, both are theories about metaphysics-which means they are both, in principle, compatible with science, as science is the study of how reality BEHAVES not what reality IS. Which means that science in no way entails physicalism (unfortunately, few pop-sci/internet people not familiar with philosophy grok this). The true test of their merits as theories is how much they can explain with the fewest assumptions-i.e. how parsimonious they are. Both theories are monistic theories (they posit a single ontological primitive), and as covered, are compatible with science. So, there, they are even (although, idealism is arguably more compatible with quantum physics, but we'll skip that digression here). But physicalism has no explanation, even IN PRINCIPLE, for how consciousness/subjectivity/qualia can arise from non-subjective physical stuff; while idealism avoids that problem entirely by taking consciousness/qualia as its sole theoretical given. Physicality, under idealism, is merely the image of a fundamentally mental substrate. After all, do you ever experience anything other than consciousness? No? Right. Idealism takes this sole pre-theoretic datum of existence, and then gets all of reality out of it. Physicalism fails at the starting block.
And on the "brain creates consciousness" point: I understand why you think this. I get the arguments for it. I know the evidence. You mess with the brain and you mess with consciousness. Bingo! Obviously, the brain must thus create consciousness! Except, all that that shows is that there is a *correlation* between the brain and consciousness, not a causative arrow. Surely, you know that there are interactions that seem to go the other way, right? As people meditate, their brains develop more gray matter and the size of their amygdalas shrink. That's consciousness seemingly affecting the brain. But even beyond that, idealism actually has a very simple explanation for this in both directions...
Let's take what idealism is saying seriously (and don't accidentally slip back into a physicalist frame) and see where it gets us: To restate, if consciousness is fundamental, that means the physical is merely an appearance within consciousness (Kant and/or Schopenhauer can help elucidate this). The apparent physical world we encounter is a kind of dashboard/interface that renders this fundamental field usable for us as (seemingly) separate centers of awareness within consciousness (Bernardo uses "dissociation" as an example in nature where this occurs--that is, as a reference to show that one mind can split into multiple minds). This "dashboard", which we encounter as the physical world, is thus akin to a GUI making using a computer easier than a terminal. So, if you get all that, then you might be able to see how even the brain would necessarily be an appearance within the single unitary field of consciousness. Which means that when the "thing" we see as a brain is damaged and then one's mind apparently changes, what's actually happening is that some process/interaction occurs at the fundamental layer of consciousness and that process affects one's mind (which is, under idealism, no more separable from the one field of consciousness than is a ripple from the ocean) and the result is that the brain-as an appearance within consciousness-is altered accordingly. Again, Bernardo (and Donald Hoffman) can shed more light on this if you read/watch their stuff and take in their dashboard analogy in more detail. But this was just to lay out that idealism has no problem accounting for what the brain is and the nature of its relationship to consciousness. Hope it helped!
Physicalism can be saved! I think you would find non-materialist physicalism interesting. David Pearce writes about it in detail.
@@ark-L
Physicalism is the claim that reality is exhaustively described by the laws of physics. It doesn't make an ontological claim about that which the equations of physics describe! But many people do use that word with an ontological claim in mind (namely, that that which equations of physics describe is not phenomenal).
@MasoudJohnAzizi in idealism, the world is a mental representation-a kind of collective dream shared by multiple conscious observers. In other words, the dream is not necessarily the dreamer. The universe would be a collective mentation in a cosmic consciousness of which we are temporarily dissociated alters. We, as humans, are personal minds birthed by the Mind at Large.
Panpsychism, on the other hand, says that there is a physical world out there made of indivisible units which are proto-conscious (whatever this means) which then come together to form higher-order complex systems which become conscious. In this view, the world is not a dream in consciousness, but rather, like physicalism, it produces consciousness by way of a hypothetical intrinsic property which is a potential for consciousness.
If one wants to be semantically pedantic, one could say that metaphysical idealism is a kind of panpsychism because 'pan' means 'all' and 'psyche' is mind/consciousness. But in academic circles physicality is emphasised and the term panpsychism is then taken to mean that everything has a mind as opposed to everything is mind. This is probably why Kastrup refers to the proposition that everything has a mind as 'constitutive panpsychism' whereas the proposition that it is all mind or consciousness (or that the world we perceive is a dream in consciousness) is what is usually meant by idealism.
In Dream states too we experience matter as real as in waking state. So Dreams are a soild evidence to conclude matter arises from consciousness and not the other way around.
Argument 1: Semantic and Etymological Dependency on Duality
Premises:
All words derive their meaning through distinctions between referents and their opposed referents. (Principle of relational meaning)
The word "consciousness" derives its meaning from the distinction between subject (the knower) and object (the known). (Etymological and semantic claim)
Denying the subject-object distinction removes the relational foundation necessary for the word "consciousness" to have meaning.
Conclusion:
Therefore, denying the subject-object distinction undermines the coherence of the concept of "consciousness."
Argument 2: The Necessity of Duality for Metaphysical Claims
Premises:
All metaphysical claims require defined referents to have intelligible meaning. (Principle of metaphysical coherence)
Defining a referent requires making distinctions between what the referent is and what it is not. (Principle of distinction for reference)
Distinction inherently relies on duality (e.g., subject-object, self-other). (Principle of relational structure for meaning)
Consciousness, as the proposed metaphysical "pre-theoretic given," must therefore rely on duality for its definition or exposure.
Denying duality makes it impossible to define or expose the referent "consciousness."
Conclusion:
Therefore, any metaphysical claim that consciousness is pre-theoretic while denying duality collapses into incoherence.
How They Complement Each Other
Argument 1 focuses on the semantic and conceptual roots of consciousness, showing that the denial of duality undermines the coherence of the concept itself.
Argument 2 shifts to the metaphysical realm, arguing that denying duality makes it impossible to make meaningful claims about consciousness as a pre-theoretic reality.
Together, they create a comprehensive critique: denying duality is incoherent both in defining consciousness as a concept and in exposing consciousness as a metaphysical reality. This double critique leaves no room for defending the exclusivity of consciousness as a pre-theoretic given while rejecting duality.
In dream states we can experience matter as though it is as real as in waking state. In this example, where would the distinction be drawn between the subject and object? Would we have to point to different areas of the brain?
not a debate, this was a nice discussion
Can you give me another idea of what I should title this video? I'll change it
"Illusionist DESTROYED by logic and nuance." Jks. The new name is much better. I think "consciousness discussed. Bernardo Kastrup and Susan Blackmore" would be optimum (probably not for the algorithm tho lol). Thanks for the video nonetheless😊
@@jakenewfield Just change "Bernardo Kastrup vs Susan Blackmore" to "Bernardo Kastrup and Susan Blackmore"
@@jakenewfield Kastrup explains Analytic Idealism to Blackmore & I
Timely reminder of the fundamental nature of reality thank you!
Words gain their semantic value through contrast: a word refers to something by virtue of distinguishing it from something else (e.g., "light" versus "darkness").
The word consciousness inherently implies a relationship between a subject (the one who is conscious) and an object (what the subject is conscious of).
For consciousness to exist as a meaningful concept, there must be:
A subject that is aware.
An object that the subject is aware of.
A distinction between the two, which is essential to the concept itself.
Thus, it would be impossible for Kastrup to claim that the subject-object distinction is a mere contingency of consciousness, because it is not only essential to its concept but also foundational to its linguistic and logical coherence.
Idealism offers a more compelling view of reality than materialism, but it faces the challenge of solipsism. Non-dualism, in particular, risks collapsing into solipsism by erasing the boundary between self and the external world, which can lead to feelings of isolation or even nihilism. This risk was evident in the discussion between Bernardo Kastrup and Michael James on Advaita Vedanta, where Kastrup, despite his valuable insights, struggled to defend idealism against deeper questions of God-realization. Without a clear argument to counter this, there's a danger of guiding people down a path that may leave them in a difficult or destabilizing position. Understanding and addressing these risks honestly is essential in any philosophical exploration
this kind of person-centered solipsism is generally speaking rooted in the assumption of closed individualism. This assumption can be easily questioned by other approaches like empty or open individualism.
