Bernardo Kastrup, in discussing Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), in another interview, suggests that the figures or entities people encounter during these experiences are shaped by their cultural and personal backgrounds. For instance, a Hindu might see Krishna, a Christian might see Jesus, and an atheist might encounter a deceased relative, like a grandmother. These visions, according to Kastrup, are not arbitrary but are deeply symbolic and meaningful, representing concepts like unconditional love, unity, and a sense of totality. Kastrup's point seems to be that during NDEs, people encounter symbols that are most meaningful and comforting to them, and these symbols often embody a profound sense of love and interconnectedness. This indicates that the feeling of love encountered in such experiences is more than just a simple emotion; it's a profound, all-encompassing experience that reflects a deeper reality or truth about existence. In this context, love is not just another feeling but a fundamental aspect of the human experience, possibly indicative of a deeper connection to the universe or existence itself. I don’t understand why he is saying here that love is just another emotion.
There are people for whom after death experiences don't correspond to their personal and cultural backgrounds. Also people after death perceive information that they can later verify but they wouldn't otherwise perceive. These events can't be symbolic. They represent real world.
love is not an experience like any other experience. love is the background of all experiences, like clear sky behind the clouds, clouds representing the any other experiences. it is the collapse of separation between imaginary self and this what really is
Beautiful! Bernardo Is a friend of Rupert Spira. Who says the same only from nondual perspektive... Also the cat and the paintings!❤ Thank you very much for your work! Im happy to be member and vám suppurt you little bit.
:3 Very nice! I've seen this scientist chat with the great Donald Hoffman, the scientist who was a very big materialist until his math kept showing that he was in a conscious-based simulation.
First of all, I'm a big fan of this channel. All the interviews and content in general are superb. In the first few seconds of the interview, I noticed a familiar accent in Bernardo's speech. Then I found out he's Brazilian! What a great honour to have such a brilliant mind representing my country!
Im Brasilian as well,and have been on a Bernardo Binge,He is The most Intelligent and insightful Brasilian i have ever come across,i wonder why i haven't seen 1 interview in portuguese from him,he does claim to be dutch in a few interviews,maybe he's fed up with Brasil lol,i dont blame him though.
I don't find his interpretation of what NDE's actually mean, at all satisfactory or persuasive. The self is not an ever changing illusion, I know that personally because I know this self, my "self" has absolutely existed more than once (the same self). I also realise that his dream metaphor is not meant to be taken literally but I think it should be abandoned altogether. NDE's are not in any shape or form similar to dreams. The real time out of body experience entertwined with meeting deceased relatives and friends (some who were not known to be dead) strongly points to substance dualism and nothing Bernado has said can persuade me otherwise. Nice guy but this theory doesn't wash out.
I think by "self" you mean the soul on an objective level. But the other matter is about the subjective feeling of "me". That "me" that feels like "me". The question is: does a soul carry a "me" inside or is the soul another object like the brain, body, etc?
This answered so many questions I've had as a spiritual seeker - I have read and re-read Anita Moorjani's first book, but this interview helps me understand our connection with nature and reality and "the other side" even more - thank you so much (from Sydney Aus) 🙏💕
I would love to see a conversation between Bernardo and Daniel Ingram. I wonder what would happen if Bernardo would start applying the yoga sutras of patanjali seriously for just a few months and experience siddhis like telepathy and telekinesis, or an OBE, well described by the work of Monroe Institute. Actually the ancient Vedic texts or Asian philosophy describe the same things he does regarding the fundamental part of consciousness and perception in the way how we perceive reality. Our intellectual mind is actually in the way and prevents accepting the bigger picture. Thanks for this interview and the work of Thanatos tv. 🙏
Well, ok...lovely man, very sure of himself, his theory that is. However, none of it speaks to real human experiences. Let's not discount that reality. Yes, we cannot answer every question that arises from such experiences...we aren't meant to. They bring meaning and some bit of understanding to our lives. I hope he realizes there is more. I love his cat.
Although I am aware that I can learn a lot from Bernardo, it is difficult for me to listen to him because of some of his views that practically return us to the vanity of physicalism. I stopped watching this video when he said that love is the same as, for example, the color red. Although he claims that the basic of those representations is idealistic and physicalism claims that is materialistic - we come to the same thing - which is the devaluation of the higher values of life. His statement is like when we say that, for example, the purpose of life is the same as garbage can. So can it be like that?
Bernardo says all emotional states are as likely once the disassociation illusion ends but the overwhelming NDE and mystical experience is one of Love. This is reported in virtually every one of these types of experiences. As far as meta-cognition, the NDE and mystical experience is reported to be one of greater clarity and more coherent thinking then normal waking consciousness. It's hard to understand how basic awareness could evolve meta-cognition. It's easier to see how the ultimate meta-cognitive intelligence could dumb itself down by limiting information depending on what type of role it's playing.
