If you're Irish or British, the phrase "the world is mental" has a different meaning. Every day i look at the news and think "jaysus, the world is mental" 😄
BK is a blessing. Listening to him , I cannot but help think of Rabindranath Tagore’s poem , a snippet of the poem here “ Where the clear stream off reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought and action into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my county awake” - Rabindranath Tagore
Bernardo is a visionary. His explanation of consciousness is the only one that is self consistent, unambiguous and effective. It's difficult to adjust one's mindset in order to take it in, but once you do, it's a simple and natural explanation. Thank you for this présentation.
As a fluent English speaker with a decent understanding of ‘big’ words, keeping track of Bernardo’s explanations can be quite daunting, at times. His grasp of the English language is immense. However, I would ask him to explain some, if not all of his concepts, using plain English.
Greater india and indians knew what he is telling now for some 8000-1000 years. No body listened when they were shouting and telling time and again to the world. Better late then never there are many like him in west who advocates same thing what he advocates. But he is final nail in the coffin of materialism which west propagated.. Thanks to ancient indians and morden science. Overall Bernardo kustrup is savier he is dope. And new and final hope.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 Eastern wisdom is a treasure for Human kind no doubt about this. Nevertheless for the average western mind is a 'terra incognita'. Bernardo Kastrup with his analytic idealism philosophy and his explanatory power makes perennial truths accessible to westerners in a way that has never happened before.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 Not really, go further back into history and the West (specifically Greece) actually had very similar ideas. E.g., Orphism, Pythagoreanism, and then later Neoplatonism.
@@richardl.currier4052 Greece stole their ideas from the Hindus (the then residents of Bharat) and had a bad habit of not attributing their works. Voltaire wrote about this. Because they stoke their basic metaphysics, they didn’t really understand it. That is why the west is caught between extremists today.
Very true which is why I say consciousness is living a mind wake. In a mind wake consciousness interprets and perceives itself as subject and objects. There is no out there. Out there is within.
If we can’t think and exist and speculate nothing more than 3 dimensional geometric worldview than how the language that we created from our level of intelligence can possibly gives us all the answers
Bernardo was giving evidence , both philosophical and scientific , fir udealism long befire the Nobel Prize for Physics was given in 2022 . This was a really important prize because it essentially rubber stamped idealism . Just on principle the physicalists will reject Bernardo just like Tim Maudlin ( who seems to call everyone stupid , from Neils Bohr to Ruchard Feynman) did when he said the Nobel Prize committee were wrong to award the prize in 2022 .
We can call it netal or physical. But basically it's object. What we can notice about mental and physical is that they are objects in the field of our subject. They are both known and experienced subjectively.
Do the sensors on the airplane register the world as it is? If yes, do they equate to our biological sensors (5 senses)? If yes, then do our 5 senses bring the outer world into our awareness ‘as the outer world is’ like the sensors do to the dashboard dials? If yes, then is our perceptions of the world in our awareness ‘what the world is’ to our senses? Furthermore, we made the sensors on the plane to measure the ‘world as we know it’ & the dials on the dashboard, too, to represent to our perception (the pilots) what the world is outside the plane… I understand the limits of a metaphor, but I’m just trying to unknot the logic in this metaphor!
can someone explain to me how many worlds theory is at odds with this? he says the only way to get out of his conclusion Is to posit many worlds, how does many worlds provide an alternative?
Very..... interesting........🤔.... in my opinion is......we repit the same principal of the someone ready make, is hard to modified something is ready make..or is impossible... because logical is ready make....so we.. are clones of the reality we ready have....so lm very nice clone.👏😄🤚👋👋🌎🕊️❤️
Is anyone aware of a substantial critique of Kastrup’s analytic idealism that has been published in an academic journal (be it philosophical, psychological, etc.)? Asking as a fan of BK’s work.
he's not really taken seriously. i mean, the word 'supervenience' isn't even featured in his doctoral dissertation. his arguments amount to stance empiricism + elaborated incredulous stare arguments against a rather lacking selection of physicalistic theories. the paper 'conflating abstraction with empirical observation: the false mind-matter dichotomy' includes several responses to his main arguments from philosophers. i'd also recommend dr. james cooke's latest AMA (and all his videos & living mirror theory of consciousness paper esp. tbh, he's awesome) to hear why it doesn't mean anything to just say 'everything is x'. where in BK's case, x='consciousness'. again, stance empiricism already exists, read bas van fraassen's book about it.
@ilinx thanks for these suggestions. I had not heard of the concept of stance empiricism before and I had seen BK’a interview with Dr. James Cooke, but was not aware Cooke had his own theory of consciousness. Are there other physicalist accounts of consciousness you feel Kastrup does not address? I’ve read just about everything he’s written, so I’m familiar with the existing positions against idealism that he defends against in his books/papers, but not aware of others.