Realize memories are actual simultaneous first kisses and that external.ond/memory would point at GROUP solipsism... (Not solipsism)..
If memory is Forever and ever stored as block universe events easily accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock because they verify exist
FOREVER..
Philosophers seem to fail in the understanding memory is redundant in a block universe
External memory means we are all.. all.. personifications away from the center...and you will Alway have that form of separate..
Death is very safe.. Einstein taught us how memory works.. but our Republican loca is very dumb
Oh no! People might become uncomfortable with the reality of their existence! Quick, throw in something comforting before people get 'destabilized.'
@@OngoGablogian185 - If memory is more logically simultaneous block universe SEPARATE events.. then you must be WITHIN a mind or consciousness to begin with.
Materialists will all be born to smarter mothers. Repeating this earth air existence is not the wisest choice. There are better locas
There is no such thing as a "reality",,, we share (not solipsism) a common dream to simplify..
Mankind assumes separateness and brain memory.. dying is safe and akin to waking up
Con choice nest: Propensity to choose.
A where nest: Curiosity.
Inversely related like focus and perspective.
The aperture of awareness closes as focus is drawn toward details and is required to affect every choice.
And it ain't easy being in two places at once.
“There is no such ‘thing’ as Bernardo.” Well, that’s sort of true; but there is such a process as Bernardo. It is essentially the available/evolving states of Bernardo’s brain, or rather the most recent state (which includes previous recent states).
Sense. Sense, or consciousness, is an inherent quality of all matter. In other words: sense is the key to understanding the universe. All matter senses, this is self evident. We get bogged down in separating our conscious experience from the world out there. I agree with what Kastrup is saying, but I would say it in another way.
I don’t think BK would agree with what you are saying.
Sense or consciousness is a quality of all matter?!
All matter senses?!
BK does not think that matter space and time are fundamental.
Only Consciousness is fundamental.
(he is not a panpsychist)
Matter space and time are experiences/excitations in consciousness.
@sxsmith44 sure, that's fine. I like his line of reasoning, but recently I imagine it to be as I characterise in my comment. A fascinating area of thought, and I value Kastrup's ideas.
Fine, I can go along with our mental states as being what our consciousness IS, in other words our experiences. And the external world, so what is external to our consciousness is what we experience and therefore is that which we call our conscious awareness of the external, but what is the nature of that which is external to us? What makes that up? What is the origin of the rules by which it works (laws of nature) that we are constantly discovering by that process we refer to the scientific method? If it is more mental stuff…what is this stuff in terms of its origins or how it works (it’s structure/it’s processes) or why it works in the way it works? Why isn’t it pure chaos for example? Where does the order that is within its workings come from? Why is it the way it is? Why isn’t it different from the way it is? I need to have something that once and for all grounds me so I can somehow build on it. Otherwise you are just presenting woo-woo.
I wish to add a little bit to the definition of consciousness. The current definition in its simplest form is defining it as our experience(s). It’s the awareness of our reality.
I would add to that that this conscious state is:
Automatically discerning patterns, formulating possible associations and establishing relationships. We inherently seem to do this for predictability and thus survival purposes..
Clearly, Bernardo had a way better arguments and he made his case very precise and clear. Susan has to keep up as she is falling behind a lot.
I think you might be too focused on the "vs" in the title. They're just having a friendly conversation.
In a comment the uploader said "Can you give me another idea of what I should title this video? I'll change it"
Is this the conversation from a year and half ago? Somebody please let me know because I don't want to find out haflway through.
Is there a coherent way to distinguish the several possible answers to the questions: "What is like to be me?", "What is it like to be a human?", "What is it like to be?", "What is it like to be a bat?" and "What is it like to be (me, imagining that I am) a bat?", or do not all of the these questions reduce simply to the single ineluctable query: "What is it like to be (me imagining modalities and nuances of me imagining variations on the theme of myself)?"?
When meditating, “It’s not happening in time or space.” I disagree: it may not be happening in space, but it MUST be happening in time. Happening/change always requires time.
@@richardatkinson4710 try reading einsteins 1905 paper and learn captain kirk and Spock can visit all of your memories if they had a 1981 Delorean that could go 1/4 the speed of entanglement.. a fifth grader knows you can watch your own history if you could see a mirror 10 light years away.. and that if anything travel faster than light as 2022 Nobel prize does...
It moves into history.
Time is not real.. only the illusion of.
Memory is logically external from body as actual simultaneous block universe events idiots deem mythical brain memory.
So dying is safe and timeless.. Nirvana is not just a band.
Having a belief which counters proven twin paradox is an effort in childishness
Manufactured brain memory as a reason for consciousness is also an effort in stupidity
Mankind ASSUMES a separateness... Because their mommies told them memory is internal
If Marty MCfly uses the USS Enterprise he can film and participate in all of your memories .. which STILL exist.. true or false.
You reside in a Republican loca.. don't expect this mankind to have a clue
Too many people think science is about assumptions and beliefs..
They should prove brain memory before claiming it as true, etc.. Nobel prize if you could.. ha
Think for yourself.. a dragon could fly by in a nocturnal dream.. and what we deem reality is akin.. so manifest and pay attention.. many things you manifest won't make linear time sense .. any magic you do will teach you the common dream scenario (not solipsism).. is valid...so you can learn truth by yourself.
Memory is redundant.. why store a license plate number we've proven you'll see forever (block universe)
The entire notion of memory is weird and unnecessary.. nothing needs a brain if they are entangled faster than light speed... Your toaster void of brain is aware it simultaneously elsewhere.. as does all
Read Julian Barbour
@ Bought it, read it, won’t repeat the experience. I wonder if he wrote it one word at a time. What do you reckon?
@@richardatkinson4710 point being, time is abstraction, things changing does not entail time or duration within his physics
@@mvigoren34 Did you read his book one word at a time, in a particular order?
Consciousness is knowing.
Knowing everything is enlightenment.
That’s why consciousness is a sense.
Bro just stfu ur not smart
Do you mean knowing what I have in my basement, for example?
@ yes, its all and nothing.
@@cordera9543 🤣
what IS a composition division fallacy ? for 200 Dollars , please
The key to this question lies in the study of near death experience. I don't know why they can't see it, It's so very simple and obvious. If consciousness persists when the brain is off line (during cardiac arrest) then consciousness is a separate entity. I realise that that is anathema to academics who simply can't stomach such a thing, but that is what the data is showing. Blackmore just keeps ignoring the really interesting data and refers to her work which is wrong and outdated.
Why do you say the brain is offline during cardiac arrest? That mean the heart stopped, not the brain. (Though it obviously will die in a short time with no blood circulating.)
@@RobinFaichney When the heart stops pumping blood into your head as in cardiac arrest, you lose consciousness instantly (you fall down on the floor dead, I've seen this now several times). You are now unconscious in the first stage of death. Within ten to twenty seconds, all electrical activity ceases in the brain. The brain is now offline, non functional. It's not brain death as in the destruction of the brain nerve cells (neurons) but it is no different a state consciousness/experience wise, than if your head was vapourised.
There should be nothing at all going on in there, however ten to twenty per cent of people that are revived from cardiac arrest (the first stage of death) report being conscious and able to have accurate perceptions of their surroundings which contain reasoning and memory formation. This should literally be impossible if the brain produces consciousness, it's that simple. Evasive psychologists who are firmly wedded to reductionist materialism, deny these experiences actually occur when the brain is offline, however, the data is pretty clear now and that's why near death experiences are so important and that's why people like Susan Blackmore keep up the pretence that there's nothing going on.
@@tim59ism I may not know much about cardiac arrest but I can tell you for a fact the idea that there's any conspiracy around this kind of thing is arrant nonsense.
@@RobinFaichney I don't recall saying there was a conspiracy theory, you've added that in to try to make my comment look unreasonable. I'll spell it out to you. Mainstream science does not want to look beyond the brain for consciousness. It's complete anathema to them and the reason why they won't look fairly at the evidence which is abundant. You don't know, I get that, so off you go and enjoy your evening. I do know, I've been around for nearly seven decades and I've studied NDE's since 1975.