I think he is mostly right, but he is wrong on a few very important issues. These being bliss/love compared to fear and also his ideas of metacognition. I feel strongly that the natural subjectivity does have metacognition in some manner. Because that state (not being dissociated) it is very clear (intellectually and intuitively) and can use comparisions, this is evident from the insight one gets from having mistaken one's identity all along and the humor that goes with it. Of how you could not see this simple truth until the moment it was realised. It's hillarious for some reason. This is from personal experience of altered states, sometimes even frightening ones. Past the point of total association though there is no fear at all, only loving peace, bliss and ecstacy.
Ok, so it’s a not-so-materlistic materialism anyway. An interesting concept but false as well. A good intellectual exercise, not more. As usual, a bad theory hiding behind complex conceptual constructs. Intellectualism for intellectuals. The Truth is always simple and accessible to almost anyone, and it gives people hope, relief and sense of purpose which all these theories don’t. They are just words about words.
It’s unsettling to realise that we won’t know who, what and why we are until death.. we know nothing.. We’ve been mind wiped countless times. We’ve been loosh in a farm. Could it be it’s also liberating to know how to die and navigate after death without a body/senses - being in our own sovereign essence and realm..free at last, learning we have always been creators of the omniverse. I surely will not come back here!
Pleurage! Bernardo and his cat hit it perfectly. Inspiration! Thank you Thanatos. I wonder about when we experience an nde or an obe and go to ‘the void’ and we are formless, without the flawed body/senses. We are ‘in reality.’ My obe/nde was like this. It’s indescribable but to define it I’d say it was peaceful, still and ‘no thing’ because it was REAL reality (non dual state) as Bernard describes it as the unraveling the disassociation. I have come to realise that nder’s that experience form such as a tunnel and light, deceased relatives etc, are possibly being ‘tricked by the light’ by those who created this fake matrix system (horrendous suffering.) But that’s another topic entirely that some call the ‘soul trap’ (reincarnation) that Bernardo calls baloney of materialism, perhaps.. And so when we die do we need to be ready to not be distracted by form in order to be formless in the void (our own individual realm) and gradually find out who and what we really are .. no more memory wipes!
:3 Very nice! I've seen this scientist chat with the great Donald Hoffman, the scientist who was a very big materialist until his math kept showing that he was in a conscious-based simulation.
Intresting what you talk about how the woman who had a NDE became her father in the NDE experience. I had the same experience when my father died. I became him. I think that is why I love going to funerals. And why I like things dying in general. What is dying comes back to me. Not that I wish for people to die around me, but more that I appresiate it when it happens. Probably I live my waking life already from the viewpoint that the world is in me. I guss what I experience is my own priojections coming back to me.
Super Thanatos! So geht die Forschung doch weiter. Ein ganz wertvolles Video! Bitte, bitte ins Deutsche übersetzen! Man erkennt förmlich wie es Herrn Dr. Eberhard erregt und inspiriert! 👍
I've long wondered about our perceptions being attuned to the quantum potentialities, in that our brain transduces and interprets the fields and crystallizes the potentialities into a perception, thereby creating the world and all (seeming) physicality. As Bernardo says here: "What is the real world? It's not what is in perception." So if we combine two central things about what our senses are doing -- namely that they are not exactly apprehending an external phenomenon and that they are windows/avenues to experience and being -- this fits with an immaterialist metaphysics in that all of life and the universe is a consciousness production of a quantum figment.
Everything he is saying is his opinion people like him are obsessed with trying to explain everything and find an answer to everything unfortunately some things we can’t explain.
Thanks for this fascinating talk Bernardo and Reto! I was wondering, from Nature's (MAL) point of vue, what is the point of dissociation? Is MAL lonely in it's solipsistic existence? Is dissociation spontaneous and MAL can't control it? Do people continue to evolve in the afterlife as they would on earth? Suffering seems to be related to survival on a planet and it's dangers, old age and disease, so how would that look like in the afterlife? Where does our metacognition go in the afterlife? Spooky thoughts! haha! Thanks again! 🌿
This contradicts with most NDE accounts where people say that they feel themselves, it takes them a while to figure out they died, but they think in the same way and have the same emotional attachments to their family members or pets. Which means that their “ego” is intact. While they recognize their connectedness to everything, they don’t assimilate with nature.
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). th-cam.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
Very nice! I've seen this scientist chat with the great Donald Hoffman, the scientist who was a very big materialist until his math kept showing that he was in a conscious-based simulation.