To follow up: Cooke does not not say “everything is x”. He says “everything is a process”. Kastrup gives his criticism of the “process” ontology in his interview w/ Cooke mentioned above.
@@real_pattern W/ all due respect to Dr. Cooke, I've read his "living mirror of consciousness" paper and I have to say it retains the self-refuting problem of reductionist materialism in that it attempts to *redefine* consciousness as opposed to actually explaining it. To sum it up, Dr. Cooke's argument is that consciousness *are* the beliefs that living systems have in order to combat the increasingly entropic (ie chaotic) nature of the universe in order to survive and that qualities can arise from quanities via the information that exists relative to its space of possibilities within a given boundary. W/ all due respect, this is not science. There is no explanatory power nor falsifiability in what I just described. Is there even one precise conscious experience that Dr. Cooke could explain as arising from his theory? No. No experiment exists to measure a belief, therefore the fundamental premise of his idea is unprovable *even in principle* - and, of course, is perfectly unfalsifiable as well. It's a fun idea as an intellectual exercise, but not particularly worth taking seriously as real science. We have better paths to spend our time on.
Not fan, these types always seem to conflate mind with consciousness. That's a reason i like the word "awareness" more than the word "consciousness" According to Vedanta, mind is just a byproduct of the brain. More subtle than the body, but not at all what we are. We are that blankness that observes the mind. Basically just existence
It would be a pity to be in contact with something totally new and distort it with the usual game of opinions and labels ("this is metaphysical idealism, but there are other people who defend metaphysical realism, etc."). This spiraling, fractalic dialogue makes no sense. There is no point in creating clusters, naming and classifying (fragmenting); apart from all that, it is possible to destroy frontiers and merge apparently unconnected currents (philosophy, quantum physics, psychology, astrology, etc.). To merge means to forget separation, differentiation... "I am an ant in the immensity.... While I am writing this, someone else is plowing his fields in Ecuador. What I think about my brother can come closer to what my brother is if we both strive to understand each other." All these statements are our daily bread, and are worth questioning. The perception of an accumulation of independent objects or forms, separated by space and time, corresponds to a space of local topology. Such a space has an infinite and limited nature. After A comes B, then C, etc.; one can always go beyond the current set to a different one, which implies limits or boundaries, but also an infinite succession of jumps. Therefore, without doubt, the external world is mental: only in the mind or consciousness do isolated forms exist; that is, mind, consciousness or thought (names, without more) is the encounter of the undivided totality with itself, for which the illusory separation between a subject (observer) and an object (the observed) is recreated. There is only this, what is, this instant, here and now (words so manhandled by the culture, so it is); the Ecuadorian who plows his fields and the "I" who claims to be writing, are only objects cut out of said undivided totality. By crystallizing such local space, "there is the possibility" of taking a flight to Ecuador and meeting the afflicted peasant. In other words: civilization, the world, is nothing more than local space, that is, consciousness, thought, mind. Simultaneously to such local space, there underlies the non-local space, which is unknowable. Everything cognizable belongs to local space. In this sense, it is highly recommended to get in touch with the view of the implicate order, which is attributed to the quantum physicist David Bohm. Such an undivided, unlimited, finite totality (this, what is, without more, here and now), generates the imaginary infinity of local space.
If your interface correlate time then evolutionary mythology is no good. But you can use existing physics of time drop all semantics big bang or deep time theories and the universe don't care about time.
Kastrup: My thoughts don't have a "length" therefore consciousness cannot be explained physically. OK. Credit card debt does not have a physical "length" either, does that make it non-physical ? And this is being taken seriously. Jesus, we must be living in a dark age....
How can someone with his educational background just completely misconstrue quantum physics? His invocation of the measurement problem doesn't in the least help his argument that we can only access (useful) representations
@@CJ-cd5cd It doesn't so much matter what my preference is, though I like decoherence approaches despite not entirely solving the interpretation problem. But no serious scientist today equates measurement with a conscious observer. Collapse happens whether or not there's a conscious observer. Events in the universe have taken place before conscious observers and will take place after our extinction. It's simply absurd to understand the observer in this sense, other than a macro system, which does not require consciousness at all. A quantum computer will compute whether or not there are humans around.
I’m not sure you understand what Kastrup is proposing. He does not argue that events do not take place if there is no conscious observer; he’s saying those events are mental in nature and not physical. The physical world is the symbolic manifestation of mind at large that comes about through dissociation of alters.
@@CJ-cd5cd I completely understand that. Lol Do you think this is some new idea? Let's grant that. How do you think invoking the measurement problem helps his cause? Also, reading your response again, you've contradicted yourself. You said and I quote "he does not argue that events do not happen if there's no conscious observer" and that "events are mental in nature". Those two statements are not mutually consistent.