@@RobinFaichney I don't recall saying there was a conspiracy theory, you've added that in to try to make my comment look unreasonable. I'll spell it out to you. Mainstream science does not want to look beyond the brain for consciousness. It's complete anathema to them and the reason why they won't look fairly at the evidence which is abundant. You don't know, I get that, so off you go and enjoy your evening. I do know, I've been around for nearly seven decades and I've studied NDE's since 1975.
It baffles me how some mainstream philosophers mistake that materialism explains gravity anymore than idealism
She does not understand she keeps saying. I believe that.
Why doesn't Susan understand analytical idealism, there are basic concepts and tenets she hasn't grasped. Surely, you are supposed to understand your opponent's view as well as your own? Imagine Bernardo failing to explain her monism or someones dualism.... that wouldn't happen
In meditation time and space disappear, but in reality IMHO time minimizes or has minimal causal influence?
Kastrup’s idealism is the best T.O.E. out there; but it’s not perfect. The idea that selves are analogous to dissociative alters is a wrong step. Dissociative alters lack the very thing - the self/universe boundary - which he is anxious to explicate. (The alters are personalities sharing the same boundary/skin…) A far better model is this: that the self is the perception by the universal consciousness of an extremely tiny part of its history - corresponding to the most recent state of the brain (the hub of the sensory system). Selves are microcosms. They - and the innovative societies they enable - are the latest creation of the universal consciousness. (If this lazy self ever gets round to it, I’ll put a full account out there.)
A good analogy is the two hands of a pianist. Since the invention of contrapuntal music, the two hands may play different but “socially” compatible melodies. The right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing; but there is an overarching consciousness which orchestrates and perceives the whole performance.
@@richardatkinson4710 kastrups an idiot.. consciousness is Simply external events Idiots deem memory.. captain kirk and Spock have easy access to all your memories that EXIST if they can travel HALF as fast as entanglement.
Idiots assume brain memory.. but brain memory is defacto redundant in a block universe
You're more simply...viewing every license plate number now.
Death is safe because Albert Einstein taught us where memorybisc stored...and wheeler (retrocausality) taught smart folks the .mechanisms of free will..
Not that anyone here is as smart as a fifth grader
@JHeb_ Ditto... mommies are very convincing when they allow their dumbass children to assume brain memory
@@JHeb_ Ditto.. You ASS/U/ME brain memory (mythical or PROVE IT)... Memory is de facto redundant in a universe void of time.. seeing 20 years into teh past is as simple as placing a mirror 10 light years awya.. and if you could travel half as fast as entanglement,.,. you could VISIT all of your memories.. (true or false).. because they will ALWAYS exist (true or false).
Atheist are idiots because they have exactly TWO (2) ways of proving they are living teh dram like the rest of us
1) mommy woo: you're mommy told you you're a real boy and you must assume she isnt an idiot.
or
2) Self pinching: and not waking up in our COMMON (not solipsism - external memory as simultaneous events)... impossible!
You insulted my intelligence.. ha.. but YOU must manufacture a weird brain memory system.. to make you separateness work,k >>
Th e dreaming DOGGY feels liek tehg dream squirrel he is chasing HAS BRAIN MEMORY...
Because the doggy is an idiot that cannot garso 5th grade science of block universe..
to DUMB IT DOWN.. Captain kirk and spock can FILM all of your memories if they had a 1981 delorean.
If I AM CORRECT there are ways smart people can realize they are in a group solipsism or a solo solipsism;.. energy would follow all thought.. they could simply think of stuff and pay attention,,. if non moron..
... then you will need to be born to a smarter mom in a perceived future lifetime. because there is only one way off this rock.. graduarte.
Solipsism is the notion this is all a dream.. and we wake up.. and its a fun story..
But HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE 'REALITY' (notice quotes) uf we share a common actual events we deem memories..
What if you are merely looking at every license plate number concurrently to forever and ever as albert einstein taught us (and has been proven with atomic clocks) a simultaneous block universe....
IQ test (are you smarter than a fifth grader): Are you learning every word in this sentence concurrently to exactly forever.
My channel teaches magic,,, Im an accidental philosopher because i'm tired of all the same garius matt dillahunty type drivel out there,.
Atheism is rooted in stupidity./. plain and simple..
MEMORY IS NOT REQUIRED.. how simple is that?
If you merely tune into the actual events if your mind could go half as fast as entanglement...
(entanglement has been proven to be instant - retrocausality is involved.. and also proven ask any positron - retrocausality should also be a given in a sunivers void of time..
so time.. is surpassable.. by the 2022 nobel prize in physics (true or false)
Recently science argues memory is in the cells.. NOT brain.. but the brain is as nikola tesla sais.. he knows it is a receiver,.
What mankind FOOLISHLY deems memory... is simultaneous events
YOU CANNOT PROVE youre a real boy by jumping up and down and waving...
To ANYONE in possession of lofic or reasoning.. my stance is irrefutable..
You must ASS/U/ME youre a real boy and that the earth is somehow not a common dream';
--------------SIMPLICITY...
Expectations cause quantum collapse even into the perceived past.
Maybe YOU don't think I am clever or know how reality works..
I do have three well reviewed books (2 free on you tube), and started teaching reality to atheists on youtube in june,,,
From my perspective.. you will be born to a smarter mother.
GROUP solipsism. isnt a thang... but we are in a shared dream...
but external memory does imply a common dream of sorts.. describe it how you like.
Materialism is based on self pinching and mommy woo.. sam harris is the high priest of our current religion of fools.,, he will not only be born to a smarter mother.. he must answer for the damage he does in this lifetime.. how many people do atheist mongers scare...
Memory is redundant.. and if you knew that then you could look at deeper questions.. like.. if you don't need a brain for consciousness.. then what about your toaster... is it entangled with the factory that made it?
IN A DREAM... you could see a dragon fly by and that might seem normal..
In our FIRST HERMETIC PRINCIPLE (oops I added dogma.. ) UNIVERSE
everything has a rudimentary memory/consciousness..
Darwin was also wrong.. aristotle's teleology was right... our present now makes DEMANDS upon our previous incarnations. you personally were crab to learn opposable thumbs.. a plant to learn to breath
You will feel separate forever... because you are a uniqure 'personification"...
but dying is very safe.. akin to waking up..
I am not wrong.. In a common dream.. positive thinking causing good.. is a given...
and every religion would be vindicated (true or false).
Good luck
Consciousness can be explained by fifth grade 120 year old theory of relativity.
Someone should read the thing.
Why would anyone think memory is a thingy? How vain are we?...
You're just looking at every license plate number.. forever and always..
Brain memory is mythical. despite the number of morons seeking it.
Manifest things enough to see retrocausality at play (or dont)_.
Those who manifest can lean many things we manifest do not make linear time sense.
PROVE IT.. isnt that the atheist anthem.. how would YOU prove youre not in a dream without self pinching or mommy woo?
This earth air is a republican loca.. don't expect mankind to be very brilliant. There are better versions of earth.. (higher locas)
These philosophers are like infants compared to those who are spiritual in knowledge.
Maybe this comment goes against everything youve ASSUMED...
If you don't get it,.. perhaps you're not meant to.
I have personally converted over 1000 atheists.. minimum.. on quora, websites, youtube, and books...
atheism is rooted in stupidity.. nothing more.
Be blessed
Good point: alters share the same physical body. So, in your opinion, where does my personal consciousness come from..? (If not split-off of universal consciousness?)
CONSCIOUSNESS DEFINED:
The English-language word, “consciousness”, means “the state of being aware”, or “that which knows”, or even more literally, “characterized by knowing”, from the Latin prefix “con” (“with”), the stem “scire” (“to know”) and the suffix “osus” (“characterized by”). To put it succinctly, the phenomenon of consciousness refers to the SUBJECTIVE component of any subject-object relationship. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of localized knowing within the cognitive faculty of vertebrates (that is, a hierarchy of subject-object relationships), as well as a more Universal Awareness (more appositely called “Brahman” or “Sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit, or “Tao”, in Chinese), as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Consciousness is essentially impersonal, yet it can be expressed via a personal being, such as many species of animals, including we humans. Exactly how consciousness can be detached from a personal agent may be a rather bizarre concept to comprehend, at least in the initial stage, yet after careful study of this chapter, in conjunction with a profound yogic practice, one will eventually understand this to indeed be the case.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom, is a matter of contention, but judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds, reptiles and fishes). Those metazoans that are evolutionarily-lower than vertebrates, do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for genuine knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts, notwithstanding certain notable exceptions to this rule, such as octopuses. For instance, an insect or a jellyfish does not consciously decide to seek food, but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when an insect (such as a cockroach) flees from danger, it is not experiencing the anxious emotions that a human or other mammal would experience. See Chapter 11, regarding the concept of will.