Bernardo, this is a good one. This woman understands. That letter was ridiculous, that was not how someone should respond to a very real real, honest effort to organize and conceptualize consciousness using a mathematical model. Any critique of it must be in the same domain. It has to be critique Conceptually or mathematically, certainly not with opinion.
His purely intellectual system reminds me of the stuff Ken Wilbur tried to accomplish. They both seem to drool over the possibility of Explaining IT ALL. It can’t be done. For every premise, there is a backdrop of ideas that must first be accepted upon which the System is built. Infinity means that just when you think you’ve got IT there are an infinite number of other possibilities, ways of approaching it, ways of defining terms, etc. System created by man Even based on certain facts has a boundary. And beyond that. ? At the very core of all great religions, there is always a place reserved for mystery.
Just remember don’t believe that a persons opinion about any theory is not a be all end all no matter who presents it. Perhaps we are not yet evolved physically and psychologically to handle more knowledge at this time
I personally find Bernardo to be too attached to theory and thus unable to deal seriously with what NDEs and other post morten survival evidence suggests, that individuality is retained after death. For him the death of the body is the dissolution of the principle of individuating, even though evidence suggests otherwise.
Actually he doesn't rule out that there may indeed be levels of dissociation, he just doesn't typically go there voluntarily bc its even more speculative AND its NOT even needed to refute physicalism, which is thE main goal. Same for PSI(in whatever of its various forms) despite the statistical evidence for it being beyond abundant. There is already a lot of BS associated with virtually ANY alt ideas, whether they actually hold water or not. We didn't get to this pathological condition via reason & evidence after all. New age/spiritual/PSI etc. are all grouped as necessarily containing woo, for the most part, perhaps not so much for the avg person but especially to academia at large & ironically science enthusiasts(his target audience). Its just best to keep it as far as possible from what the masses might(probably will) misinterpret for now. At least until other options on the table becomes a bit more than just fashionable. Anyway, I think the intelligence of that single field of subjectivity that underlies all of nature can more than make up for its lack of metacognition/self reflection/deliberation. But its still not a plan, & that could even bypass the fine tuning issue as well.
Each night, we have multiple dreams. What if when we die, this "layer" of dissociation dissolves, and your individuation continues in the next dream or layer of dissociation. This is where I have gotten to in my though process listening.
Bernard, you talk about mental states particular to consciousness that resides within, in the human and of the brain. But humans and brains are just part of the perceptions on the dashboard , creations that don't exist in " reality". I would extend your argument and say that consciousness creates the illusion of matter, space and time and there is a collective consciousness( God) and then there is the individual consciousness born from the collective yet not separated from it.
I have an internal hierarchy of qualia and feelings like love, anger, attraction have the greatest resonance and I the greatest awareness of them, their totality (in regards to other phenomena). For example, Attraction, is often irrational and self-destructive. The fact that I find myself still attracted to younger people doesn't mean that it's appropriate. It would not serve me well. So, all feelings are subject to self- discipline And introspection. Things that are that are intellectually coherent, have to be spiritually coherent, that's a judgment in the end, is not entirely rational. I give great weight to it. It's the quality of knowing. We have to give time for that.
I think he is mostly right, but I believe he is wrong on a few very important issues. These being bliss/love compared to fear and also his ideas on metacognition. I feel strongly that the natural subjectivity does have metacognition in some manner. Because that state (not being dissociated) it is very clear (intellectually and intuitively) and can use comparisions. This is evident from the insight one gets of having mistaken one's identity all along and the humor that goes with it. Of how you could not see this simple truth until the moment it was realised. It's hillarious for some reason. This is from personal experience of altered states, sometimes even frightening ones. Past the point of total association though there is no fear at all, only loving peace, bliss and ecstacy. Fear seem to be part of the dissociation. Because when it is realised that what was being sought after is the seeker and that they are one and the same, that you've become or been what you sought all along. Poetically speaking, a naked singularity of quantum yin and yang in eternal coupulation. There is no fear or displeasure anymore. This cannot be fully experienced when dissociated even if it is understood intellectually. It can only be experienced directly and does not stick fully after the window of association closes and fear returns. Fear comes from the idea or perception of not being that which you already actually are.
I have come to believe that anyone who cannot work out that materialism is baloney does not have the intellectual abilities required to become a philosopher. Just a someone who cannot add two and two better not try to become4 a mathematician.
He’s really scary. His views are as limited as he says science is. He’s kind of contradicting himself regarding ideas like karma, suffering, love. There is nothing he has beyond his reactive center. It’s pretty arrogant to profess to see all that makes up bedrock consciousness.