Sorry, a "field "is a thing that must be differentiated from what takes place in it. Define "field" and argue that it isn't a "thing." I have listened to hours of Kastrup and have yet to hear him explain the clearly physical, material world as mental. Even if it indirectly derives from universal Mind, it has morphed into concrete matter. it's LAUGHABLE that Kastrup believes that solid physical entities don't exist until measured.
Physicality and concreteness are experiences derived from our senses. They are mental in nature; to posit a physical universe beyond mind is an abstraction beyond what we know to exist
@@CJ-cd5cd, try walking through a wall, and tell me it's mental. Scientific equipment proves that objects have mass. Footprints prove it, and one is not measuring or perceiving all of them as one makes them by walking on soft ground.
@l.rongardner2150 Try brushing up on some philosophy. These criticisms of idealism have been around for at least 200 years and have long been addressed. You don’t understand that which you are critiquing. I recommend reading some of Kastrup’s books in which he addresses these common criticisms in detail.
@@CJ-cd5cd , Kastrup's teaching, which I've read, is just one version of idealism. I reject his, but vibe with Kashmir Shaivism's. Moreover, his application of Carlo Rovelli's RQM for his quantum thesis is faulty, because, per Rovelli, RQM has nothing to do with conscious observers. By the way, I'm now writing a book on nonduality and Mind-Only, which includes a critique of Kastrup's analtyic idealism.
"Matter does not exist, it has no stand alone existence. All tangible matter is an expression of energy. Energy is indestructible and intangible. Matter is tangible and destructible. The only reality matter has is that it is an appearance, a kind of appearance or illusion. In other words you can say the reality of matter is the reality of its appearance, the reality of its illusion. Appearance/illusion is imagery. The reality of the image is the reality of the thing imaged. The image itself is non-reality which veils its reality. The image itself is non-reality. It is the veil. The image itself is the illusion (appearance) of its reality. Only totality is real. Any part of it, by itself, is illusion (appearance) drawn from that totality. If energy is indestructible, then it must be intangible. Tangible is temporal; a consequence of time, space, because it can be measured. Non-measurable is intangible, therefore infinite. Matter is finite. Matter is time/space/measurable in the witnessing. Its reality is intangible, therefore outside or beyond witnessing. Witnessing is the image of that reality which is outside the witnessing. If all this is remembered constantly, only then can one be aware of reality rather than only aware of its image or appearance." (From the book "Addresses" at the beginning of chapter 9 entitled Matter. Can we use the analogy of water? Water can take the form of a stream as can energy take the form of a stream. The vortices in the stream of water (energy) are like the appearance of what we call matter. Einstein is reported to have said: "Mass and energy are different manifestation of the same thing." Does this point to the unmanifest aspect of the two? Now we are getting into some "deep waters".
"That there is an outside, does not mean that it is non-mental" ... no, but it does not mean that it is mental either ! You cannot derive "an outside" from (what you call) perception, it can only be established as an axiom. Nothing about your colours,, sounds, tastes etc.. necessitates there being an outside. And when you are establishing an outside to your perception axiomatically, there is no access to any existence there, since an axiom is not enough to do that !!
Yes, he says the exact same thing as you; that every metaphysical system steps out of solipcism by make a reasoned inference about the nature of the external world. I paused when reading your comment. But I bet he'll say this again early on.
"(BK) steps out of solipcism by mak(ing) a reasoned inference about the nature of the external world" ... no he doesn't, it is NOT reasoned. It is just claimed and that is not good enough, in fact it is a direct violation of his refutation of materialism, that he keeps the idea of an "outside" without rigid reasoning from his claimed perception being the only aspect he has access to.
@@Mandibil Nope. Just like you, he had access to his thoughts and all the wonderful physics experiments that have done away with non-contextuality and locality. Oh no.
@@rooruffneck How do you know I have access to thoughts - have you heard of "the problem of other minds" ? How do you "know" of "physics experiments" ? Through your "qualia" ?
It is all about psychology. When you are a materialist and you look at the universe you only see superficial matter. When you are a spiritual person you will understand at some point that you are in a state of projection and the universe and everything in it at its core is symbolic and you need to figure out the symbolic order.
16:30 what if there is an underlying hidden principle that pre-determines what alice could possibly see? wouldn't such a theoretically possible principle (assuming our knowledge of the world is not complete) first have to be ruled out before drawing the conclusions? but i don't know how you would rule out something that cannot be measured or seen. hard to prove the non-existence of unknown things.