SENTIENCE EVOLVES INTO TRUE CONSCIOUSNESS:
Undoubtedly, the lower species of animals, alluded to above, embody, if not true consciousness, varying degrees of SENTIENCE, depending on how many senses it possesses and how complex is its nervous system. Very few would consider a blind worm to be more sentient than a frog!
Plants are also sentient, but use lower-level mechanisms for their perceptions. To give just a couple of examples, both land-based and water-born plants respond to sunlight (as witnessed by the opening of flowers upon the rising of the sun), and some carnivorous plants can detect arthropods crawling on their leaves. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too!”, they may be justified, according to some ambiguous sense of the term, so the most logical reason for being vegan, is not because plants are completely insentient, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. No sane person would advocate for veganism if humans were omnivores! Furthermore, fruit trees indirectly benefit from the consumption of its fruit, since their seeds are spread. So, those carnists who criticize vegans for killing sentient plants for their sustenance, ought to know that it is indeed possible to consume a nutritious diet without killing any living being whatever. I, personally, have been completely frugivorous for lengthy periods of time, and those periods were, by far, the healthiest times of my entire life!
Those with an ounce of nous, will question the above claim that lower species of animals (insects, just for a start) are WITHOUT consciousness (although, to be fair, the adjective “true” was used to qualify the noun “consciousness”), since most all insects have eyes and other senses, so there seems to be the subject-object relationship, vital to the definition of the term “consciousness”. Of course, that seems to be a valid thesis, but in the opinion of this author, the degree of consciousness exhibited by such lower creatures, is most accurately seen to be purely electro-mechanical in nature - a wasp detects a wall in its flight path, and automatically flies around it, without any thought processes being involved whatsoever. Obviously, if one prefers to refer to the wasp as a “conscious” agent, that would be acceptable, but at some point, there needs be a line drawn in the animal kingdom between sentience, and consciousness, for it would be truly absurd to call a bacterium “conscious”, I would contend. This may explain the reason why microbes were lately given their own kingdom, in addition to the fungi, animal, and plant kingdoms, since a microbe is, strictly speaking, neither a plant nor an animal, though it may embody features of both the major kingdoms of living beings.
Just as it is impossible to discern the precise micrometre where the trunk of a tree becomes a root of the same tree, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to point to the exact division between sentience and consciousness, for the latter is an extension of the former, in the same way that the trunk of a fig tree is an extension of the root system, or in the same way that a freshwater river merges into a saltwater estuary.
When crustaceans, amphibians, (most) reptiles, and (most) birds, flee from danger, they are exhibiting a purely mechanical, “fight or flight” response, not dissimilar to a carnivorous plant’s reaction to the feeling (see the Glossary entry, “sentience”, which refers to sensual feeling) of an insect crawling on its leaves. When those animals that are truly conscious (as opposed to merely sentient), display the same behaviour, it may be accompanied by rudimentary EMOTIONS, such as grief, anxiety, fear, and confusion, due to the appropriate parts of the brain being developed to a higher degree. Human beings, who have the most advanced brains of all animal species in the history of our planet, are capable of emotions that are so innovative, that they could be considered detrimental to our contentment, such as the fear and anticipation we feel concerning events that have yet to eventuate. Personally, in my own past, I have dreamed-up a host of possible negative scenarios that might take place in the future, yet failed to eventuate, and the fear and dread I experienced was all for naught! Hence, an extra layer of suffering is practically unavoidable for species that have a particularly advanced level of consciousness, such as Homo sapiens, and possibly our ancestors.
CONSCIOUSNESS RESEARCH:
Recently, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, involving fields such as philosophy of mind, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. Many such researchers have seen evidence that the brain is merely a conduit or a TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 re: the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processor of a supercomputer must necessarily be far larger in size, more complex, and more powerful than the processing unit in a pocket calculator, obviously. Therefore, it seems logical to extrapolate that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness, is chiefly dependent on the brain capacity of a specific animal.
So, then, in response to the assertion made in the previous paragraph, one could easily complain thus: “That’s not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: First of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence, on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That is unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak sweet and gentle words to a rabid dog, to prevent it from biting you.
Cont...
Looks like an interesting book.
@@pietwandelaar1743
EXCRUCIATINGLY interesting.
I have read it literally hundreds of times. 😊
Copied the definition part to my notes, but tweaked it a bit with the help of an AI:
Consciousness
From Latin con “with” + scire “to know” + osus “characterized by”; literally “characterized by knowing”; that which knows; the state of being aware.
Consciousness relates to the subjective aspect of any subject-object interaction. Within the cognitive faculties of vertebrates, there exists a hierarchy of localized knowing, representing a hierarchy of subject-object relationships. This is accompanied by absolute Awareness, often referred to as “Brahman,” “Satchidānanda” (being-awareness-bliss), “Tao,” or “the One.”
Consciousness is fundamentally impersonal but can manifest through personal beings, such as various animal species, including humans. The concept of consciousness existing independently of a personal agent may initially seem unlikely; however, through careful study of certain scriptures and dedicated yoga practice, this understanding becomes clear.
[Non-English terms should be italicized, but this platform doesn't provide that option.]
Since there is ambiguity about the meanings of the terms awareness and consciousness, it is helpful to collect a set of definitions of concepts directly related to these terms.
To start with, there follows a set of five pairs of definitions. For each pair, the first definition reflects the way the term is typically used in a Western (W) academic context. The second definition is for a comparable Advaita (A) Vedānta term.
1 (W) Awareness is pure cognition, i.e., the simple ability of a being to notice something.
1 (A) Chit is pure, non-objective, transcendental awareness/consciousness that illuminates and passively observes the flow of mental objects.
2 (W) Attention is selective awareness, which, when taken to a more intense level, becomes concentration.
2 (A) Manas, the sensorial mind, controls and focuses the ten senses.
3 (W) Consciousness is discerning attention, e.g., the ability to differentiate whether the object of cognition is internal or external.
3 (A) Manas processes sensorial impressions of the apparent external world and is itself an internal sensory organ; the sense behind the senses.
4 (W) Intelligence is operative consciousness, i.e., the capability of using information obtained in experience to develop knowledge.
4 (A) Buddhi is the intellectual faculty that has the capability to form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, and understand.
5 (W) Wisdom is developed intelligence.
5 (A) The higher capabilities of the buddhi are able to acquire and assimilate jnāna, which refers to “knowledge”; in a spiritual context this means direct knowledge of transcendental truth, which is synonymous with wisdom.
Note from the first Advaitin definition that there is overlap of the meanings of the terms “awareness” and consciousness,” as both can be used to translate the term “chit.” There follow a set of detailed definitions that further explore the Advaitin understanding of what consciousness is.
chit
Pure, transcendental, and absolute Consciousness; pure Awareness. Chit expresses the nature of absolute reality, Brahman.
Note from the definition of the term “chit” that absolute Consciousness is synonymous with pure Awareness, and that these terms express the nature of absolute reality, Brahman. To distinguish this transcendental level of consciousness from lower-level consciousness and awareness, it is helpful to include adjectives such as “absolute” and “pure.” Although it is best to avoid excessive capitalization, it is reasonable to use capitalization for the terms “pure Awareness,” “pure Consciousness,” “Soul,” and “the Self.”