Leave it to man, to see God in a burning bush and another man who sees a way to keep warm. Why can a child see a man in the closet and the parent can't? Materialism is baloney when we die, and that materialism is gone, and another materialism is created.
More like Idealism is the baloney one. Bernardo comes up with a lot of straw man fallacies against materialism and metaphysical concepts that he pulls out of his ass. Besides, he ignores entire philosophical frameworks such Mario Bunge's Scientific Materialism or Gustavo Bueno's Philosophical Materialism (the most complete philosophical framework to date by far).
He has attempted to reduce the system of nature too simplistically. There is no room for infinite mystery. It is a cold, dead, dark system. Saying meaning comes to us through our observation of all this rings hollow.
What a great mind, Bernardo - can you relate daydreaming with the disassociative level of an NDE or an astral projection and ADHD with DD and why this seems to be medically a mental disorder?
I think that you can put numbers to mental processes. It's called weights of the neural net. And sure, maybe there is some other kind of phenomena involved with mental processing, which we haven't discovered, like fields or something, but whatever it is it clearly has weights, and things such as genes have a huge effect on the weights. We do know that things such as personality and genetic diseases like schizophrenia, etc., are copied across generations, and genes seem to be a pretty likely culprit. So those outcomes are manifestations of weighting due to genes. This regularity implies that determinism of some sort or another is occurring, and it implies that the regularity behaves according to laws of chemistry/physics (material laws). I don't see why we can't call it "material", even if we are somewhat agnostic about what might be the gaps in our knowledge. I don't agree with Bernardo's criticism of materialism where he claims that materialists are falsely confusing map for territory. In my view, as humans we should accept that our perceptions aren't perfect, and yet we must and do operate in a world of cause and effect. It is rational and sensible to use these observable laws to our advantage, by accepting, for example, that one billiard ball knocking into another will transfer momentum to it. And people all over the world have a strong preference to avoid having their thumbs crushed by falling hammers. You can call this faith, but either way it's practical and unavoidable. The same goes for assigning probabilities to mental outcomes, such as schizophrenia, which we can say has probabilities associated with it given genetic history and other material factors.
Bernardo, that's exactly right for me, I need a coherent structure of thought that parsimonious and internally consistent And before I accept it totally. That's how I gotten through 75 years successfully and that's how I continued to do it. A long long time ago. It was just a hippie in Berkeley, California when I heard about this group in La called "the family", it turned out that they were the family that we're involved in the tap Sharon Tate killings. The way they were described in Northern California, was that they were into love, sexually liberated and very spiritual. I, however, was a skeptic, I wanted to know what philosophical structure supported their beliefs. It turned out they were Killers! This is an extreme example, but it proves the point point. This mine says has served me well through life. Be warmly, enthusiastic to new ideas, but, these skeptical until they're proven. I spent 3 months internally organizing Analytic like idealism over many many hours until I had a consistent internally coherent view that was virtually parallel and transparent to Bernardo Kastrup understanding of it, then I could personally take it as my own. He has done me a great service. I couldn't attach to Buddhism, taoism, psychology, existentialism, And Pancetism. Analytic idealism jumps through all the hoops conceptually. It has resonance.
![What Happens When Physics and Philosophy Collide? | Bernardo Kastrup [Ep. 416]](/img/n.gif)
Bernardo Kastrup, in discussing Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), in another interview, suggests that the figures or entities people encounter during these experiences are shaped by their cultural and personal backgrounds. For instance, a Hindu might see Krishna, a Christian might see Jesus, and an atheist might encounter a deceased relative, like a grandmother. These visions, according to Kastrup, are not arbitrary but are deeply symbolic and meaningful, representing concepts like unconditional love, unity, and a sense of totality.
Kastrup's point seems to be that during NDEs, people encounter symbols that are most meaningful and comforting to them, and these symbols often embody a profound sense of love and interconnectedness. This indicates that the feeling of love encountered in such experiences is more than just a simple emotion; it's a profound, all-encompassing experience that reflects a deeper reality or truth about existence. In this context, love is not just another feeling but a fundamental aspect of the human experience, possibly indicative of a deeper connection to the universe or existence itself. I don’t understand why he is saying here that love is just another emotion.
There are people for whom after death experiences don't correspond to their personal and cultural backgrounds. Also people after death perceive information that they can later verify but they wouldn't otherwise perceive. These events can't be symbolic. They represent real world.
love is not an experience like any other experience. love is the background of all experiences, like clear sky behind the clouds, clouds representing the any other experiences. it is the collapse of separation between imaginary self and this what really is
Bernardo is the greatest whirlpool on the lake today.