@@MarvinMonroe yeah saw that lol. tbh both can be quite arrogant and passive aggressive sometimes. tim is often impatient and volatile, and bernardo sometimes has an impish smugness and tongue-in-cheek style wrt 'consciousness', but his arguments aren't entirely badly off-track, while eg. tim endorses goofy views like 'compatibilism' wrt "free-will". that's just as goofy as some of bernardo's takes may be for some physicalists.
@@real_pattern well about the free will thing, I pretty much agree with Tim. The whole thing in my opinion is that it seems like people conflate "determined" with "predictable" Future is determined in imo but will never be 100% predictable. A perfect model of the universe would include a model of itself modeling the universe which contains a model of itself modeling itself etc etc It would end up being slower than real time So it's not predictable, for all intents and purposes that means free will
@@MarvinMonroe i just don't see an argument here, sorry. i never had the 'sense' or intuition or vibe or whatever that "i have free will". it's gibberish. i have no problem with computational irreducibility and unpredictability, but that's got nothing to do with "free will", moral responsibility, grit and all the stuff that is usually chalked up to be an entailment of free-will. it's a not even wrong unintelligible concept imho.
Bernardo, Thanks for your enlightening vidios in thé net. I have a question which seems to me a sort of internal contradiction: you model postulantes that AT thé begining thé Universal consciousness within which we came to evolve as dissociated entities, had no Metacognition yet you Say also that when WE die that IS when our individual dissociation state ends and WE return ton the Universal consciousness WE will know.Doesn't this post-mortem knowledge presuposes the very metacognition of the Universal consciousness that you denied for it in th first place?
To say that we misrepresent reality through our senses and perception is not to say that what is misrepresented is non-physical. Some people have a serious problem with infinity especially when they think of the universe so dismissing the existence of the physical world is convenient. There is another realm or plane or platform for existence other than physical, that is where consciousness is. Pure love and peace. Whether we somehow learn to see things in themselves or not will not matter, there still will be no scientific study of the plane of consciousness.
You have no proof of evidence of what you've said, as soon as you've taken a stance of duality you're entirely within the scope of pure assumption. No one is dismissing the existence of the physical world, the dismissal is in the idea that the "physical world" is actually an independent part that actually exists out there in the way we describe it when really it's a model. Like a rope in a dark room could be mistaken for a snake, it's not a snake, but that doesn't mean you've denied that there is something there that you interpreted as a snake. Matter is assumed, you cannot escape this fact, it is nothing but a model of reality, we've conceptualized it. So to say that matter was there before mind and exists independent of it is to say that very thing that was conceived by mind (the concept of matter) is the fundamental reality, when really it's an assumption that further complicates things and creates many problems such as the hard problem.
Good, good,, Bernardo, but some comments @4:30: (1) "All we have is perception..." No, all I have is appearance; To presume that appearances are perceptions (i.e., depend on / are caused by something else "out there") is a fallacy. (To assume the plural, 'we', is also presumptuous, by the way; see the second point and also Mandibil's earlier comment.) (2) "There clearly is something beyond our individual minds out there..." No, this is not clearly so. In fact, this claim packs several unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable and arguably false) presumptions in one claim. After all: - Can I really know that there are other minds beyond my mind? - Can I really know that there is anything at all beyond my mind (i.e., "outside of my cockpit", to use one of your metaphors)? Anyway, keep up the good work. For the love of wisdom!
We cannot know for sure about anything outside our individual minds. But we can make reasonable inferences. I have access to my private inner experience (at least some of it). Others appear to me who resemble my physical appearance and I infer they also have their own private mental experience. Also, it appears events are occurring outside my own volition and awareness. I don’t have control over the weather, for instance. Nor do I appear to complete have control over that which motivates me and drives me at times. I infer there are mental forces outside my individual mind, or ego awareness, as depth psychology highlights.
Bernardo Kastrup = The GOAT
If you're Irish or British, the phrase "the world is mental" has a different meaning. Every day i look at the news and think "jaysus, the world is mental" 😄
BK is a blessing. Listening to him , I cannot but help think of Rabindranath Tagore’s poem , a snippet of the poem here
“ Where the clear stream off reason
has not lost its way into the
dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening
thought and action
into that heaven of freedom,
my father,
let my county awake”
- Rabindranath Tagore
Thank you for this interview! I love Bernardo Kastrup ❤
Kastrup's Idealism =Advaita Vedanta ( more or less ) and through consciousness puts humanity back at the fentre of the universe ✌️🕉️
Bernardo is a visionary. His explanation of consciousness is the only one that is self consistent, unambiguous and effective. It's difficult to adjust one's mindset in order to take it in, but once you do, it's a simple and natural explanation. Thank you for this présentation.
That is very much congruent with David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti.
