Carlo Roveli thinks the Hard Problem Of Conscious is exagerated, but everything weve ever known has been an experience held by conciousness, so, you cant get anymore absurd then that. What would be more important to figure out then the thing upon which everything else rests?? He wants to propose a metaphysical worldview outside of the only state of being weve ever known, mentation, so he gets even more absurd.
"How is that possible that dimished brain activity correlates with rich psychic experiences"? Stuart Hameroff has far better explanation for this that doesn't require faith but is experimentally backed. I hate Idealism and denying that brain produces consciousness because it leads to pointless ping pong spirituality vs "Materialism (wherever this XIX century noun is supposed to mean in Quantum Age) But the point is people who deny that brain produces consciousness are playing to Elon Musk goal post but ignoring threats of brain organoids development and it's ethical implications that are totally ignored. You may not believe that they are conscious (although I do) but ...very well let's even suppose for a second that Idealism is right (although I reject it together with Dualism and Solipsism) even in that case you cannot deny that possibility of brain transplant technology already performed routinely in mice is rather nasty! And Elon Musk (also "religious") person keeps smiling malevolently. I don't care what you believe about conscious or reality but please don't close eyes to this social threat!
@@jimmyjasi- The disorganized thinking of this post pretty much speaks for itself. Where am I supposed to start. You deny Materialism(in quantum age - your words) but than reduce consciousness to the brain. The self contradictory nature of the brain producing consciousness is obvious. The brain is an experience held by consciousness, an image, but its supposed to produce the thing that holds it? How? And then the thing it produces wouldn't be the brain, it would be mind, separate from the physical world, making the physical world unownable if it exists outside of mind. This is the ridiculous rabbit hole you go down when you take the brain or any experience to be the literal reality itself. You say your not a dualist but of course you are, when you reduce mind to brain, existing as two different realities.
So consciousness is privately known to us, but this doesn't imply with any kind of necessity that it therefore comprises or is fundamental to the universe. I'm not a hard-core physicalist, of course, but I'm okay with the idea that we don't know the ultimate nature of the universe. The universe might just be ineffable and beyond our concepts of it.
@@taolex77814 The universe is definitely beyond our conception, but obviously, only to an extent. If consciousness is all we know, then it's a pretty easy jump to assume consciousness is transpersonal and inherent to the universe. The burden of proof isnt on the metaphiscal idealist saying the only thing we know is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is on the materialist who proses it emerges somehow out of a complete unknown.
Churchland is on the defensive, resorting to pretending she doesn’t understand Bernardo’s argument. Rovelli settles for a chance to show how insulted he is by Bernardo’s earlier criticism of his line of arguments around the ideas of relational QM.
Agreed. A scientist who says, "I just want to do science, and metaphysics is unimportant," is like a fish who says, "I just want to swim, and water is unimportant."
@@thedarkmikebass8530 I have to disagree with that proposition. A working scientist can perform science on a practical level without understanding metaphysics -- or for that matter the philosophy of science. A businessman can make a lot of money without knowing any economic theory or being the least bit concerned with whether he's earning it ethically. It's a matter of what someone subjectively cares about. Some of us are interested in abstract, deep ideas and others are interested in practical stuff. The world takes all kinds.
@@elliottcovert3796 I agree that the world takes all kinds. But even the claim that a scientist can do science without philosophy is a philosophical claim. There's simply no way to get out of philosophy, like a fish can't swim outside of water. The second we make any kind of assumption in life, we run into, at the very least, epistemology, let alone the myriad other converging philosophies. We can subjectively ignore philosophy, but we're still out there objectively making assumptions. Philosophy is how we question those assumptions. Without it, we can objectively make all kinds of fallacious and incoherent assumptions, while subjectively thinking we don't need philosophy. For science, specifically: 1) it is traditionally considered a philosophy, if we want to be technical; 2) Thomas Kuhn rigorously argued that there's no unbiased data, so not even straight calculation is free from assumptions (such as what data to capture, how to set up an experiment, etc.); 3) scientists tend to not only calculate, but also interpret their data, which involves all kinds of assumptions and thus the need for philosophy.
@@thedarkmikebass8530 I agree that philosophy is everywhere because (at least as I define it), philosophy is the study of reasoning. Everyone uses the tools of philosophy when they reason about things; however, what we colloquially call "philosophy" in the English language only happens at a certain level of depth. It's my view that scientists can do science without philosophy in the sense that they can do their work without wondering if they're describing things/forces/processes that really exist (as scientific realists would claim) or they're describing things that don't really exist (as anti-realists and instrumentalists like myself would claim.) Likewise, economics is everywhere when it comes to human financial interactions, but a businessman can make money without understanding any economic concepts. A baseball player can spend a lifetime performing his craft without knowing anything about physics even though physics pervades the sport, and so forth.
@@elliottcovert3796 based on how you're defining things, I think I can agree that in theory a scientist could conduct science like that. However, in practice, I don't think that ever happens, especially in the realms of physics and consciousness. Scientists want to interpret their data and most of them still presuppose some kind of physicalism and realism. Even, again, in deciding what the experiment will be and what data is worth collecting, they make metaphysical assumptions. So while they can subjectively ignore metaphysics and the other philosophies, they're objectively doing those philosophies, just without acknowledging it. And while they can technically do science that way, they'll never do good science that way. Which is why someone like Kastrup can come along and point out all of the flaws in their assumptions, and they have no real defense.
I really wonder if you were getting pid by him to post this , or if it's actually from his email. You cannot be serious. If you want evidence look up the literature on the effects of psychodelics and you will find that Kastrup's claims were completely false.
Made me think of Max Planck's famous quote "Science advances one funeral at a time'. Churchland is the old guard, cemented in Physicalism; Kastrup is a new scientist, open to a more syncretic view of science and religion/philosophy. In this discussion at least, Rovelli seems hopelessly lost in semantics.
Slightly different, but C. G.Jung also said of some of his critics ‘it is your funeral’.meaning that he could help them to a point, then he would have to leave them for dead in the ‘battlefield’; the battlefield was life.
Thank you so much for posting! The sad thing is that Churchland and Rovelli don't seem to grok idealism. How can you debate against something you don't understand in the first place?
Agreed, without much preparation/familiarity, the debate is doomed to stay on a more superficial level. I would love to see what these two think about Bernardo's ideas given more time to deeply understand what he is saying.