Brahma-chaitanya
Literally “Brahman-Consciousness”; absolute Consciousness; the supreme spirit considered as the essence of all being and source of all awareness.
chaitanya
Absolute Consciousness, i.e., the same as Brahma-chaitanya; the supreme spirit considered as the essence of all being and source of all awareness; may be used in a more general “consciousness” sense to refer to cosmic consciousness (Ishvara-chaitanya), witness-consciousness (sākshi-chaitanya), and individual consciousness (jiva-chaitanya).
sākshi
Witnessing principle; seer; the pure Awareness in each human that witnesses the world but does not get affected or involved.
sākshi-chaitanya
Witness-Consciousness; absolute Consciousness as witness of mental functions; indwelling consciousness. Whereas the term sākshi refers only to the witnessing principle, the term sākshi-chaitanya includes the idea that the witness is absolute Consciousness (Brahma-chaitanya).
Note from the preceding definitions that:
chit = absolute Consciousness
= pure Awareness
= Brahma-chaitanya
= chaitanya
= sākshi-chaitanya
Ishvara-chaitanya
Cosmic Consciousness; the absolute Consciousness as reflected through Ishvara, the wielder of the power of māyā who created and controls the universe; the highest level of consciousness that the relative human mind can conceive of, in contrast with Brahma-chaitanya (absolute Consciousness), which cannot be comprehended by the relative human mind and is only to be experienced as the Self.
chidābhāsa
The reflection (ābhāsa) of Brahman, the absolute Consciousness (chit or chaitanya), on or through the mind; the reflected universal Self in the jiva (individual self); diminished reflection of absolute Consciousness that is mistakenly taken as being independently real.
chetana
Transactional consciousness; individual consciousness; sentience; a diminished reflection (chidābhāsa) of absolute consciousness; consciousness as defined from a physicalist perspective; the typical level of consciousness that manifests in a body-mind complex in the waking state; the same as jiva-chaitanya.
jiva-chaitanya
The same as chetana. See chetana.
Note from the preceding definitions that:
chidābhāsa = diminished reflection of absolute Consciousness
= chetana
= jiva-chaitanya
= transactional consciousness
= individual consciousness
= physicalist definition of consciousness
= psychology definition of consciousness
🙏
@@pietwandelaar1743
th-cam.com/video/qDOm9PY2MEI/w-d-xo.html
I don't think "illusion" is the right word to describe it. I'd say it is more of an interpretation by the specific processing parts of the brain that create that representation, which is sufficient to maintain survival. We can't see infrared, but we perceive the spectrum of colors that we need to navigate and survive sufficiently. This doesn’t mean that what we do see is just an illusion. A dog may see a box of dog food with big letters spelling D-O-G on it and recognize it as the box that contains his food, but he doesn’t understand that the letters on the box symbolize certain sounds that mean "dog food" to an English-speaking Homo sapiens.
So, he is not aware of that particular aspect of reality, but what he sees is still a part of reality-an interpretation by his nervous system that allows him to navigate and survive in his environment. Similarly, we are "conscious" and aware of that which we evolved to perceive in a way that serves our need to survive. As humans, we are also aware that there are aspects of reality that are invisible to us, but that doesn’t mean our interpretation of the world is a trick or an illusion.
idiots ass/u/me brain memory because they are too stupid to grasp all of your memories could be relived by Captain Kirk and Spock if they had a 1981 Delorean or the USS enterprise.
Can the speed of light be surpassed?
Yes.. anyone as clever as a fifth grader knows entanglement is instant (retrocausal origins) and can surpass light speed.
Dying is safe because memories are EXTERNAL from brain as actual first kisses, etc
Kastrup is an infant
Prove memory is in the brain with a note from your mom or realize death is as every religion has told us.
Illusion Gaia...you are in a forest and cannot see the trees..
EXTERNAL memory means dream toast kitchen toast.. and not solipsism.. a group dream is the truth of it
Do not fret... All atheists are scheduled for smarter mommies
Sorry, but you gotta read more Bernardo (and, like, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Christoph Koch, Annaka Harris, Kant, Schopenhauer, the whole philosophy of mind literature, really.). Your idea doesn't really get to the heart of the matter-or, well, heart of the qualia, I guess...
@@ark-L Why are we conscious at all? This is how we evolved; there was no plan, it was simply the shape the organism needed to survive. Meaning the organism that we are evolved this awareness that we have named 'consciousness' - it is a definition we humans have created to define the nature of the way our brain and nervous system interpret the external (and internal i.e., thoughts, memories, feelings) world. Why did we evolve to this cognitive state? The answer is it served our need to survive and it is a function of our brain. Every person is different genetically, and also is influenced by another set of environmental factors and influences since no one ever occupies the same space and time... This is why there is some degree of subjectivity in experience. Cilantro tastes great to me, but to someone else it tastes like soap, and this is for a genetic reason. Why is red red? Why is red more red to someone else? Is their red the same as my red? Since we evolved as a species to detect and respond to the same environmental stimuli, and our visual systems follow the same basic architecture, it's reasonable to assume our experiences of red are similar and individual variations likely exist on a spectrum due to small genetic differences and how they are influenced by environmental factors throughout life. What I don't understand about Idealists is why they need to invent this very strange and unlikely idea that all in the universe is a substance that just happens to be made of the thing, a word that describes the characterristic of our human awareness. With all due respectm to me it seems fantastical, almost like a primitive myth or a comic book. Why would everything be made of thought and not matter? I mean you can make up very imaginative story and use logical gymnastics and rational to confirm it, and that can be fun, but why take it seriously when the material world is right in front of us and in contact with us every moment...why such a mystical reach? At the heart of the matter is it a discust with the corporeal form and a desire to live forever?
@@coreywiley3981 Thanks for the reply! So, you assume physicalism. Got it! May I ask a few questions?
(1) (a) What is your definition of "physical"? And (b) what form(s) of reductionism (if any) do your ascribe to?
(2) Why do you think the physical is the best candidate for ontological primitive?
(3) What is your understanding of (a) the "hard problem" and (b) the meta-problem of consciousness?
"What I don't understand about Idealists is why they need to invent this very strange and unlikely idea that all in the universe is a substance that just happens to be made of the thing, a word that describes the characterristic of our human awareness."
Consciousness/qualia/subjectivity is the one thing we are each acquainted with before anything else. It's literally as far away from "strange" as anything could be. It is only through consciousness that you are aware of anything at all. Everything you made reference to... evolution, time/space, the environment, tastes, species, the color red... all of these things happen within/through/and by way of consciousness. You have to take that primacy seriously. And the idealist does! They start with what can be known for certain: there is awareness (though not self-awareness--that's an additional step). They then ask: what can I build out from here with the fewest assumptions?: "Well, if the entirety of my experience is, as far as I can tell, within consciousness, then positing anything else other than consciousness is an unjustified leap." After that, one is forced to conclude that, just as one exists only as consciousness, so too must the objective outside world-which, again, one only knows anything about at all because of perceptions and knowledge gained about it THROUGH CONSCIOUSNESS! The only rational answer is that there is one single unitary spatially-unbound field of awareness and we are just temporarily dissociated centers of self-awareness within it.
Now, I, of course, agree we have evolved (at least, from the perspective of embodiment/time-space/causation) to have the particular kind of conscious experience that we have as humans. But that doesn't actually give us any explanation for consciousness quo consciousness. Why there is anything it's like to be anything at all? Just invoking evolution does not get you anywhere on this.
@@ark-L I think the Consciousness is simply put, just the brain interpreting the environment. Saying the universe is made up of consciousness is sort of like saying the universe is made of sight or respiration. Consciousness is more a definition that describes the characteristic of our brain's awareness and functioning. The reason for subjective experiences is simply that every person is different and separate. We all have a very similar blueprint, but our subtle genetic differences, along with our different environments, create different experiences even between identical twins. We have a brain and nervous system that evolved a certain way, and what we have defined and named "consciousness" is just a function of that comparatively (compared to our animal cousins) complex brain. To suggest that it is a non-physical substance that exists in the universe outside of our nervous system, and which makes up everything we see, seems a far greater, stranger, and less likely theory than to hypothesize that the stuff in the universe is made up of material like atoms and other particles and that it is our brain processing that information. To me the "hard question" isn't so hard, the answer is that the subjective consciousness we each experience is nothing more than the experience of our complex brain process which is part of the body of a larger whole organism which has adapted and been sculpted and mutated over the course of evolution to manifest the way we experience...just complex systems of stuff, or materials organized in a certain way that brings about the characteristics of how we interpret the environment around us.