Beautiful! Bernardo Is a friend of Rupert Spira. Who says the same only from nondual perspektive... Also the cat and the paintings!❤ Thank you very much for your work! Im happy to be member and vám suppurt you little bit.
:3 Very nice! I've seen this scientist chat with the great Donald Hoffman, the scientist who was a very big materialist until his math kept showing that he was in a conscious-based simulation.
You're second, and I'm third. Hehe
First of all, I'm a big fan of this channel. All the interviews and content in general are superb. In the first few seconds of the interview, I noticed a familiar accent in Bernardo's speech. Then I found out he's Brazilian! What a great honour to have such a brilliant mind representing my country!
Im Brasilian as well,and have been on a Bernardo Binge,He is The most Intelligent and insightful Brasilian i have ever come across,i wonder why i haven't seen 1 interview in portuguese from him,he does claim to be dutch in a few interviews,maybe he's fed up with Brasil lol,i dont blame him though.
The dream avatar analogy is brilliant.
Thanks for bringing on Bernardo Kastrup. I watched him a couple times in a discussion with Tom Campbell ( My big theory of everything) Excellent!!!
I don't find his interpretation of what NDE's actually mean, at all satisfactory or persuasive. The self is not an ever changing illusion, I know that personally because I know this self, my "self" has absolutely existed more than once (the same self). I also realise that his dream metaphor is not meant to be taken literally but I think it should be abandoned altogether. NDE's are not in any shape or form similar to dreams. The real time out of body experience entertwined with meeting deceased relatives and friends (some who were not known to be dead) strongly points to substance dualism and nothing Bernado has said can persuade me otherwise. Nice guy but this theory doesn't wash out.
I think by "self" you mean the soul on an objective level. But the other matter is about the subjective feeling of "me". That "me" that feels like "me". The question is: does a soul carry a "me" inside or is the soul another object like the brain, body, etc?
"Appears to us as a physical world" is a great quote by Kastrup.
Bernardo is always a great guest, his interviews on TOE podcast are legendary.👍💯
This is gold! I would say that lake is love. When every other ripple settles there is only the lake of love.
32:00 love is not just an experience... It is the experience of the totality of being the lake in silence.
This answered so many questions I've had as a spiritual seeker - I have read and re-read Anita Moorjani's first book, but this interview helps me understand our connection with nature and reality and "the other side" even more - thank you so much (from Sydney Aus) 🙏💕
I would love to see a conversation between Bernardo and Daniel Ingram. I wonder what would happen if Bernardo would start applying the yoga sutras of patanjali seriously for just a few months and experience siddhis like telepathy and telekinesis, or an OBE, well described by the work of Monroe Institute. Actually the ancient Vedic texts or Asian philosophy describe the same things he does regarding the fundamental part of consciousness and perception in the way how we perceive reality. Our intellectual mind is actually in the way and prevents accepting the bigger picture. Thanks for this interview and the work of Thanatos tv. 🙏
Love the whirlpool metaphor
Well, ok...lovely man, very sure of himself, his theory that is. However, none of it speaks to real human experiences. Let's not discount that reality. Yes, we cannot answer every question that arises from such experiences...we aren't meant to. They bring meaning and some bit of understanding to our lives. I hope he realizes there is more. I love his cat.
Excellent.....❤ thanks 🙏.
Thought and consciousness are not the same. Interesting discussion but i have too many questions to feel inspired
After death , the importance of the ego, gradually dissolves, but not until the Physical experience is left behind.
Personally, I think that Eastern philosophy throws more light on these subjects than Western philosophy.
Although I am aware that I can learn a lot from Bernardo, it is difficult for me to listen to him because of some of his views that practically return us to the vanity of physicalism. I stopped watching this video when he said that love is the same as, for example, the color red. Although he claims that the basic of those representations is idealistic and physicalism claims that is materialistic - we come to the same thing - which is the devaluation of the higher values of life. His statement is like when we say that, for example, the purpose of life is the same as garbage can. So can it be like that?
Listen to the content, not the personality.
Bernardo says all emotional states are as likely once the disassociation illusion ends but the overwhelming NDE and mystical experience is one of Love. This is reported in virtually every one of these types of experiences. As far as meta-cognition, the NDE and mystical experience is reported to be one of greater clarity and more coherent thinking then normal waking consciousness. It's hard to understand how basic awareness could evolve meta-cognition. It's easier to see how the ultimate meta-cognitive intelligence could dumb itself down by limiting information depending on what type of role it's playing.
I think he is mostly right, but he is wrong on a few very important issues. These being bliss/love compared to fear and also his ideas of metacognition. I feel strongly that the natural subjectivity does have metacognition in some manner.