Totally. I thought Bernardo should have defined physics and meta-physics for them and given his favourite metaphor of the computer game & child. One of the mistakes experts make when talking to their peers is assuming their peers know what they consider to be basic knowledge.
It wasn’t really a debate, more like a forum or panel on consciousness. They’re weren’t trying to convince each other of anything just clarifying their position for the audience
"How is that possible that dimished brain activity correlates with rich psychic experiences"? Stuart Hameroff has far better explanation for this that doesn't require faith but is experimentally backed. I hate Idealism and denying that brain produces consciousness because it leads to pointless ping pong spirituality vs "Materialism (wherever this XIX century noun is supposed to mean in Quantum Age) But the point is people who deny that brain produces consciousness are playing to Elon Musk goal post but ignoring threats of brain organoids development and it's ethical implications that are totally ignored. You may not believe that they are conscious (although I do) but ...very well let's even suppose for a second that Idealism is right (although I reject it together with Dualism and Solipsism) even in that case you cannot deny that possibility of brain transplant technology already performed routinely in mice is rather nasty! And Elon Musk (also "religious") person keeps smiling malevolently. I don't care what you believe about conscious or reality but please don't close eyes to this social threat!
Carlo "Im going to answer this and answer it in the context of this conversation" gee Carlo, thanks for clarifying exactly what the participants and listeners would expect.
Yeah Churchland essentially called him a solipsist when saying his dog wasn't there if he turned away, and then later called him a theist when she said god was doing it.
Why was this even arranged if there's not enough time for the speakers to speak for a decent length of time and to address the points raised by others??
You are on point, Sir. Analytic Idealism main weakness today is the traditional mindset resistance to even begin to try to understand its basic tenets.
It is always like that. People who have made their life and career through something, always get attached to them and it is hard for them to let go (specially older people). There is always resistance to new ideas specially form older generations. They can not see their "castle" is coming down.
Patricia seems to think that accumulating data is worthwhile while relating that data to larger frameworks of understanding ("-isms") is a waste of time, which, depending on that framework, of course, may be entirely true. But the suggestion that she doesn't inhabit such a framework in her, ahem, practicalism, is both naive and self-legitimating. Hide behind the facts in a modesty that is unwittingly immodest. It’s an old story in the history of science, which philosophers of science since Kuhn are quick to point out. Still, we need the Patricias of this world in the push to fairly understand the world. Carlo’s perspectival framework, I suggest, implies this. Bernardo, too, thinks data production is absolutely essential but rightly calls out Patricia’s caricature of larger frameworks, “metaphysics,” being impractical by appealing to data and by explaining the practical implications of idealism, which, incidentally, Carlo misunderstands demonstrated by his comments toward the end about the "after life". (Patricia’s example about the impracticality and potential irresponsibility of idealism while walking one’s dog was, let us just say, preposterous.) Carlo raises some important points but I think he misses the nuances in Bernardo’s position based largely on his (Carlo’s) misunderstanding that Bernardo is essentially reacting to a dated idea of science, i.e., 18th century mechanistic, deterministic science. This is easily cleared up by reading the many things Bernardo has written on the subject. I found the debate illuminating both from methodological and ideological standpoints. When it comes to philosophical acumen and a holistic appreciation of the issues, I think Bernardo came out on top. Carlo and Patricia, I feel, were guided much too much by their understanding of the bugaboo surrounding vitalism, whether of the monist or dualist variety.
There was an instance in the discussion (~27 minutes) when Bernardo cited 2 scientific papers/evidence (one by Proitti (sp?) et al and one by “Wigner’s friend” ) that he claimed definitively proves that no physical entity can ever have stand-alone absolute existence and thus could never serve to generate mental entities. Ergo “materialism is “baloney”! Rovelli’s responsed by saying to Bernardo, “I wish you were right, I’d be very happy if it were true, but I don’t think they show what you say”. Unfortunately, Bernardo wasn’t allowed to retort adequately…and Carlo didn’t elaborate on the basis of his disagreement. Later on, Churchland had a similar reaction to the study’s Bernardo cites showing brain activity decreases, rather than increases, during psychedelic experiences. Again, Bernardo unfortunately was not allowed to convincingly dismantle her disagreement as the show had to keep moving. As a non-expert fan, my gut leans toward Bernardo, but when renowned experts poo poo his evidence or interpretation, I can’t help but pause…who to believe!?
I am not a scientist, philosopher, or scholar of anykind. I came on this channel out of curiosity as I had seen Mr. Kastrup on another show and was intrigued by his ideas. I must say I was disappointed by the other two participants in this show. It is sad that such smart people can be so blind and not see how dismissive and unscientific they appear. One person says, "One day, we will know the truth, we are making strides, but we still don't know." Therefore Bernard Kasyrup is wrong.. The other participant uses the words ;ike "I don't think", and "I don't know about these things" s, but Bernard is wrong. And somehow, they have convinced themselves they are right about things they domt know Meanwhile, the problem of consciousness is still a mystery. In other words, they said nothing of substance, all lacking imagination. Mr. Bernard Kastrup at least has an Itheory. All great strides come from ideas.
Did I misunderstand?When Churchland was speaking about poking the brain of ‘non human primate’ in order to get data for understanding the brain and possibly consciousness, I felt true horror. I wanted to scream “leave those creatures alone”. Kastrup would never advocate for such experiments.
the neuroscientist is talking about consciousness as a waking state vs being unconscious...Rovelli talking gibberish again//total waste of Bernardo's time
I go with Bernardo, he makes the most sense. On the contrary anyone who is bound by data, or anyone who wants to be dead when they are dead is too landlocked and non-intuitive to be reliable.
Bernardo wiping the floor with Rovelli and Churchland. I have a great respect for Rovelli, but he seemed totally inadequate on this subject, whilst Churchland was just embarrassing. Could have picked a random off the street and got a more insightful contribution.
There was one important issue that should have prompted further comment. It was pointed out that the concept of consciousness was used in a fussy way. Why not take a few minutes to clarify what each means by consciousness, so that we know they are talking about the same thing.
I have problems accepting Idealism but one thing is sure Bernardo have very compelling arguments. Patricia doesn't seem to understand the nuances of the problem and Carlos position is "sofisticated' physicalism?