As a fluent English speaker with a decent understanding of ‘big’ words, keeping track of Bernardo’s explanations can be quite daunting, at times. His grasp of the English language is immense. However, I would ask him to explain some, if not all of his concepts, using plain English.
To cloak mysticism in science requires an impressive word salad
This man is a gift for western culture!
Greater india and indians knew what he is telling now for some 8000-1000 years. No body listened when they were shouting and telling time and again to the world. Better late then never there are many like him in west who advocates same thing what he advocates. But he is final nail in the coffin of materialism which west propagated..
Thanks to ancient indians and morden science. Overall Bernardo kustrup is savier he is dope. And new and final hope.
His ideas are mostly from eastern culture. So eastern culture is the gift
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 Eastern wisdom is a treasure for Human kind no doubt about this.
Nevertheless for the average western mind is a 'terra incognita'. Bernardo Kastrup with his analytic idealism philosophy and his explanatory power makes perennial truths accessible to westerners in a way that has never happened before.
@@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386 Not really, go further back into history and the West (specifically Greece) actually had very similar ideas. E.g., Orphism, Pythagoreanism, and then later Neoplatonism.
@@richardl.currier4052 Greece stole their ideas from the Hindus (the then residents of Bharat) and had a bad habit of not attributing their works. Voltaire wrote about this.
Because they stoke their basic metaphysics, they didn’t really understand it. That is why the west is caught between extremists today.
Very true which is why I say consciousness is living a mind wake. In a mind wake consciousness interprets and perceives itself as subject and objects. There is no out there. Out there is within.
Couldn't it be argued that the deeper reality is just a sum of all its possible physical appearances?
Very interesting
If we can’t think and exist and speculate nothing more than 3 dimensional geometric worldview than how the language that we created from our level of intelligence can possibly gives us all the answers
Bernardo was giving evidence , both philosophical and scientific , fir udealism long befire the Nobel Prize for Physics was given in 2022 . This was a really important prize because it essentially rubber stamped idealism .
Just on principle the physicalists will reject Bernardo just like Tim Maudlin ( who seems to call everyone stupid , from Neils Bohr to Ruchard Feynman) did when he said the Nobel Prize committee were wrong to award the prize in 2022 .
We can call it netal or physical. But basically it's object. What we can notice about mental and physical is that they are objects in the field of our subject. They are both known and experienced subjectively.
Do the sensors on the airplane register the world as it is? If yes, do they equate to our biological sensors (5 senses)? If yes, then do our 5 senses bring the outer world into our awareness ‘as the outer world is’ like the sensors do to the dashboard dials? If yes, then is our perceptions of the world in our awareness ‘what the world is’ to our senses?
Furthermore, we made the sensors on the plane to measure the ‘world as we know it’ & the dials on the dashboard, too, to represent to our perception (the pilots) what the world is outside the plane…
I understand the limits of a metaphor, but I’m just trying to unknot the logic in this metaphor!
can someone explain to me how many worlds theory is at odds with this? he says the only way to get out of his conclusion Is to posit many worlds, how does many worlds provide an alternative?
Bernado kustrup is final nail is cofin of materialism.
He is dope.
He is just an illusion, a figment of our collective imagination
@@NondescriptMammal you are beating kustrup to in is own game.😂😂
Very..... interesting........🤔.... in my opinion is......we repit the same principal of the someone ready make, is hard to modified something is ready make..or is impossible... because logical is ready make....so we.. are clones of the reality we ready have....so lm very nice clone.👏😄🤚👋👋🌎🕊️❤️
Is anyone aware of a substantial critique of Kastrup’s analytic idealism that has been published in an academic journal (be it philosophical, psychological, etc.)? Asking as a fan of BK’s work.
@NOCOMPLYE Had to think about that one for a minute, but couldn’t agree more!
he's not really taken seriously. i mean, the word 'supervenience' isn't even featured in his doctoral dissertation.
his arguments amount to stance empiricism + elaborated incredulous stare arguments against a rather lacking selection of physicalistic theories.
the paper 'conflating abstraction with empirical observation: the false mind-matter dichotomy' includes several responses to his main arguments from philosophers.
i'd also recommend dr. james cooke's latest AMA (and all his videos & living mirror theory of consciousness paper esp. tbh, he's awesome) to hear why it doesn't mean anything to just say 'everything is x'. where in BK's case, x='consciousness'.
again, stance empiricism already exists, read bas van fraassen's book about it.
@ilinx thanks for these suggestions. I had not heard of the concept of stance empiricism before and I had seen BK’a interview with Dr. James Cooke, but was not aware Cooke had his own theory of consciousness.
Are there other physicalist accounts of consciousness you feel Kastrup does not address? I’ve read just about everything he’s written, so I’m familiar with the existing positions against idealism that he defends against in his books/papers, but not aware of others.