Because that state (not being dissociated) it is very clear (intellectually and intuitively) and can use comparisions, this is evident from the insight one gets from having mistaken one's identity all along and the humor that goes with it. Of how you could not see this simple truth until the moment it was realised. It's hillarious for some reason.
This is from personal experience of altered states, sometimes even frightening ones. Past the point of total association though there is no fear at all, only loving peace, bliss and ecstacy.
Ok, so it’s a not-so-materlistic materialism anyway. An interesting concept but false as well. A good intellectual exercise, not more. As usual, a bad theory hiding behind complex conceptual constructs. Intellectualism for intellectuals. The Truth is always simple and accessible to almost anyone, and it gives people hope, relief and sense of purpose which all these theories don’t. They are just words about words.
Please provide some further details about The Truth.
Yes, give us details!
It’s unsettling to realise that we won’t know who, what and why we are until death.. we know nothing..
We’ve been mind wiped countless times. We’ve been loosh in a farm.
Could it be it’s also liberating to know how to die and navigate after death without a body/senses - being in our own sovereign essence and realm..free at last, learning we have always been creators of the omniverse.
I surely will not come back here!
Pleurage!
Bernardo and his cat hit it perfectly. Inspiration!
Thank you Thanatos.
I wonder about when we experience an nde or an obe and go to ‘the void’ and we are formless, without the flawed body/senses. We are ‘in reality.’ My obe/nde was like this. It’s indescribable but to define it I’d say it was peaceful, still and ‘no thing’ because it was REAL reality (non dual state) as Bernard describes it as the unraveling the disassociation.
I have come to realise that nder’s that experience form such as a tunnel and light, deceased relatives etc, are possibly being ‘tricked by the light’ by those who created this fake matrix system (horrendous suffering.)
But that’s another topic entirely that some call the ‘soul trap’ (reincarnation) that Bernardo calls baloney of materialism, perhaps..
And so when we die do we need to be ready to not be distracted by form in order to be formless in the void (our own individual realm) and gradually find out who and what we really are .. no more memory wipes!
:3 Very nice! I've seen this scientist chat with the great Donald Hoffman, the scientist who was a very big materialist until his math kept showing that he was in a conscious-based simulation.
You're first, and I'm third. Hehe
Thanks!
Intresting what you talk about how the woman who had a NDE became her father in the NDE experience. I had the same experience when my father died. I became him. I think that is why I love going to funerals. And why I like things dying in general. What is dying comes back to me. Not that I wish for people to die around me, but more that I appresiate it when it happens. Probably I live my waking life already from the viewpoint that the world is in me. I guss what I experience is my own priojections coming back to me.
Lovely cat :)
Super Thanatos! So geht die Forschung doch weiter. Ein ganz wertvolles Video! Bitte, bitte ins Deutsche übersetzen! Man erkennt förmlich wie es Herrn Dr. Eberhard erregt und inspiriert! 👍
I've long wondered about our perceptions being attuned to the quantum potentialities, in that our brain transduces and interprets the fields and crystallizes the potentialities into a perception, thereby creating the world and all (seeming) physicality. As Bernardo says here: "What is the real world? It's not what is in perception." So if we combine two central things about what our senses are doing -- namely that they are not exactly apprehending an external phenomenon and that they are windows/avenues to experience and being -- this fits with an immaterialist metaphysics in that all of life and the universe is a consciousness production of a quantum figment.
Everything he is saying is his opinion people like him are obsessed with trying to explain everything and find an answer to everything unfortunately some things we can’t explain.
It's a pretty good guess won't you say?
Thanks for this fascinating talk Bernardo and Reto! I was wondering, from Nature's (MAL) point of vue, what is the point of dissociation? Is MAL lonely in it's solipsistic existence? Is dissociation spontaneous and MAL can't control it? Do people continue to evolve in the afterlife as they would on earth? Suffering seems to be related to survival on a planet and it's dangers, old age and disease, so how would that look like in the afterlife? Where does our metacognition go in the afterlife? Spooky thoughts! haha! Thanks again! 🌿
incredible
Brilliant, this is so fascinating, our physical body dies(along with our ego) and we become one with nature
This contradicts with most NDE accounts where people say that they feel themselves, it takes them a while to figure out they died, but they think in the same way and have the same emotional attachments to their family members or pets. Which means that their “ego” is intact. While they recognize their connectedness to everything, they don’t assimilate with nature.
Maybe, yes, that said, I think bernardo idealism is closer to reality than physicalism
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia).
th-cam.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
Very nice! I've seen this scientist chat with the great Donald Hoffman, the scientist who was a very big materialist until his math kept showing that he was in a conscious-based simulation.