He's a good speaker, but I don't find his arguments persuasive so much as just interesting. The Metaphysics are neat and it's intriguing, but what positive evidence is there for idealism? I'm just not seeing it outside of niche QP interpretations that can be accounted for in other frameworks. And the whole "consciousness is what we know" argument is somewhat true. We do know consciousness most certainly, but the fact that we are most certain that our consciousness exists doesn't imply that consciousness is fundamental to the universe or that it constitutes the universe in some basic way.
To understand consciousness one has to be awake him/her self. Or rather to put it more precisely, it is not a consequence of being awake, but the level of awakeness itself is the level of understanding of the consciousness, or to paraphrase, in order or know consciousness one needs to be conscious. And to clarify this a little, the above is not a logical statement, however most people will treat it as such, since most people are not awake, which means that they are looking at the world symbolically, the consciousness itself being a symbol inside the worldview.
By using the analogy of consciousness being like the involuntary wiggling of a toe, Kastrup is - likely- illustrating the limitations of some theories that simplify consciousness as just a physical process in our bodies. He believes that consciousness is much more profound and is actually the foundation of reality, with everything in the world being part of a shared, universal mind.
Near the end when Carlo says he wishes there wasn't life after death, as a rhetorical devise to defeat Bernardo, but Bernardo also wishes there wasn't life after death, but for different reasons. Rovelli uses philosophical arguments in a pompous way, so confidently saying he isn't keen on immortality, to make out those who speak such things are too weak to look at the bleak facts, thus his ego is elevated in this school boy debate. But Bernardo Kastrup knows there isn't death and so he worries a little bit, because, like you and me, he has had nightmares. Bad dreams are there but he wake up. But when You leave that brain organ which reduces your ability to have nightmares, once you have left your safe anchor, then you may very well get stuck in that nightmare forever! This is what Bernardo fears.
@@chrisbennett6260 bernardo elaborate this fear point in many interviews. According to materialism death is the end of everything so you go to sleep forever. But in Bernardo's system this isn't the case. You never puff out of existence like a candle gone out.
@@chrisbennett6260you fear that you absolutely don't know what the experiential world is going to turn into after that recursive and localized barrier which is your brain stops doing its job. There's certainly some peace in the knowing that you aren't going to be completely annihilated (because you are still nature and aliveness is immanent to it), but still all your dreams, your memories, your personality, your fears... You don't know what all of it is going to turn into, and you don't know what "you" and "your inner world" will transform into. You may just get completely lost or trapped forever in unimaginable ways. Just think about dementia for example. I personally don't think the case will be so dramatic (and I have good reasons for it), but we just don't know and It's crazy how terrifying the possibilities can be.
This Rovelli guy is yet another physicalist who can only bring into the debate his biased erroneous assumptions that he is correct with no data to support his "solipsistic" claims...
One cannot debate with another, whose mind does not understand the idea the one is expounding on! This is the catastrophe, happening in this 'debate' between Bernardo and Carlo/Patricia!
Before even watching this, I know BK's going to cream the other two. But I have to wonder why I stumbled on this rather than having the TH-cam algorithm recommending it to me, given my interests. But I wonder even more why this is being presented by a podcast with, OMG, a whole 75 subscribers whereas Kuhn's "Closer to Truth" podcast has over a HALF MILLION subscribers. What am I missing?
It would be far more interesting if two of the three participants had provided arguments against idealism BY FIRST HAVING UNDERSTOOD the idealist perspective (or even what the hard problem of consciousness is, to begin with).
Interesting. Two scientists asked their opinions about philosophical ideas they aren't really qualified to speak about. Then a philosopher who is qualified to speak on the this particular philosophical question but is disregarded because he is partnered with scientists who are materialists.
Carlo Rovelli and Patricia Churchland are eminently unqualified to talk on the subject or any other subject. Both were using strawman with gay abandon - dog pooping, aka idealism means nothing exists; god controls everything, and there is life after death. Patricia has a dislike for isms and seems to dislike idealism the most. Carlo has a relational theory, which means it is turtles all the way down. Both vouch for science and data and dare to lie through their teeth regarding psychedelic research. Dishonesty is the last resort to save physicalism.
Total waste of time guys. The interviewer could have done a much better job. This is a kind of subject that needs time. Otherwise you get this very superficial shit show.
Wow really interesting! Never heard any of this before! I do have to say that Dr. Kastrup seems far beyond the other two in terms of putting forth a rational and logical argument that actually answers the big questions. The other two have no real answers at all to anything. Which doesn’t surprise me coming from a materialist viewpoint.
When it comes to consciousness the paragons of materialism can't put two coherent sentences together. As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question. What is the principled explanation for why: A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness? Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness? Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness? Orchestrated quantum collapse in micro-tubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in micro-tubules over there would generate your specific consciousness? A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness? Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
Why does someone accept to discuss consciousness and then answer everything with "I dont know...we dont have the data...I dont want to waste time"? I think the ones who wasted time was us and B Kastrup. Also the format is not really good. The cost for order is loss of creativity and originality.
Kastrup often says that with age we understand better the pressing questions in life.Yet, Patricia Seems to feel ok with waiting ‘for the next scanner’. No passion other than for results of endless non human primate poking.
Quantitative VS qualitative,Rovelli says that science has all the tools to account for subjective experience and that neuroscience will understand ‘step by step’. Sorry Carlo but following Naomi Klein (this week in the Guardian) ‘are you allucinating?’.
Omg give me a break! Philosophy is such a waste of time, right? B.K. wins again. Every time. Obviously Robert has a built in prejudice against idealism...
None of the interviewed was seriously engaged in addressing the problem and dr. Laurence questions in a productive manner. And they show dismissal attitude toward the other, instead. All my sympathy to Dr. Laurence, the only one getting out gently from this supposed conversation, which turned out to be nothing but a stage to display contempt.
Horrible debate. You have Kastrup which has a deep understanding of the other ideas and two folks who have no idea what idealism even is. Just fast forward through everyone except Kastrup and maybe there is some value here.