What materialist process put Susan's subjective consciousness; her unique perceiver, inside of Susan and not Bernardo? And Vice versa.
Good question! I'm personally with him.
good one !
Now my brain needs a rest!!!!!🙃😂❤
But why not say for example that Bernardo IS the summarization or the narrative. There appears to be a subject of the narrative, or the subject is a component of the narrative. And narratives don’t exist, they only appear to exist.
Susan should read some books of Bernardo... They are very easy to understand. I kinda don't understand how Susan doesn't understand. Perhaps she doesn't want to give up the worldview in which she has invested
...or she just really doesn't understand reason.
Doesnt want to lose her job.
didn't you hear her say she read 2 of his (difficult) books?
No one can say what consciousness is because as soon as one does it has reduced it to a concept. There’s a vast difference between the conceptual and the actual.
which is why we use very inelegant definitions that point towards something we all innately understand. Like "that which goes away in dreamless sleep".
@ All cannot “point” to or at Itself. That would imply there is some “thing” to point at or to, and another to do the pointing.
@@ferdinandalexander8053
I think we would be talking about different things here. On some ultimate level, you can point at the futility of demanding a conceptual explanation of your true nature. But on a practical level, we can use practical definitions.
@ In order to speak of what is true or valid one must start with what IS. In other words, with what is present, existing, or being. There are no levels to ALL. There is no ultimate reality, only reality. What “we” seem to be talking about is neither a thing nor is it a no-thing, but that doesn’t mean it is nothing. Whatever word one chooses to mean ALL THERE IS of ALL THERE IS, sometimes the word now, or the present is used, often times, words like truth, reality, presence, consciousness, actuality, and there are many more terms. It doesn’t really matter as words or thoughts about TRUTH are not TRUTH ITSELF. Surely, the way LIFE is, would be the ONE that actually IS.
That’s not a distinguishing feature of consciousness. It’s true of literally anything that it becomes a concept when discussed.
In "Theravada" Buddhism in Sri Lanka, all enlightened "Baghavath Buddhas" appear on earth , after eons of life times of purification of the mind, as a fulfilling universal qualification to perfecting qualities of "conscious energies" described in Sri Lankan Buddhist pali canon / texts "marghadi " Buddhas' spoken sound language,written Pali Tripitaka" as "paramitha kamma" (perfectible universal deeds). The Baghvath Buddha has described beings existing in 31 realms. All creations in this universe are "energies" with influence of the six ( 6 ) aggregates "elements" 1. sound (ears ), 2. taste ( tongue ), 3, smell (nose ) 4. seeing (eyes ). 5. touch (Body ), 6, feelings(heart ), under "causality" cause & effect . The Buddha has described how universal energy called "kamma" manifests in human form through human faculties of seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, touch & mind (past experiences) called aggregates, amalgamating with external world experiences of feelings through the Human "Heart Organ " as electrical waves signals to develop a "seed" to become "conscious energy" which continues to the brain as a "thought" and this continuation of experience is stored in the "subconscious" mind in the human brain called "mano" (pali ) (mind) in Buddhism. This" perception " action is called "thought". ThoughtIn "Theravada" Buddhism in Sri Lanka, all enlightened "Baghavath Buddhas" appear on earth , after eons of life times of purification of the mind, as a fulfilling universal qualification to perfecting qualities of "conscious energies" described in Sri Lankan Buddhist pali canon / texts "marghadi " Buddhas' spoken sound language,written Pali Tripitaka" as "paramitha kamma" (perfectible universal deeds). The Baghvath Buddha has described beings existing in 31 realms. All creations in this universe are "energies" with influence of the six ( 6 ) aggregates "elements" 1. sound (ears ), 2. taste ( tongue ), 3, smell (nose ) 4. seeing (eyes ). 5. touch (Body ), 6, feelings(heart ), under "causality" cause & effect . The Buddha has described how universal energy called "kamma" manifests in human form through human faculties of seeing, hearing, smelling, taste, touch & mind (past experiences) called aggregates, amalgamating with external world experiences of feelings through the Human "Heart Organ " as electrical waves signals to develop a "seed" to become "conscious energy" which continues to the brain as a "thought" and this continuation of experience is stored in the "subconscious" mind in the human brain called "mano" (pali ) (mind) in Buddhism. This" perception " action is called "thought". Thoug becomes a conscious energy, called "kamma/karma = consciousness in Buddhism.
“Mind… seeks actively to deceive itself.” What? If so, we should reject any attempt at understanding right now! I don’t know how/why Kastrup goes down that road. He is introducing an Axiom of Misunderstanding. If that were true, we should all pack up and become cynics or hedonists.
It is hard to convince materialists of anything. They understand matter and that is it. It has been said that in the higher ages those who were capable of understanding matter only were employed in sweeping the streets. They were the lowest caste.
Lmao! 😂 This is a good one 😄👌🏻
The bridging he looks for between the idealism (which can also be fundamental forces of nature) and consciousness is actually the bioengineering which arises in the brain. The secret sauce or “happenings” he references is actually time or specifically the time domain of biology|consciousness.
Before we are born, there is nothing. Then we are conceived and develop in utero into an organism with a complex brain and nervous system. As we grow, our body (including the brain and nervous system) gathers information and experience, maturing into an organism struggling to survive and thrive within its given environment. What we call "consciousness" is simply a word we have invented to name and describe our experience of inner and outer awareness and memory-a process of our nervous system and how we, as organisms, navigate survival and reproduction.
Other animals have awareness, memory, and some even exhibit self-recognition, which could also be called consciousness. However, it is fundamentally the same-a process of the brain and nervous system, which is a function of the body, matter, and material. We, as humans, have a particularly complex and unique nervous system that allows for abstract thoughts and capabilities that other animals do not possess, a result of evolutionary pressures to better survive and reproduce. Simply put, consciousness is not a field or a substance; it is just our experience of awareness as an organism. It is unique in certain ways, but why do we insist that it is something almost supernatural?
When we die and our brains cease to function and decompose, our thoughts and the information contained within our neurons disintegrate with the rest of our body. As before we were born, there is nothing again.
But you have learned all that within consciousness. Nothing you have come to know or experience-nothing anybody anywhere has come to know or experience-has ever come into being independently or outside of consciousness. In this way “being” is indistinguishable from consciousness. There is nobody to assert or recognize “being” in the absence of consciousness. “To be” means “to be conscious”.
But what about the geologic period before life appeared? We have come to know about that _within consciousness._ And we look back and make theories, assumptions, draw conclusions, etc, but all these occur within consciousness. There is essentially no universe outside of consciousness because none of us can ever step outside of consciousness to verify it.
Also, time is relative and dependent on consciousness. In the absence of consciousness, time is non-existent. When consciousness arises, we can look around and say “this happened a relatively long time ago” and “this happened relatively recently” but essentially it all happened simultaneously with the arising of consciousness because before consciousness there was no time. Time exists within consciousness.
(I don’t know if I’m making myself clear or if I sound high, lol.)
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs You're describing how we understand and conceptualize the past. We're doing that in the present though. None of your statements are evidence consciousness is fundamental or persists after death.
@@alankoslowski9473 there is no “after death” or “before birth” outside of consciousness. Anything you imagine about before birth or after death is all within the realm of consciousness. We simply cannot get out of it. When we try to conceive of anything at all that could exist independently of consciousness, we are just imagining that within consciousness. You literally cannot demonstrate that anything at all can exist without it being perceived within some form of consciousness. Everything-the entire universe-is literally nothing if there is not consciousness.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs Saying it is literally nothing is an extreme form of solipsism. It's more accurate to say we don't know if something else exists outside consciousness since consciousness is the basis of experience.
But if perception is verified among many different people it seems likely that perception exists outside consciousness. We can't be certain but it's all we have to work with unless we're content to live entirely within our own mind. That doesn't appeal to me.