Bernardo, this is a good one. This woman understands. That letter was ridiculous, that was not how someone should respond to a very real real, honest effort to organize and conceptualize consciousness using a mathematical model. Any critique of it must be in the same domain. It has to be critique Conceptually or mathematically, certainly not with opinion.
His purely intellectual system reminds me of the stuff Ken Wilbur tried to accomplish. They both seem to drool over the possibility of Explaining IT ALL. It can’t be done. For every premise, there is a backdrop of ideas that must first be accepted upon which the System is built. Infinity means that just when you think you’ve got IT there are an infinite number of other possibilities, ways of approaching it, ways of defining terms, etc. System created by man Even based on certain facts has a boundary. And beyond that. ? At the very core of all great religions, there is always a place reserved for mystery.
If you explore more of his interviews, work you'll find he agrees with you^^
Every human has feet of clay.The earth is a forge of souls.What you have here is what you are going to take there .Rumi
I love your stories.
Just remember don’t believe that a persons opinion about any theory is not a be all end all no matter who presents it. Perhaps we are not yet evolved physically and psychologically to handle more knowledge at this time
From nature we came and to nature we will return
I personally find Bernardo to be too attached to theory and thus unable to deal seriously with what NDEs and other post morten survival evidence suggests, that individuality is retained after death. For him the death of the body is the dissolution of the principle of individuating, even though evidence suggests otherwise.
Actually he doesn't rule out that there may indeed be levels of dissociation, he just doesn't typically go there voluntarily bc its even more speculative AND its NOT even needed to refute physicalism, which is thE main goal. Same for PSI(in whatever of its various forms) despite the statistical evidence for it being beyond abundant. There is already a lot of BS associated with virtually ANY alt ideas, whether they actually hold water or not. We didn't get to this pathological condition via reason & evidence after all. New age/spiritual/PSI etc. are all grouped as necessarily containing woo, for the most part, perhaps not so much for the avg person but especially to academia at large & ironically science enthusiasts(his target audience). Its just best to keep it as far as possible from what the masses might(probably will) misinterpret for now. At least until other options on the table becomes a bit more than just fashionable. Anyway, I think the intelligence of that single field of subjectivity that underlies all of nature can more than make up for its lack of metacognition/self reflection/deliberation. But its still not a plan, & that could even bypass the fine tuning issue as well.
It says 1 reply but there are no replies apart from mine so far, more TH-cam censorship?
Each night, we have multiple dreams. What if when we die, this "layer" of dissociation dissolves, and your individuation continues in the next dream or layer of dissociation. This is where I have gotten to in my though process listening.
I agree
@@OasisOfGnosis The next layer will be more real than this layer. As this layer is more real than our dream layer.
Bernard, you talk about mental states particular to consciousness that resides within, in the human and of the brain. But humans and brains are just part of the perceptions on the dashboard , creations that don't exist in " reality". I would extend your argument and say that consciousness creates the illusion of matter, space and time and there is a collective consciousness( God) and then there is the individual consciousness born from the collective yet not separated from it.
I have an internal hierarchy of qualia and feelings like love, anger, attraction have the greatest resonance and I the greatest awareness of them, their totality (in regards to other phenomena). For example, Attraction, is often irrational and self-destructive. The fact that I find myself still attracted to younger people doesn't mean that it's appropriate. It would not serve me well. So, all feelings are subject to self- discipline And introspection.
Things that are that are intellectually coherent, have to be spiritually coherent, that's a judgment in the end, is not entirely rational. I give great weight to it. It's the quality of knowing. We have to give time for that.
Wow. Some great delineation of these ideas. Now ... is it metaphor is it it real?
I think he is mostly right, but I believe he is wrong on a few very important issues. These being bliss/love compared to fear and also his ideas on metacognition. I feel strongly that the natural subjectivity does have metacognition in some manner.
Because that state (not being dissociated) it is very clear (intellectually and intuitively) and can use comparisions. This is evident from the insight one gets of having mistaken one's identity all along and the humor that goes with it. Of how you could not see this simple truth until the moment it was realised. It's hillarious for some reason.
This is from personal experience of altered states, sometimes even frightening ones. Past the point of total association though there is no fear at all, only loving peace, bliss and ecstacy. Fear seem to be part of the dissociation.
Because when it is realised that what was being sought after is the seeker and that they are one and the same, that you've become or been what you sought all along. Poetically speaking, a naked singularity of quantum yin and yang in eternal coupulation. There is no fear or displeasure anymore.
This cannot be fully experienced when dissociated even if it is understood intellectually. It can only be experienced directly and does not stick fully after the window of association closes and fear returns. Fear comes from the idea or perception of not being that which you already actually are.