People like Patricia are the reason why I don't idolize, a priori, academics/intellectuals/experts anymore. She handicaps her intellectual capacities to an astonishing degree and thus renders herself highly unreliable as a source of information/research. I've rarely seen somebody in such dire need of philosophical reflection/re-interpretation and, I say this respectfully, psychological analysis/evaluation. I've read some of her work for a graduate philosophy of mind course, and, I have to say, it's especially hard to take somebody seriously who has advocated so ferociously for such a self-refuting set of ideas (eliminativist theory of mind). This just goes to show how important one's approach to inquiry (or their guiding epistemic virtues) truly is. It's sincerely pathetic/sad to see a so-called "philosopher/intellectual" conduct themselves in such a way. Rovelli is not far behind, I'm not trying to focus overmuch on her. As somebody who is not a die-hard follower of Kastrup (although I am sympathetic to many of his ideas), this was still sad to see, and shame on the moderator as well for illustrating his own bias throughout the video.
Patricia literally looks like, Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat, took her soul and left her only with logical thinking. Her intuition has been sucked cleanly away and appears to be a spiritual carcass
If ideas were fundamental, then surely we could imagine ourselves into any scenario we liked, like a dream. What would stop us from say, spontaneously sprouting wings and taking flight, by just thinking of it?
Mental inertia. A series of assumptions made by the mind at large from moment to moment. How do you know what you're going to think next? You don't. That's the fun of it.
@@genandnic So the only reason we can't spontaneously fly, is because we assume that we can't? That doesn't seem correct. The second point you made about not knowing what we're going to think next, is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
@@maxwelldillon4805 If you really want to understand I would suggest watching these short videos where Bernardo lays it all out: th-cam.com/play/PL64CzGA1kTzhTFlaK9UNCKLJHS61aFBK7.html
11:48 that grin "yup, here we go again". and rovelli missed the mark entirely, erecting strawmen and burning them down. meanwhile, patricia is completely and utterly confused, yet steadfast materialist for the romantic notion of being a hard-nosed data-driven scientist, and predictably confused idealism with solipsism. 38:42 lol that was pathetic by patricia. she's raving mad
A useless "discussion" as everyone is just presenting their views but they are not engaging in a proper discussion nor deeply following up on their various stances.
"How is that possible that dimished brain activity correlates with rich "psychic"experiences"? Stuart Hameroff has far better explanation for this that doesn't require faith but is experimentally backed. I hate Idealism and denying that brain produces consciousness because it leads to pointless ping pong spirituality vs "Materialism (wherever this XIX century noun is supposed to mean in Quantum Age) But the point is people who deny that brain produces consciousness are playing to Elon Musk goal post but ignoring threats of brain organoids development and it's ethical implications that are totally ignored. You may not believe that they are conscious (although I do) but ...very well let's even suppose for a second that Idealism is right (although I reject it together with Dualism and Solipsism) even in that case you cannot deny that possibility of brain transplant technology already performed routinely in mice is rather nasty! And Elon Musk (also "religious") person keeps smiling malevolently. I don't care what you believe about conscious or reality but please don't close eyes to this social threat!
Consciousness is the electromagnetism of neurons firing. It's waveform information that can see and modify itself as thoughts and beliefs. If you don't see this I don't know what else to tell you. Light is Information. When structured in an intelligent way this Light is self-aware. Consciousness is Information. Consciousness is Light.
It’s such a slog trying to get the blinders of materialism off so that a real conversation can begin. Most of these talks are far too short to reach any interesting territory unfortunately.
@@jeffwilliams6681 she is saying that any mental state does not exist. Her metaphisical claims imply that everything you have ever experienced or feel or belief or thought does not exist. If she is right, her point of view literally cannot exist.
@@wiktorfiegler6353 Could you give the time stamp of where she says that? My impression is just the opposite: that no metaphysical explanations are needed because consciousness is entirely physical.
The only thing Kastrup says is that his believes and philosophical speculations have enormous consequences. Well woop di do, how deep. Now, show me what you can produce with that insight, except a pseudo-religion.
@@patrickdelarosa7743 I see no content-related arguments in your answer, and that makes it impossible to give a substantive reaction. If you want to ‘believe’ you are free to do so, but that’s religion not science, ‘my man’.
Carlo Roveli thinks the Hard Problem Of Conscious is exagerated, but everything weve ever known has been an experience held by conciousness, so, you cant get anymore absurd then that. What would be more important to figure out then the thing upon which everything else rests?? He wants to propose a metaphysical worldview outside of the only state of being weve ever known, mentation, so he gets even more absurd.
Are you a Muslim?
"How is that possible that dimished brain activity correlates with rich psychic experiences"? Stuart Hameroff has far better explanation for this that doesn't require faith but is experimentally backed.
I hate Idealism and denying that brain produces consciousness because it leads to pointless ping pong spirituality vs "Materialism (wherever this XIX century noun is supposed to mean in Quantum Age)
But the point is people who deny that brain produces consciousness are playing to Elon Musk goal post but ignoring threats of brain organoids development and it's ethical implications that are totally ignored. You may not believe that they are conscious (although I do) but ...very well let's even suppose for a second that Idealism is right (although I reject it together with Dualism and Solipsism)
even in that case you cannot deny that possibility of brain transplant technology already performed routinely in mice is rather nasty!
And Elon Musk (also "religious") person keeps smiling malevolently.
I don't care what you believe about conscious or reality but please don't close eyes to this social threat!
@@jimmyjasi- The disorganized thinking of this post pretty much speaks for itself. Where am I supposed to start. You deny Materialism(in quantum age - your words) but than reduce consciousness to the brain. The self contradictory nature of the brain producing consciousness is obvious. The brain is an experience held by consciousness, an image, but its supposed to produce the thing that holds it? How? And then the thing it produces wouldn't be the brain, it would be mind, separate from the physical world, making the physical world unownable if it exists outside of mind. This is the ridiculous rabbit hole you go down when you take the brain or any experience to be the literal reality itself.
You say your not a dualist but of course you are, when you reduce mind to brain, existing as two different realities.
So consciousness is privately known to us, but this doesn't imply with any kind of necessity that it therefore comprises or is fundamental to the universe. I'm not a hard-core physicalist, of course, but I'm okay with the idea that we don't know the ultimate nature of the universe. The universe might just be ineffable and beyond our concepts of it.
@@taolex77814 The universe is definitely beyond our conception, but obviously, only to an extent. If consciousness is all we know, then it's a pretty easy jump to assume consciousness is transpersonal and inherent to the universe. The burden of proof isnt on the metaphiscal idealist saying the only thing we know is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is on the materialist who proses it emerges somehow out of a complete unknown.