To follow up: Cooke does not not say “everything is x”. He says “everything is a process”. Kastrup gives his criticism of the “process” ontology in his interview w/ Cooke mentioned above.
@@real_pattern W/ all due respect to Dr. Cooke, I've read his "living mirror of consciousness" paper and I have to say it retains the self-refuting problem of reductionist materialism in that it attempts to *redefine* consciousness as opposed to actually explaining it.
To sum it up, Dr. Cooke's argument is that consciousness *are* the beliefs that living systems have in order to combat the increasingly entropic (ie chaotic) nature of the universe in order to survive and that qualities can arise from quanities via the information that exists relative to its space of possibilities within a given boundary.
W/ all due respect, this is not science. There is no explanatory power nor falsifiability in what I just described.
Is there even one precise conscious experience that Dr. Cooke could explain as arising from his theory? No. No experiment exists to measure a belief, therefore the fundamental premise of his idea is unprovable *even in principle* - and, of course, is perfectly unfalsifiable as well.
It's a fun idea as an intellectual exercise, but not particularly worth taking seriously as real science. We have better paths to spend our time on.
90 % of baseball is mental
The other half is physical
Yogi berra
Sounds like Walter Russell/Russellian science 👍
Not fan, these types always seem to conflate mind with consciousness. That's a reason i like the word "awareness" more than the word "consciousness"
According to Vedanta, mind is just a byproduct of the brain. More subtle than the body, but not at all what we are.
We are that blankness that observes the mind. Basically just existence
🙂
It would be a pity to be in contact with something totally new and distort it with the usual game of opinions and labels ("this is metaphysical idealism, but there are other people who defend metaphysical realism, etc."). This spiraling, fractalic dialogue makes no sense. There is no point in creating clusters, naming and classifying (fragmenting); apart from all that, it is possible to destroy frontiers and merge apparently unconnected currents (philosophy, quantum physics, psychology, astrology, etc.). To merge means to forget separation, differentiation...
"I am an ant in the immensity.... While I am writing this, someone else is plowing his fields in Ecuador. What I think about my brother can come closer to what my brother is if we both strive to understand each other." All these statements are our daily bread, and are worth questioning.
The perception of an accumulation of independent objects or forms, separated by space and time, corresponds to a space of local topology. Such a space has an infinite and limited nature. After A comes B, then C, etc.; one can always go beyond the current set to a different one, which implies limits or boundaries, but also an infinite succession of jumps. Therefore, without doubt, the external world is mental: only in the mind or consciousness do isolated forms exist; that is, mind, consciousness or thought (names, without more) is the encounter of the undivided totality with itself, for which the illusory separation between a subject (observer) and an object (the observed) is recreated. There is only this, what is, this instant, here and now (words so manhandled by the culture, so it is); the Ecuadorian who plows his fields and the "I" who claims to be writing, are only objects cut out of said undivided totality. By crystallizing such local space, "there is the possibility" of taking a flight to Ecuador and meeting the afflicted peasant. In other words: civilization, the world, is nothing more than local space, that is, consciousness, thought, mind.
Simultaneously to such local space, there underlies the non-local space, which is unknowable. Everything cognizable belongs to local space. In this sense, it is highly recommended to get in touch with the view of the implicate order, which is attributed to the quantum physicist David Bohm. Such an undivided, unlimited, finite totality (this, what is, without more, here and now), generates the imaginary infinity of local space.
If your interface correlate time then evolutionary mythology is no good.
But you can use existing physics of time drop all semantics big bang or deep time theories and the universe don't care about time.
39:56
Kastrup: My thoughts don't have a "length" therefore consciousness cannot be explained physically. OK. Credit card debt does not have a physical "length" either, does that make it non-physical ? And this is being taken seriously. Jesus, we must be living in a dark age....
How can someone with his educational background just completely misconstrue quantum physics? His invocation of the measurement problem doesn't in the least help his argument that we can only access (useful) representations
What’s your preferred interpretation of quantum physics?
@@CJ-cd5cd It doesn't so much matter what my preference is, though I like decoherence approaches despite not entirely solving the interpretation problem. But no serious scientist today equates measurement with a conscious observer. Collapse happens whether or not there's a conscious observer. Events in the universe have taken place before conscious observers and will take place after our extinction. It's simply absurd to understand the observer in this sense, other than a macro system, which does not require consciousness at all. A quantum computer will compute whether or not there are humans around.
I’m not sure you understand what Kastrup is proposing. He does not argue that events do not take place if there is no conscious observer; he’s saying those events are mental in nature and not physical. The physical world is the symbolic manifestation of mind at large that comes about through dissociation of alters.