@@alankoslowski9473 it only appears as solipsism because you’re thinking of consciousness as an individual person’s consciousness. The point isn’t, “I can only be sure of what I am directly aware of: me.” No, the point is that absolutely nothing exists outside of consciousness. Name one thing that exists outside of consciousness. The very meaning of the word “exist” only makes any sense within the realm of consciousness. The distinguishing of any one thing from any other can only ever occur within consciousness. And it doesn’t matter whether or not it appeals to you. We are discussing what actually is the case.
Happiness 🕺🏼
No one knows shit; and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you’ll be free to think for yourself.😂
Here's how to see why Kartrup's idealism is unworkable. According to him subjective/conscious qualities are the fundamental layer of reality. The physical things we perceive are at the fundamental level also conscious qualities they only appear to us physical because we only indirectly access them through the "screen or perception" . OK. Now according to him the "redness of the red" is one of the fundamental conscious qualities that we are "directly acquainted" with. Is this quality also reflected on the screen of perception ? First you might say, yes. When I think of red light or study it with scientific instruments what I'm accessing through the screen or perception is this conscious quality because of the correlation between things that happen to the "appearance" that I call EM radiation of ~590nm and the subjective experience of the redness of the red. But there is a problem. There are many other things "on the screen of perception" that I can change in a way that it will affect (even prevent) the experience of the redness of the red. Most obviously, I can change my brain . So are the relevant parts of my brain also "projections" of the fundamental quality of the "redness of red" onto the screen of perception ? More generally, we would be forced to conclude that everything in the world that affects my color experience is a part of the projection of this quality. Does thins mean all red objects , or only parts of the object ? Or is the process of light absorption a projection of color experience ?
How on Earth could anyone make sense of trying to actually decipher what these "qualities" are and how they give rise to physical reality as "appearances" ?? Notice that this problem disappears if you start with physical things to try to derive the redness of the red. Starting with physical things we are working on stuff that we can actually study. We can figure what the brain is made of, how those things interact, how neurons behave how the activity of different cells correlate with precisely defined dimensions of subjective experience (say, hue, saturation or brightness), and we can (at some future point) study how and why introspection fails when we try to use it to reverse engineer the brain by sitting in an arm chair introspecting our internal landscape of "qualities" None of this explanatory work can be done starting with qualia, precisely because the only access to it is through introspection which does not allow us to decipher anything about the nature of these qualities.
So Kastrup's grand theory is simply vague science fiction. He can only try to salvage it by claiming that he does not reject the findings of neuroscience just choses to have "conscious qualities" as the fundamental layer of what elementary fields/particles are made of. But this is simply a naming game and an empty one. Calling quantum fields "fields of phenomenality" (as he sometimes does) is pure science fiction- he is not adding anything to these constructs other than renaming them. Strikingly the very thing that his project fails at is finding an explanatory connection between the "appearances" and the "fundamental" qualities. What the above discussion of the redness of red shows is exactly that taking subjective qualities as fundamental does not make them in any way better understood. It's an embarassment that in the 21st century we are still entertaining these supernatural ghost stories
Sue’s meditation, Bernardo’s psychedelic trip… Those are both avoidance strategies. The down-to-earth, honest perception of the world works. (I nearly said “just fine”, but that is a good-ol’-boy, who’da-thunk-it meme…)
They are not avoidance but important in the sense that these experiences convey a truthful statement which is that there is something it's like to be when you are not specified as being something in particular. And for some reason all people who experienced this either through dicipline, NDE or psycedelics report this state of being as inherently blissful.
That only tells us you're perfectly satisfied with your perception of the world, not that we should be with ours.
No, they are ways of learning about consciousness. If you were curious about it as a phenomenon this would be obvious.
@@Sam-hh3ry But he's not curious, he's perfectly satisfied with his so-called "down-to-earth, honest perception".
@@Sam-hh3ry I suggest that anyone who is into psychedelics, sensory deprivation, etc and thinks they must be good or important on the grounds that they are pleasant should read Larry Niven’s “Death by Ecstasy”, or consider the behaviour of pigeons addicted to (inadequate) variable ratio food rewards. We’re not evolved for maximizing pleasure.
Maybe the big bang was the disassociation
This is a good vein of thinking! To keep mining that, try this on: "The Cognitive Big Bang" from Bernardo. Dissociation is always (and never) happening; it's structural, beyond space and time. :)
It's all very fascinating
Terms like "consciousness" and "mental" suggest they include memories and how memories construct identity, and these can demonstratively be altered physically. If we replace them with the term "experience," the incoherencies in such a position go away, but so does much of what idealism represents
Consciousness = simultaneous events (first kiss, graduation) IDIOTS deem mythical brain memory.
Do I need a second sentence to explain why dying is safe, reality, conscious, or God?.. or do you grasp it now?
Remember.. captain kirk and Spock can visit all your block universe memories in their 1981 Delorean.. if they can travel half as fast as entanglement (your entangled .ind is external)
You will simply read this forever.. your wee noggin is meaningless to consciousness
not necessarily. memory is just in consciousness.
@@aojbooker8650 that implies that after brain damage, intoxication, or similar, consciousness manipulates itself to lose its memories, indifferent to its own wishes. That's equivalent to solipsism
@@ptyl.dragon I don’t understand your logic or what exactly is the problem you’re trying to point at
@@aojbooker8650 the arguments laid out about mind, as if it is separate from the external world, the external world that includes the body, are incoherent. Mind consists of experience (what's considered "internal" here) and body (as in, through memory) and which is not "internal" - unless we posit solipsism.
Our material brain does not create our consciousness - while we are in this material world is just resides there. Reductionism is the worst way to look at something ---- YOU MUST LOOK AT THE WHOLE to understand what is happening. Stick you hand close to your eyes and you can't tell what it is -- once you move back you see everything not just your hand but the body that it is attached to and the world in which you live. Bernardo is a gate keeper.
Warning : Long comment ahead.
‘Space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - ‘information’. Elementary elements of reality ?
An only slightly more exacting examination of reality - of the world around us - of our situation in all of its fullness as whatever it is that we are & as to whatever particular ‘realm’ within which we are located (within which we live, & move,& have our being) - enables any serious student thereof recognise that at this precise moment in time - namely 2024 - although ‘information’ is widely believed to be - along with ‘space’ & ‘time’, ‘matter’ & ‘energy’ - a basic, fundamental, elementary, even central component of reality, nevertheless - & however surprisingly - currently its - ‘informations’s’ - ontological identity remains completely unspecified - & totally unknown & wholly misunderstood.
Not only has its correct - & fully verifiable - ontological identity not been established, but neither has a full, good, proper & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon also been first recognised, & then (verifiably) established. Put another way, the answers to the following questions remain completely unanswered. Worse. Even the most respected & widely referenced of investigators suggest answers which are manifestly incorrect.
What is ‘information’ ? Is it a distinct & ‘stand alone’ phenomenon ? What is its standing in the existential hierarchy ? Is it elemental phenomenon or does it emerge somewhere above the first few ladder steps of the scala naturale ? What role does it play &/or fulfill here in the Universe ? What is its causal efficacy - if it has any ? How does it come into being ? Is it conserved regardless of the interactions in which it may be involved ? What role, if any, does it fulfill in any mental, or mindful, or sentient phenomena, such as, say, ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list). Is ‘information’ a strictly physical phenomenon ? Is ‘information’ (quintessentially) ‘digital’, & can (& do) digit-using machines, systems & devices ‘think’, &/or be ‘conscious’, & if so can these devices be ‘intelligent’ ? Are such phenomena as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, the ‘self’, ‘consciousness’, & ‘self-consciousness’, digitally/computationally tractable, or is some other significantly different set of handling procedures &/or mechanical operations required by which any (dedicated) information-using machine, entity, system, gadget, contrivance or device can be, & is at least during operational times critically involved in any or all of these mental/mindful/sentient phenomena.
Although I am a rank & raving, aging antipodean amateur, some time ago my own research not too problematically allowed me to recognise - & verify & establish - not only what ‘information’ is (its ontological identity) - as a phenomenon in its own right (& not just what any of it ‘says’, or means, or does), &, further, in addition, not only determine a full & fully verifiable science of the phenomenon, but also that of all of its closest cousins to boot, no less than such things as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena.