Kastrup is a legend
I'm so proud of Kastrup for putting himself through this for the advancement of ideas
I am not disappointed because they are against Bernardo. I am disappointed because they don't even know what they are talking about.
Same. Surprised and annoyed.
It seemed to me that Bernardo Kastrup was the only one acquainted with the philosophical consequences of the topic of discussion
Physicalists assume physicalism and then wonder why they are being challenged when they don’t answer any questions.
Churchland is on the defensive, resorting to pretending she doesn’t understand Bernardo’s argument. Rovelli settles for a chance to show how insulted he is by Bernardo’s earlier criticism of his line of arguments around the ideas of relational QM.
Patricia thinking that she doesn't have a worldview is synonymous with Patricia having an unexamined worldview.
Agreed. A scientist who says, "I just want to do science, and metaphysics is unimportant," is like a fish who says, "I just want to swim, and water is unimportant."
@@thedarkmikebass8530 I have to disagree with that proposition. A working scientist can perform science on a practical level without understanding metaphysics -- or for that matter the philosophy of science. A businessman can make a lot of money without knowing any economic theory or being the least bit concerned with whether he's earning it ethically. It's a matter of what someone subjectively cares about. Some of us are interested in abstract, deep ideas and others are interested in practical stuff. The world takes all kinds.
@@elliottcovert3796 I agree that the world takes all kinds. But even the claim that a scientist can do science without philosophy is a philosophical claim. There's simply no way to get out of philosophy, like a fish can't swim outside of water.
The second we make any kind of assumption in life, we run into, at the very least, epistemology, let alone the myriad other converging philosophies. We can subjectively ignore philosophy, but we're still out there objectively making assumptions. Philosophy is how we question those assumptions. Without it, we can objectively make all kinds of fallacious and incoherent assumptions, while subjectively thinking we don't need philosophy.
For science, specifically: 1) it is traditionally considered a philosophy, if we want to be technical; 2) Thomas Kuhn rigorously argued that there's no unbiased data, so not even straight calculation is free from assumptions (such as what data to capture, how to set up an experiment, etc.); 3) scientists tend to not only calculate, but also interpret their data, which involves all kinds of assumptions and thus the need for philosophy.
@@thedarkmikebass8530 I agree that philosophy is everywhere because (at least as I define it), philosophy is the study of reasoning. Everyone uses the tools of philosophy when they reason about things; however, what we colloquially call "philosophy" in the English language only happens at a certain level of depth. It's my view that scientists can do science without philosophy in the sense that they can do their work without wondering if they're describing things/forces/processes that really exist (as scientific realists would claim) or they're describing things that don't really exist (as anti-realists and instrumentalists like myself would claim.)
Likewise, economics is everywhere when it comes to human financial interactions, but a businessman can make money without understanding any economic concepts. A baseball player can spend a lifetime performing his craft without knowing anything about physics even though physics pervades the sport, and so forth.
@@elliottcovert3796 based on how you're defining things, I think I can agree that in theory a scientist could conduct science like that. However, in practice, I don't think that ever happens, especially in the realms of physics and consciousness. Scientists want to interpret their data and most of them still presuppose some kind of physicalism and realism. Even, again, in deciding what the experiment will be and what data is worth collecting, they make metaphysical assumptions. So while they can subjectively ignore metaphysics and the other philosophies, they're objectively doing those philosophies, just without acknowledging it. And while they can technically do science that way, they'll never do good science that way. Which is why someone like Kastrup can come along and point out all of the flaws in their assumptions, and they have no real defense.
Wow Bernardo is head and shoulders above in this panel.
Ethically as well.
As has become the standard …
@@oriskany5966 ask yourself
I really wonder if you were getting pid by him to post this , or if it's actually from his email. You cannot be serious. If you want evidence look up the literature on the effects of psychodelics and you will find that Kastrup's claims were completely false.
Bernardo leans a bit towards woo woo
Bernardo really took on both of them like nothing this man is a GOAT
Kastrup is a genius 👏
Bernardo is the only one of three that seems to understand intuition
ie consciousness. If I'm going to bet on the future, I bet on Bernie...
Kastrup is next level genius, that's all I've got to say
Made me think of Max Planck's famous quote "Science advances one funeral at a time'. Churchland is the old guard, cemented in Physicalism; Kastrup is a new scientist, open to a more syncretic view of science and religion/philosophy. In this discussion at least, Rovelli seems hopelessly lost in semantics.
Slightly different, but C. G.Jung also said of some of his critics ‘it is your funeral’.meaning that he could help them to a point, then he would have to leave them for dead in the ‘battlefield’; the battlefield was life.
Progress being made after funerals seems truer than ever after listening to Pat
Thank you so much for posting!
The sad thing is that Churchland and Rovelli don't seem to grok idealism. How can you debate against something you don't understand in the first place?
Agreed, without much preparation/familiarity, the debate is doomed to stay on a more superficial level. I would love to see what these two think about Bernardo's ideas given more time to deeply understand what he is saying.
Totally. I thought Bernardo should have defined physics and meta-physics for them and given his favourite metaphor of the computer game & child. One of the mistakes experts make when talking to their peers is assuming their peers know what they consider to be basic knowledge.
It wasn’t really a debate, more like a forum or panel on consciousness. They’re weren’t trying to convince each other of anything just clarifying their position for the audience
"How is that possible that dimished brain activity correlates with rich psychic experiences"? Stuart Hameroff has far better explanation for this that doesn't require faith but is experimentally backed.
I hate Idealism and denying that brain produces consciousness because it leads to pointless ping pong spirituality vs "Materialism (wherever this XIX century noun is supposed to mean in Quantum Age)
But the point is people who deny that brain produces consciousness are playing to Elon Musk goal post but ignoring threats of brain organoids development and it's ethical implications that are totally ignored. You may not believe that they are conscious (although I do) but ...very well let's even suppose for a second that Idealism is right (although I reject it together with Dualism and Solipsism)
even in that case you cannot deny that possibility of brain transplant technology already performed routinely in mice is rather nasty!
And Elon Musk (also "religious") person keeps smiling malevolently.
I don't care what you believe about conscious or reality but please don't close eyes to this social threat!
clarify away whatever
Carlo "Im going to answer this and answer it in the context of this conversation" gee Carlo, thanks for clarifying exactly what the participants and listeners would expect.
exactily
they seem to be criticising a position Bernardo doesn't even have.