Also, how do you know collapses happens without a conscious observer? Consciousness is required to know anything
@@CJ-cd5cd I completely understand that. Lol Do you think this is some new idea? Let's grant that. How do you think invoking the measurement problem helps his cause? Also, reading your response again, you've contradicted yourself. You said and I quote "he does not argue that events do not happen if there's no conscious observer" and that "events are mental in nature". Those two statements are not mutually consistent.
Bernardo, talk to Maudlin again. What you are talking about the dissociative process is probably how the non local becomes local.
Idealism is just semantic sophistry
Sorry, a "field "is a thing that must be differentiated from what takes place in it. Define "field" and argue that it isn't a "thing." I have listened to hours of Kastrup and have yet to hear him explain the clearly physical, material world as mental. Even if it indirectly derives from universal Mind, it has morphed into concrete matter.
it's LAUGHABLE that Kastrup believes that solid physical entities don't exist until measured.
Physicality and concreteness are experiences derived from our senses. They are mental in nature; to posit a physical universe beyond mind is an abstraction beyond what we know to exist
@@CJ-cd5cd, try walking through a wall, and tell me it's mental. Scientific equipment proves that objects have mass. Footprints prove it, and one is not measuring or perceiving all of them as one makes them by walking on soft ground.
@l.rongardner2150 Try brushing up on some philosophy. These criticisms of idealism have been around for at least 200 years and have long been addressed. You don’t understand that which you are critiquing. I recommend reading some of Kastrup’s books in which he addresses these common criticisms in detail.
@@CJ-cd5cd , Kastrup's teaching, which I've read, is just one version of idealism. I reject his, but vibe with Kashmir Shaivism's. Moreover, his application of Carlo Rovelli's RQM for his quantum thesis is faulty, because, per Rovelli, RQM has nothing to do with conscious observers. By the way, I'm now writing a book on nonduality and Mind-Only, which includes a critique of Kastrup's analtyic idealism.
@l.rongardner2150 I would genuinely be interested in reading your book when it comes out.
"Matter does not exist, it has no stand alone existence. All tangible matter is an expression of energy. Energy is indestructible and intangible. Matter is tangible and destructible. The only reality matter has is that it is an appearance, a kind of appearance or illusion. In other words you can say the reality of matter is the reality of its appearance, the reality of its illusion. Appearance/illusion is imagery. The reality of the image is the reality of the thing imaged. The image itself is non-reality which veils its reality. The image itself is non-reality. It is the veil. The image itself is the illusion (appearance) of its reality. Only totality is real. Any part of it, by itself, is illusion (appearance) drawn from that totality. If energy is indestructible, then it must be intangible. Tangible is temporal; a consequence of time, space, because it can be measured. Non-measurable is intangible, therefore infinite. Matter is finite. Matter is time/space/measurable in the witnessing. Its reality is intangible, therefore outside or beyond witnessing. Witnessing is the image of that reality which is outside the witnessing. If all this is remembered constantly, only then can one be aware of reality rather than only aware of its image or appearance." (From the book "Addresses" at the beginning of chapter 9 entitled Matter. Can we use the analogy of water? Water can take the form of a stream as can energy take the form of a stream. The vortices in the stream of water (energy) are like the appearance of what we call matter. Einstein is reported to have said: "Mass and energy are different manifestation of the same thing." Does this point to the unmanifest aspect of the two? Now we are getting into some "deep waters".
"That there is an outside, does not mean that it is non-mental" ... no, but it does not mean that it is mental either ! You cannot derive "an outside" from (what you call) perception, it can only be established as an axiom. Nothing about your colours,, sounds, tastes etc.. necessitates there being an outside. And when you are establishing an outside to your perception axiomatically, there is no access to any existence there, since an axiom is not enough to do that !!
Yes, he says the exact same thing as you; that every metaphysical system steps out of solipcism by make a reasoned inference about the nature of the external world. I paused when reading your comment. But I bet he'll say this again early on.
He said it right when I started back the video.
"(BK) steps out of solipcism by mak(ing) a reasoned inference about the nature of the external world" ... no he doesn't, it is NOT reasoned. It is just claimed and that is not good enough, in fact it is a direct violation of his refutation of materialism, that he keeps the idea of an "outside" without rigid reasoning from his claimed perception being the only aspect he has access to.
@@Mandibil
Nope. Just like you, he had access to his thoughts and all the wonderful physics experiments that have done away with non-contextuality and locality. Oh no.
@@rooruffneck How do you know I have access to thoughts - have you heard of "the problem of other minds" ? How do you "know" of "physics experiments" ? Through your "qualia" ?
It is all about psychology. When you are a materialist and you look at the universe you only see superficial matter. When you are a spiritual person you will understand at some point that you are in a state of projection and the universe and everything in it at its core is symbolic and you need to figure out the symbolic order.