Hi kitty❤
I have come to believe that anyone who cannot work out that materialism is baloney does not have the intellectual abilities required to become a philosopher. Just a someone who cannot add two and two better not try to become4 a mathematician.
He’s really scary. His views are as limited as he says science is. He’s kind of contradicting himself regarding ideas like karma, suffering, love. There is nothing he has beyond his reactive center. It’s pretty arrogant to profess to see all that makes up bedrock consciousness.
I don't think you understand what bernardo is saying, try and pay attention , keep your stupid comments to yourself
Baby boy talks exactly like Rupert Spira.
Hmmmm...
This sounds a lot of what Advaita Vedanta says.
Pourquoi faire simple quand ça peut être compliqué...😮🤤😱😠🤡💀
Bernardo lost me on the ideas about good and evil as just "ripples"....hi idea became just a mental picture with no meaning for our life.
WOW WOW WOW FANTASTIC THIS GUY. GOOD VIDEO THANK YOU
Harris Dorothy Miller Mark Jackson Thomas
😺
I'm third to comment. Hehe
Leave it to man, to see God in a burning bush and another man who sees a way to keep warm. Why can a child see a man in the closet and the parent can't? Materialism is baloney when we die, and that materialism is gone, and another materialism is created.
Actually its materialism that is FAR more comforting in that sense IMO.
More like Idealism is the baloney one. Bernardo comes up with a lot of straw man fallacies against materialism and metaphysical concepts that he pulls out of his ass. Besides, he ignores entire philosophical frameworks such Mario Bunge's Scientific Materialism or Gustavo Bueno's Philosophical Materialism (the most complete philosophical framework to date by far).
He has attempted to reduce the system of nature too simplistically. There is no room for infinite mystery. It is a cold, dead, dark system. Saying meaning comes to us through our observation of all this rings hollow.
Good set of questions that successfully brought out Bernardo's ideas about idealism in a surprisingly short amount of time.
See my paper on consciousness "How Self-Reference Builds the World".
More woo-woo dressed up to look more sophisticated than mere religion.
What a great mind, Bernardo - can you relate daydreaming with the disassociative level of an NDE or an astral projection and ADHD with DD and why this seems to be medically a mental disorder?
I think that you can put numbers to mental processes. It's called weights of the neural net. And sure, maybe there is some other kind of phenomena involved with mental processing, which we haven't discovered, like fields or something, but whatever it is it clearly has weights, and things such as genes have a huge effect on the weights. We do know that things such as personality and genetic diseases like schizophrenia, etc., are copied across generations, and genes seem to be a pretty likely culprit. So those outcomes are manifestations of weighting due to genes. This regularity implies that determinism of some sort or another is occurring, and it implies that the regularity behaves according to laws of chemistry/physics (material laws). I don't see why we can't call it "material", even if we are somewhat agnostic about what might be the gaps in our knowledge.
I don't agree with Bernardo's criticism of materialism where he claims that materialists are falsely confusing map for territory. In my view, as humans we should accept that our perceptions aren't perfect, and yet we must and do operate in a world of cause and effect. It is rational and sensible to use these observable laws to our advantage, by accepting, for example, that one billiard ball knocking into another will transfer momentum to it. And people all over the world have a strong preference to avoid having their thumbs crushed by falling hammers. You can call this faith, but either way it's practical and unavoidable. The same goes for assigning probabilities to mental outcomes, such as schizophrenia, which we can say has probabilities associated with it given genetic history and other material factors.
Bernardo, that's exactly right for me, I need a coherent structure of thought that parsimonious and internally consistent And before I accept it totally. That's how I gotten through 75 years successfully and that's how I continued to do it. A long long time ago. It was just a hippie in Berkeley, California when I heard about this group in La called "the family", it turned out that they were the family that we're involved in the tap Sharon Tate killings. The way they were described in Northern California, was that they were into love, sexually liberated and very spiritual. I, however, was a skeptic, I wanted to know what philosophical structure supported their beliefs. It turned out they were
Killers! This is an extreme example, but it proves the point point. This mine says has served me well through life. Be warmly, enthusiastic to new ideas, but, these skeptical until they're proven. I spent 3 months internally organizing Analytic like idealism over many many hours until I had a consistent internally coherent view that was virtually parallel and transparent to Bernardo Kastrup understanding of it, then I could personally take it as my own. He has done me a great service. I couldn't attach to Buddhism, taoism, psychology, existentialism, And Pancetism. Analytic idealism jumps through all the hoops conceptually. It has resonance.
Idealism is most likely WHY consciousness incarnates.
suffering is the resistance to particular experience. if there is no resistance to experience there is no suffering
Oh, the sound is so bad!