😂😂 Exactly. That's what happen when people with big ego talk about the topic they don't know anything about.
Yeah Churchland essentially called him a solipsist when saying his dog wasn't there if he turned away, and then later called him a theist when she said god was doing it.
Why was this even arranged if there's not enough time for the speakers to speak for a decent length of time and to address the points raised by others??
Because it was arranged either to make money or gang up against Bernardo Kastrup
You are on point, Sir. Analytic Idealism main weakness today is the traditional mindset resistance to even begin to try to understand its basic tenets.
It is always like that. People who have made their life and career through something, always get attached to them and it is hard for them to let go (specially older people). There is always resistance to new ideas specially form older generations. They can not see their "castle" is coming down.
Patricia seems to think that accumulating data is worthwhile while relating that data to larger frameworks of understanding ("-isms") is a waste of time, which, depending on that framework, of course, may be entirely true. But the suggestion that she doesn't inhabit such a framework in her, ahem, practicalism, is both naive and self-legitimating. Hide behind the facts in a modesty that is unwittingly immodest. It’s an old story in the history of science, which philosophers of science since Kuhn are quick to point out. Still, we need the Patricias of this world in the push to fairly understand the world. Carlo’s perspectival framework, I suggest, implies this. Bernardo, too, thinks data production is absolutely essential but rightly calls out Patricia’s caricature of larger frameworks, “metaphysics,” being impractical by appealing to data and by explaining the practical implications of idealism, which, incidentally, Carlo misunderstands demonstrated by his comments toward the end about the "after life". (Patricia’s example about the impracticality and potential irresponsibility of idealism while walking one’s dog was, let us just say, preposterous.) Carlo raises some important points but I think he misses the nuances in Bernardo’s position based largely on his (Carlo’s) misunderstanding that Bernardo is essentially reacting to a dated idea of science, i.e., 18th century mechanistic, deterministic science. This is easily cleared up by reading the many things Bernardo has written on the subject.
I found the debate illuminating both from methodological and ideological standpoints. When it comes to philosophical acumen and a holistic appreciation of the issues, I think Bernardo came out on top. Carlo and Patricia, I feel, were guided much too much by their understanding of the bugaboo surrounding vitalism, whether of the monist or dualist variety.
There was an instance in the discussion (~27 minutes) when Bernardo cited 2 scientific papers/evidence (one by Proitti (sp?) et al and one by “Wigner’s friend” ) that he claimed definitively proves that no physical entity can ever have stand-alone absolute existence and thus could never serve to generate mental entities. Ergo “materialism is “baloney”!
Rovelli’s responsed by saying to Bernardo, “I wish you were right, I’d be very happy if it were true, but I don’t think they show what you say”. Unfortunately, Bernardo wasn’t allowed to retort adequately…and Carlo didn’t elaborate on the basis of his disagreement.
Later on, Churchland had a similar reaction to the study’s Bernardo cites showing brain activity decreases, rather than increases, during psychedelic experiences. Again, Bernardo unfortunately was not allowed to convincingly dismantle her disagreement as the show had to keep moving.
As a non-expert fan, my gut leans toward Bernardo, but when renowned experts poo poo his evidence or interpretation, I can’t help but pause…who to believe!?
Bernardo does Aikido with the panelists. Hats off to the Dutch Samurai.
I don't think Ravioli knows what he's talking about.
Ravioli 😂😂😂
*Rovelli 😂
I am not a scientist, philosopher, or scholar of anykind. I came on this channel out of curiosity as I had seen Mr. Kastrup on another show and was intrigued by his ideas. I must say I was disappointed by the other two participants in this show. It is sad that such smart people can be so blind and not see how dismissive and unscientific they appear.
One person says, "One day, we will know the truth, we are making strides, but we still don't know." Therefore Bernard Kasyrup is wrong.. The other participant uses the words ;ike "I don't think", and "I don't know about these things" s, but Bernard is wrong. And somehow, they have convinced themselves they are right about things they domt know
Meanwhile, the problem of consciousness is still a mystery. In other words, they said nothing of substance, all lacking imagination. Mr. Bernard Kastrup at least has an Itheory. All great strides come from ideas.
yeah your right
I've been reading Churchland for decades. She's becoming mysterious in her old age.
mysterious how. ?
@@chrisbennett6260 Willing to speak in broad ways on something she doesn't fully grasp, which is something she avoided years ago.
@@zzzaaayyynnn i see
thanks
Bernado hang in there my g
Bernardo hangs in because he stands on solid ground 😎
Did I misunderstand?When Churchland was speaking about poking the brain of ‘non human primate’ in order to get data for understanding the brain and possibly consciousness, I felt true horror. I wanted to scream “leave those creatures alone”. Kastrup would never advocate for such experiments.
Honestly the churchlands horrify me. Their “philosophy” is an abomination and nothing less
the neuroscientist is talking about consciousness as a waking state vs being unconscious...Rovelli talking gibberish again//total waste of Bernardo's time
*25:44* Bernardo's reactions
*30:26* question for Kastrup
*31:45*
39:27
51:21
51:18
I go with Bernardo, he makes the most sense. On the contrary anyone who is bound by data, or anyone who wants to be dead when they are dead is too landlocked and non-intuitive to be reliable.
Bernardo wiping the floor with Rovelli and Churchland. I have a great respect for Rovelli, but he seemed totally inadequate on this subject, whilst Churchland was just embarrassing. Could have picked a random off the street and got a more insightful contribution.
Awesome
There was one important issue that should have prompted further comment. It was pointed out that the concept of consciousness was used in a fussy way. Why not take a few minutes to clarify what each means by consciousness, so that we know they are talking about the same thing.
That would widen the gap between them even further. This was a setup go make Bernardo look bad. They failed
I have problems accepting Idealism but one thing is sure Bernardo have very compelling arguments. Patricia doesn't seem to understand the nuances of the problem and Carlos position is "sofisticated' physicalism?
He's a good speaker, but I don't find his arguments persuasive so much as just interesting. The Metaphysics are neat and it's intriguing, but what positive evidence is there for idealism? I'm just not seeing it outside of niche QP interpretations that can be accounted for in other frameworks.