Martinez Gary Harris Timothy Williams Richard
16:30 what if there is an underlying hidden principle that pre-determines what alice could possibly see? wouldn't such a theoretically possible principle (assuming our knowledge of the world is not complete) first have to be ruled out before drawing the conclusions? but i don't know how you would rule out something that cannot be measured or seen. hard to prove the non-existence of unknown things.
Thank you for posting! Whatever metaphysics we adopt, physicalism is more than proven not to be able to explain reality consistently.
Sempre em todas hein mestre! Abraço. 😊
And yet you cannot justify this claim without circular reasoning.
BK is on point as always ! 💪
would love a conversation between BK & sean carroll, keith frankish, pete mandik, james ladyman, tim maudlin, james fodor...
He got mad and cried and ran away from Maudlin
@@MarvinMonroe yeah saw that lol. tbh both can be quite arrogant and passive aggressive sometimes. tim is often impatient and volatile, and bernardo sometimes has an impish smugness and tongue-in-cheek style wrt 'consciousness', but his arguments aren't entirely badly off-track, while eg. tim endorses goofy views like 'compatibilism' wrt "free-will". that's just as goofy as some of bernardo's takes may be for some physicalists.
@@real_pattern well about the free will thing, I pretty much agree with Tim. The whole thing in my opinion is that it seems like people conflate "determined" with "predictable"
Future is determined in imo but will never be 100% predictable. A perfect model of the universe would include a model of itself modeling the universe which contains a model of itself modeling itself etc etc
It would end up being slower than real time
So it's not predictable, for all intents and purposes that means free will
@@MarvinMonroe i just don't see an argument here, sorry. i never had the 'sense' or intuition or vibe or whatever that "i have free will". it's gibberish. i have no problem with computational irreducibility and unpredictability, but that's got nothing to do with "free will", moral responsibility, grit and all the stuff that is usually chalked up to be an entailment of free-will. it's a not even wrong unintelligible concept imho.
@@real_pattern fair enough (:
Bernardo,
Thanks for your enlightening vidios in thé net. I have a question which seems to me a sort of internal contradiction: you model postulantes that AT thé begining thé Universal consciousness within which we came to evolve as dissociated entities, had no Metacognition yet you Say also that when WE die that IS when our individual dissociation state ends and WE return ton the Universal consciousness WE will know.Doesn't this post-mortem knowledge presuposes the very metacognition of the Universal consciousness that you denied for it in th first place?
No no, stop saying that. I will break everything ;))
To say that we misrepresent reality through our senses and perception is not to say that what is misrepresented is non-physical. Some people have a serious problem with infinity especially when they think of the universe so dismissing the existence of the physical world is convenient. There is another realm or plane or platform for existence other than physical, that is where consciousness is. Pure love and peace. Whether we somehow learn to see things in themselves or not will not matter, there still will be no scientific study of the plane of consciousness.
You have no proof of evidence of what you've said, as soon as you've taken a stance of duality you're entirely within the scope of pure assumption. No one is dismissing the existence of the physical world, the dismissal is in the idea that the "physical world" is actually an independent part that actually exists out there in the way we describe it when really it's a model. Like a rope in a dark room could be mistaken for a snake, it's not a snake, but that doesn't mean you've denied that there is something there that you interpreted as a snake. Matter is assumed, you cannot escape this fact, it is nothing but a model of reality, we've conceptualized it. So to say that matter was there before mind and exists independent of it is to say that very thing that was conceived by mind (the concept of matter) is the fundamental reality, when really it's an assumption that further complicates things and creates many problems such as the hard problem.
Good, good,, Bernardo, but some comments @4:30:
(1) "All we have is perception..." No, all I have is appearance; To presume that appearances are perceptions (i.e., depend on / are caused by something else "out there") is a fallacy. (To assume the plural, 'we', is also presumptuous, by the way; see the second point and also Mandibil's earlier comment.)
(2) "There clearly is something beyond our individual minds out there..." No, this is not clearly so. In fact, this claim packs several unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable and arguably false) presumptions in one claim. After all:
- Can I really know that there are other minds beyond my mind?
- Can I really know that there is anything at all beyond my mind (i.e., "outside of my cockpit", to use one of your metaphors)?
Anyway, keep up the good work.
For the love of wisdom!
We cannot know for sure about anything outside our individual minds. But we can make reasonable inferences. I have access to my private inner experience (at least some of it). Others appear to me who resemble my physical appearance and I infer they also have their own private mental experience. Also, it appears events are occurring outside my own volition and awareness. I don’t have control over the weather, for instance. Nor do I appear to complete have control over that which motivates me and drives me at times. I infer there are mental forces outside my individual mind, or ego awareness, as depth psychology highlights.