With these particular (& fully verifiable) accomplishments under my belt, it is not difficult to show that one of the principal (& completely inexcusable) reasons we (er, the current intelligentsia, nor yet ‘the common person’) have not so far come to any good & proper - nor fully verifiable - understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that the current intelligentsia does not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding, or science, of ‘information’ itself - that is, the contemporary cadre of seriously inquisitive person do not presently also have a clear & fully verifiable definition & understanding of ‘information’ itself - which is to say of ‘information’ as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it ‘says’, or means or does. Let alone any of its closest cousins cousins ….
Just saying ….. reply to this comment if you wish to know more ….
Talking never does it, profound chatter with no value just intellectual gymnastics mere entertainment. It's like describing a tree but the description can never ever be the tree. At the end of these long winded discussions nothing has changed and what was always there and never left is silence. Silence is the beginning and the end.
The woman isn't too convincing.
Stop inviting Susan to things. Same issue she had with Jim Newman -- she is way out of her depth and her enormous ego won't ever get out of the way. Surely there are more qualified guests than this has-been?
This dialogue reminded me of “discussions” with my ex wife.
All I hear is a guy saying "Software is fundamental! Hardware is not meaningful!" or something similar.....
Yes What comes first: hardware or software exactly but not like you think 😅
I don't think that's what he's saying, maybe chose another metaphor.
@@janchmiel7302 Bro.... I hear the same stuff from Joscha Bach's mouth these days...
You Numerologists need to get a life, or stop believing in Analytical Realism.
And get an actually good definition of Number while you are at it!
@@ahmedkhan25
If it comes before, then its not software....
Software can not precede hardware, as I have not found any program running on absolute space yet!
Have you!?
@@jaydenwilson9522 Imagine the set of all possible worlds. Now consider that all possible conscious experiences in all possible worlds are described at every level of granularity in the set of the Library of Babel (whether you understand them or not), which is necessarily finite. Do these possible worlds actually exist? If all possible worlds necessarily exist, then the fact of your consciousness is a result of its possibility... If you wrestle with that for a while, I think you'll find that the hardware and software conecessitate in a space of necessarily unbounded possibility (and yet, free will is still impossible).
Bernardo , consciousness can begin when a bambino is developing in the Mother ‘s womb after 7 1 / 2 months .. it ‘s like a light switch being turned on , an electrical connection has been made .. the Brain is only
partially developed and over the next 2 weeks will
complete All the hard wiring which will be used
later in Life .. 🤫
I used to respect Bernardo until he started posting all of these ridiculous things about being “scared” of Donald Trump and how the world is going to end. Just such a loser.
"I liked him until he hurt my feelings by disagreeing with my politics ;("
“Self excitation…” No!!! The universe does stuff. The notion of a potentially inert universe requiring excitation is unnecessary.
"“Self excitation…” No!!! The universe does stuff." That's literally the same thing.
He gives the tired old argument: if consciousness is an illusion, then there is an immediate contradiction, because there has to be a consciousness to experience the consciousness-illusion. Just a little thought shows that this argument does not work at all. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is experiencing the illusion of consciousness, and this thing is not the same as the consciousness-illusion. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is just a complex set of processes in the brain which include a capacity for representing, or giving an account of, internal states of the brain.
Exactly. His argument seems convoluted and fallacious.
And your evidence for this claim that consciousness is a complex set of processes in the brain?
At some point, materialists have to offer an actual solution to the hard problem, instead of just saying the equivalent of "trust us, it just sounds like magic, it isn't actually magic. No, we can't explain why it's not magic, but it's totally just complex processes. Trust me bro. Too complex for YOU to understand, but not magic. Just complex non magical processes. Trust me bro. Trust me."
An ad hoc explanation with no evidence that is offered merely because of some metaphysical dogmatic commitment is no explanation at all.
Idk why physicalists are so emotional about this topic. You call a tired old argument, and you divide the idealist by saying it takes "just a little thought" to see that idealism is incorrect and physicalism is correct. Maybe you should try investing more than just a little thought.
@@alankoslowski9473you can't say an argument *seems* fallacious. Contend with it. You and the other guy commenting here both started with the assumption that underlies physicalism, and then you reasoned from there. You're missing the point.
"He gives the tired old argument"
" Whatever-consciousness-really-is is just a complex set of processes"
lmfao
Hes a radical, anda abusive husband. Just because u think doesnt make u good.
Consciousness is just a subjective illusion that has been poetically depicted and discussed over centuries. It is a complete illusion that is a clean functional whole instead of a top level simplification of a massively noisy and chaotic machine (the brain). A machine cannot comprehend itself as it would need be more than itself to so to speak model and virtualize itself. This is why the actionable summation of an infinite firing neurons is as accurate as an economics report is in explaining what happens in a country.
There's little difference between mammal brains at this level of analysis so forgetting about humans is a good way to start and avoid being mislead into further delusion. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains, but not in the normal way where a mix of effects causes a more complex function to emerge, but quite the opposite similar to macro economics.
Ah, the classic refrain: “consciousness is just an illusion” - the sweet irony of an argument that collapses under the weight of its own introspection. If consciousness is an illusion, one must ask: for whom? Illusions, by definition, require a subject to be deceived; nothing can be “illusory” without an experiencer. By likening consciousness to an “economic report of firing neurons,” this argument not only indulges in a dubious analogy but also falls into the trap of conflating description with ontology. Just as economic data describe but do not constitute an economy, firing neurons do not explain-much less constitute-the conscious subject observing those neurons. This materialist reduction suffers from a categorical error: it mistakes the sum of observable processes for the essence of the observer, ignoring that neurons, synapses, and their activity are themselves objects of experience, not the foundation of it.
The invocation of emergence, while attempting a poetic veneer, fares no better. To claim that consciousness is “emergent” in a chaotic, macroeconomic sense is to misunderstand emergence itself. Emergent phenomena presuppose coherent structures; you cannot derive order from undifferentiated chaos without presupposing the very mental faculties that distinguish chaos from order. As Kastrup demonstrates, this reductionist approach to consciousness conflates abstractions with reality, ignoring that any perception of chaos or structure is already a mental act. Furthermore, the claim that brains cannot "model themselves" paradoxically presumes that the conscious subject is both absent and present in the same analysis, a glaring contradiction. The deeper illusion here is not consciousness, but the belief that it, the inescapable foundation of all experience and cognition, can be reduced to neural activity or statistical metaphors. The firing of neurons, like the tick of a clock, may correlate with the passage of time, but it is no more the essence of time than it is the essence of being.
@@hitaloaquino6477 this❤
@hitaloaquino6477 I'll need to spend more time on this, but anything to add about the point of other animals? Or do you consider human consciousness categorically different and if so then why? An overlap could be found in comparing young children with measurably less at least cognitive function than some animals.
Your toaster (void of brain) is aware (memory = consciousness) it is simultaneously (block universe accessible by Captain Kirk and Spock).
True or false.. brain memory would be redundant if you're viewing every license plate number concurrently to forever.
Sadly weak minds like kastrups assume materialist brains
@@hitaloaquino6477 You are wrong. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is experiencing the illusion of consciousness, and this is not the same as the consciousness-illusion. Whatever-consciousness-really-is is just a complex set of processes in the brain which include a capacity for representing, or giving an account of, internal states of the brain. The illusion it is experiencing is that there is some central identity that is host to the manifold of experienced qualities in an aware manner. Therefore your circular fallacy charge against illusionists (the charge that there has to be some consciousness experiencing the illusion of consciousness) amounts to nothing. The two things named by the word 'consciousness' are completely different.
this is silly
Kastrup’s idealism is the best T.O.E. out there; but it’s not perfect. The idea that selves are analogous to dissociative alters is a wrong step. Dissociative alters lack the very thing - the self/universe boundary - which he is anxious to explicate. (The alters are personalities sharing the same boundary/skin…) A far better model is this: that the self is the perception by the universal consciousness of an extremely tiny part of its history - corresponding to the most recent state of the brain (the hub of the sensory system). Selves are microcosms. They - and the innovative societies they enable - are the latest creation of the universal consciousness. (If this lazy self ever gets round to it, I’ll put a full account out there.)