And the whole "consciousness is what we know" argument is somewhat true. We do know consciousness most certainly, but the fact that we are most certain that our consciousness exists doesn't imply that consciousness is fundamental to the universe or that it constitutes the universe in some basic way.
Churchland understands full well. She just resorts to pretending she doesn’t, because she lacks good counter arguments.
you dont see it thats your thoughts ,
fine
To understand consciousness one has to be awake him/her self. Or rather to put it more precisely, it is not a consequence of being awake, but the level of awakeness itself is the level of understanding of the consciousness, or to paraphrase, in order or know consciousness one needs to be conscious.
And to clarify this a little, the above is not a logical statement, however most people will treat it as such, since most people are not awake, which means that they are looking at the world symbolically, the consciousness itself being a symbol inside the worldview.
42:50 Kastrup uses a provocative analogy:
“Consciousness is the involuntary wiggling of my left big toe. There you are, identity theory.”
By using the analogy of consciousness being like the involuntary wiggling of a toe, Kastrup is - likely- illustrating the limitations of some theories that simplify consciousness as just a physical process in our bodies. He believes that consciousness is much more profound and is actually the foundation of reality, with everything in the world being part of a shared, universal mind.
Bernardo is just in another level, materialism is baloney.
How did I miss this..I was laughing Mao when Carlo said he doesn't know what mental means... man, you can't make this stuff up
Near the end when Carlo says he wishes there wasn't life after death, as a rhetorical devise to defeat Bernardo, but Bernardo also wishes there wasn't life after death, but for different reasons.
Rovelli uses philosophical arguments in a pompous way, so confidently saying he isn't keen on immortality, to make out those who speak such things are too weak to look at the bleak facts, thus his ego is elevated in this school boy debate. But Bernardo Kastrup knows there isn't death and so he worries a little bit, because, like you and me, he has had nightmares. Bad dreams are there but he wake up. But when You leave that brain organ which reduces your ability to have nightmares, once you have left your safe anchor, then you may very well get stuck in that nightmare forever! This is what Bernardo fears.
not sure i understand the fear point
@@chrisbennett6260 bernardo elaborate this fear point in many interviews. According to materialism death is the end of everything so you go to sleep forever. But in Bernardo's system this isn't the case. You never puff out of existence like a candle gone out.
@@chrisbennett6260you fear that you absolutely don't know what the experiential world is going to turn into after that recursive and localized barrier which is your brain stops doing its job.
There's certainly some peace in the knowing that you aren't going to be completely annihilated (because you are still nature and aliveness is immanent to it), but still all your dreams, your memories, your personality, your fears... You don't know what all of it is going to turn into, and you don't know what "you" and "your inner world" will transform into.
You may just get completely lost or trapped forever in unimaginable ways. Just think about dementia for example.
I personally don't think the case will be so dramatic (and I have good reasons for it), but we just don't know and It's crazy how terrifying the possibilities can be.
"Foodloff of the Ramtrop". Perfect, Patricia !!
This Rovelli guy is yet another physicalist who can only bring into the debate his biased erroneous assumptions that he is correct with no data to support his "solipsistic" claims...
One cannot debate with another, whose mind does not understand the idea the one is expounding on! This is the catastrophe, happening in this 'debate' between Bernardo and Carlo/Patricia!
Bernardo/Idealism has the most parsimonious theory. I can't believe Kuhn, who's been on to this subject for a very long time now, does not see it.
Before even watching this, I know BK's going to cream the other two. But I have to wonder why I stumbled on this rather than having the TH-cam algorithm recommending it to me, given my interests. But I wonder even more why this is being presented by a podcast with, OMG, a whole 75 subscribers whereas Kuhn's "Closer to Truth" podcast has over a HALF MILLION subscribers. What am I missing?
It would be far more interesting if two of the three participants had provided arguments against idealism BY FIRST HAVING UNDERSTOOD the idealist perspective (or even what the hard problem of consciousness is, to begin with).
Based
Interesting. Two scientists asked their opinions about philosophical ideas they aren't really qualified to speak about. Then a philosopher who is qualified to speak on the this particular philosophical question but is disregarded because he is partnered with scientists who are materialists.
That was painful to watch.
I see RLK is still assembling the best minds so that he can show them in the worst possible light
Carlo Rovelli and Patricia Churchland are eminently unqualified to talk on the subject or any other subject. Both were using strawman with gay abandon - dog pooping, aka idealism means nothing exists; god controls everything, and there is life after death. Patricia has a dislike for isms and seems to dislike idealism the most. Carlo has a relational theory, which means it is turtles all the way down. Both vouch for science and data and dare to lie through their teeth regarding psychedelic research. Dishonesty is the last resort to save physicalism.
Total waste of time guys. The interviewer could have done a much better job. This is a kind of subject that needs time. Otherwise you get this very superficial shit show.
Oversimplification to the max
Pat needs to work on her lighting. Looks like shes in an interrogation room.
Wow really interesting! Never heard any of this before! I do have to say that Dr. Kastrup seems far beyond the other two in terms of putting forth a rational and logical argument that actually answers the big questions. The other two have no real answers at all to anything. Which doesn’t surprise me coming from a materialist viewpoint.
When it comes to consciousness the paragons of materialism can't put two coherent sentences together.
As well as not being able to explain any specific qualia materialist theories cannot explain the most important thing. Why do I seem to be a specific, individualized consciousness associated with a specific body while you seem to be a different specific, individualized consciousness associated with another body? Why am I, I and you, you? There were billions of bodies around before this one showed up so what changed that I should find myself to be looking out of the eyeballs of this particular body and no other? When it comes to understanding consciousness this is the most important question that must be asked and answered but it is rarely even acknowledged. When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address this question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in micro-tubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in micro-tubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could even make any coherent statements about the subject.
Why does someone accept to discuss consciousness and then answer everything with "I dont know...we dont have the data...I dont want to waste time"?
I think the ones who wasted time was us and B Kastrup.
Also the format is not really good. The cost for order is loss of creativity and originality.
I didn't even know if Rovelli understand philosophy.
Nobody has created a matter and a consciousness.
Hand waving, empirical negligence and appeals to fallacies…. That was a KO blow Bernardo 😮
Kastrup often says that with age we understand better the pressing questions in life.Yet, Patricia Seems to feel ok with waiting ‘for the next scanner’. No passion other than for results of endless non human primate poking.
Quantitative VS qualitative,Rovelli says that science has all the tools to account for subjective experience and that neuroscience will understand ‘step by step’. Sorry Carlo but following Naomi Klein (this week in the Guardian) ‘are you allucinating?’.
Omg give me a break! Philosophy is such a waste of time, right? B.K. wins again. Every time. Obviously Robert has a built in prejudice against idealism...
This format is just waste of time..
Role model
None of the interviewed was seriously engaged in addressing the problem and dr. Laurence questions in a productive manner. And they show dismissal attitude toward the other, instead. All my sympathy to Dr. Laurence, the only one getting out gently from this supposed conversation, which turned out to be nothing but a stage to display contempt.
Horrible debate. You have Kastrup which has a deep understanding of the other ideas and two folks who have no idea what idealism even is. Just fast forward through everyone except Kastrup and maybe there is some value here.
he dosent want to be alive after death ,thats you
and seeing that you dont believe it in any case ,why the hang up after all its false right
People like Patricia are the reason why I don't idolize, a priori, academics/intellectuals/experts anymore. She handicaps her intellectual capacities to an astonishing degree and thus renders herself highly unreliable as a source of information/research.
I've rarely seen somebody in such dire need of philosophical reflection/re-interpretation and, I say this respectfully, psychological analysis/evaluation. I've read some of her work for a graduate philosophy of mind course, and, I have to say, it's especially hard to take somebody seriously who has advocated so ferociously for such a self-refuting set of ideas (eliminativist theory of mind).
This just goes to show how important one's approach to inquiry (or their guiding epistemic virtues) truly is. It's sincerely pathetic/sad to see a so-called "philosopher/intellectual" conduct themselves in such a way. Rovelli is not far behind, I'm not trying to focus overmuch on her.
As somebody who is not a die-hard follower of Kastrup (although I am sympathetic to many of his ideas), this was still sad to see, and shame on the moderator as well for illustrating his own bias throughout the video.
Patricia literally looks like, Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat, took her soul and left her only with logical thinking.
Her intuition has been sucked cleanly away and appears to be a spiritual carcass
If ideas were fundamental, then surely we could imagine ourselves into any scenario we liked, like a dream. What would stop us from say, spontaneously sprouting wings and taking flight, by just thinking of it?
Mental inertia. A series of assumptions made by the mind at large from moment to moment. How do you know what you're going to think next? You don't. That's the fun of it.
@@genandnic So the only reason we can't spontaneously fly, is because we assume that we can't? That doesn't seem correct.
The second point you made about not knowing what we're going to think next, is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Who is saying ideas are fundamental? We are saying awareness or consciousness is fundamental. Everything else is happening in that cosmic awareness.
@@chetanpatil1654 In that case, how do ideas emerge from this awareness? (With materialism, the basic answer to this is neuron operations.)
@@maxwelldillon4805 If you really want to understand I would suggest watching these short videos where Bernardo lays it all out: th-cam.com/play/PL64CzGA1kTzhTFlaK9UNCKLJHS61aFBK7.html
11:48 that grin "yup, here we go again". and rovelli missed the mark entirely, erecting strawmen and burning them down. meanwhile, patricia is completely and utterly confused, yet steadfast materialist for the romantic notion of being a hard-nosed data-driven scientist, and predictably confused idealism with solipsism.
38:42 lol that was pathetic by patricia. she's raving mad
Listening to churchland is like plugging into a schizophrenia simulator
A useless "discussion" as everyone is just presenting their views but they are not engaging in a proper discussion nor deeply following up on their various stances.
This was painful to watch. Bernardo bullied the rest.
"How is that possible that dimished brain activity correlates with rich "psychic"experiences"? Stuart Hameroff has far better explanation for this that doesn't require faith but is experimentally backed.
I hate Idealism and denying that brain produces consciousness because it leads to pointless ping pong spirituality vs "Materialism (wherever this XIX century noun is supposed to mean in Quantum Age)
But the point is people who deny that brain produces consciousness are playing to Elon Musk goal post but ignoring threats of brain organoids development and it's ethical implications that are totally ignored. You may not believe that they are conscious (although I do) but ...very well let's even suppose for a second that Idealism is right (although I reject it together with Dualism and Solipsism)
even in that case you cannot deny that possibility of brain transplant technology already performed routinely in mice is rather nasty!
And Elon Musk (also "religious") person keeps smiling malevolently.
I don't care what you believe about conscious or reality but please don't close eyes to this social threat!
Consciousness is the electromagnetism of neurons firing. It's waveform information that can see and modify itself as thoughts and beliefs. If you don't see this I don't know what else to tell you. Light is Information. When structured in an intelligent way this Light is self-aware. Consciousness is Information. Consciousness is Light.
dont agree but whatever rocks your boat
j@@genandnic so thats your description
thats your view
@@chrisbennett6260 You miss the point!
@@genandnic You miss the point!
It’s such a slog trying to get the blinders of materialism off so that a real conversation can begin. Most of these talks are far too short to reach any interesting territory unfortunately.
it's definitely nice to hear ROvelli correcting the Kastrup's fraudulent claims about physics experiments.
Churchland is right. Kastrup is selling metaphysics of the gaps.
You know that churchlands materialism is self refuting?
@@wiktorfiegler6353 No. explain how.
@@jeffwilliams6681 she is saying that any mental state does not exist. Her metaphisical claims imply that everything you have ever experienced or feel or belief or thought does not exist. If she is right, her point of view literally cannot exist.
@@wiktorfiegler6353 Could you give the time stamp of where she says that? My impression is just the opposite: that no metaphysical explanations are needed because consciousness is entirely physical.
she talking crap
The only thing Kastrup says is that his believes and philosophical speculations have enormous consequences. Well woop di do, how deep. Now, show me what you can produce with that insight, except a pseudo-religion.
Truth matters my man, and Bernardo is speaking the truth even if you don’t seem to see it, the implications are enormous believe it or not.
@@patrickdelarosa7743 I see no content-related arguments in your answer, and that makes it impossible to give a substantive reaction. If you want to ‘believe’ you are free to do so, but that’s religion not science, ‘my man’.
Unsurprisingly materialists sound like cartoonish idiots with no actual arguments - If your dog poops will you just ignore it if it's all mind 😂
Bernardo does Aikido with the panelists. Hats off to the Dutch Samurai.