Bernardo, please dont stop doing what you are doing. You have had a considerable impact on my life and i'm sure on thousands' else. You are a modern prophet. Every epoch needs its prophets. Thanks!
The best method of avoiding to get ‘derailed’ by misunderstanding such ‘philosophical discussions’ is to apply the beautiful Mahayana Buddhism approach of deeply focusing on loving kindness and compassion. Even if it might not be my free will to chose this approach, it is a powerful antidote against all kinds of ‘dark sides’ along the pathless path.
If you choose that path, that's free will. The idea that introspection grants no agency over choice is a complete contradiction. There is a no introspection if there is no free will. You can't look inward if there is no agent to look there.
@@powerandpresence5290 I guess that we have a very different understanding of 'determinism' and 'free will'. This would require very precise definitions. Mahayana Buddhism invests years of studies into the required clarity of words and at the same time to understand the limitation of words. Determinism does (to 'me') not mean that we are functioning like mechanistic machines. 'I' am able to apply introspection because 'I' have created the causes and conditions for this and introspection can create the causes and conditions for recognizing that which has always been there. Very difficult to discuss by using words and concepts embedded in space and time. I very much like the approach, Baruch Spinoza has applied to explain this subtle dilemma.
“Determinism versus free will is like debating if the number 5 is married or not”. I like that. Spinoza (if I understood him right) had a beautiful approach to this: Even though deeply positing ‘determinism’, he outlines that (by applying consequent reasoning) it makes sense to work on oneself’s causes and conditions to become open for ‘intuition’, his third type of generating knowledge. To some extent, this discussion is still on the ground of this reasoning, applying concepts of space and time, of cause and effect - being ‘tools’ of our limited conventional reality, while describing something (that is no a thing) about unspeakable and unthinkable ultimate reality.
What a great conversation. I love how Bernardo makes me, not so much think, but know something that seems to be so obvious. I remember about 15 years ago in my meditation room asking 'The Nameless One' why It needed us as it was every Omni- possible. The answer that came was 'I expand Through you, Consciousness cannot expand and experience 'Self' otherwise" So when Bernardo spoke about 'It playing itself out through our eyes... I loved that.
... Essentias' Foundationally serendipitasamally timely appearence, comes now, at the squidgy-fudgey, cross-over-mid-point, ending-beginning of, not only decades & centuries or milenial eons, but of actual astronomical & astrological ages, end of Piscies, start of Aquarius. This no time-timely-moment is a rarety for almost all of those alive & living through it. Bernados' hard-won philosophical views & presentations are what every previous civilization has had to deal with. Age after age, since time immemorial, has had to face & go through much the same crisis of meaning that we are fa😮cing, where nothing is certain or seemly concrete, but rather fluid & unsetalingly indeterminatable ...
@@peteraddison4371 I love every interview Bernardo has done (that I have been able to find) It was interesting to see the dreams that played out last night and the insights from those. Wonderful time of deep-deep self discovery and joy. Thank you for interviewing him
But if everything is strictly determined then this applies to all that Bernardo said and to how you loved what he said. Thinking that this is ok and better than wasting time worrying about free will becomes just another case of strictly determined thoughts and feelings. If everything we feel and think and do is strictly determined, then we can actually not determine anything, including whether or not we are strictly determined. No more choosing things as being true or false, good or bad, just strictly determined perceptions and conceptions, aversions and conclusions, with strictly determined feelings about all those states and experiences. If you are lucky then by chance it will be xeh case that you are determined to be OK with this. I am apparently not lucky in that way and so will continue pointing out the fallacy of proposing something that undermines the possibility of freely evaluating what has been proposed.
@@morphixnm ... One partickely vexingly sticky view comes with a strangerly isolatingly tap of the spirit. Ones sense of self being cut out and away from the falsety premise of herd snuggely safety securitynesesity, and throwing in your lot aquiesent acknowledgy relieving trust, and-just, letting-go ...
@@morphixnm if you truly have the experience of freely evaluating what has been proposed, why should thre be any doubt as to the status of that experience? Do you need permission to freely evaluate it? Can somebody take that experience away? Do you have to defend that experience against some fallacy? You see, there is nothing else but free evaluation. Even the idea that there could be something else, throws a shadow on the sincerity of the experience of it. Remark that Bernardo, throughout the interview has said that he is neither a believer of free will nor of determinism, because he finds the question of which is true, nonsensical. There is only one thing, the will of nature, which is by necessity the experience of it. So, in that experience, you will find some ideas nonsensical and others very sensible. The idea that all there is, is experience of what is, could be found to be very sensible. It is sensible only when it is a pure expression of what is, but totally powerless to replace the experience it is an expression of. Truth is not an idea. All ideas that are meant to replace truth are nonsensical. You could ask yourself, if your experience needs any validation to be true? If you do that, be sure that you include in your investigation any (subtle or hidden) validation (or lack thereof) already going on. If you do this, you are bound to open up to being OK with this. There is no choice. To even think that we have the choice between finding something functional (like free will) and truth, is an illusion already. We cannot not want the truth. That brings peace and happiness. Which makes you forget all about free will and determinism. It is inconsequential. But of course, in the global debate on it, you cannot not play a role, and so you talk about it, expressing that the debate is nonsensical. And just that little point, the point that Bernardo expressed throughout the interview, at different moments, is missed. It is the most consequential point, and yet it is considered inconsequential.
I cannot express how grateful I am to TH-cam's algorithm for suggesting to me that I might be interested in this channel, which it did last week with the video on Bernardo's choice of the ten books that smash materialism. (I got my copy of book #1 - Jung's Answer to Job - today.) Since discovering Bernardo, I make a habit of spending one or two hours a day watching his many videos on analytic idealism. His ideas give me great pleasure, even a sense of joy. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on what might happen to universal consciousness when the universe has played itself out as far as it can go, which I suppose would be when it has achieved maximum entropy.
Entropy would start to go down until in the process of contraction of the Universe it collapses to the initial singularity it all started with. Then - boom - the story repeats all over again. It's been happening forever.
The Universal consciousness would not be bothered, because it is in the state of Sat-Chit-Ananda, Being-Consciousness-Bliss, and any transformation happens to the Maya. Think of relative reality - our Universe - and absolute reality - the eternal Brahman who is dreaming of it all.
@@Михаил-д6х1з And I would add that in all of that, nothing happens. What Is is untouched because it is everything and nothing. Nothing ever ends, because nothing ever started.
Jai Jai Bernardo 🎉 Sometimes a video just makes me want to press the like button not once, but 20 times..! Bernardo's 'variable inputs' is like nature speaking it's own essence. It hits powerfully. Thanks for all you do. 🙏🏼
Incredibly valuable conversation. Thank you for putting this out. Essentia is doing such important work in the world. Looking forward to what comes next!
Great dynamic between you two. Hans asks the questions I would ask, and Bernardo answers them the way I need them answered. I garnered a few new anti-freewill inputs there, lol.
Wow! Bernardo is a visionary. He may be one of the most important teachers on the planet. I can't believe I listened to this whole thing and didn't get bored. He may be very far ahead of his time, but it is so exciting to learn about.
I used to be so scared of this notion of "not having free will". Yet the simple realisation that the personal and "universal" will are one on the same thing is actually endlessly freeing.
You can still have separate will, and universal will is realised through the "voting" process; therefore your personal will is not canceled. Your free will can be not aligned with universal free will or it can - it is up to you.
Free will is an illusion and here is the argumentation: From the lense of neuroscience:
Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science) participates in an experiment conducted by John-Dylan Haynes (Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin) that attempts to find the neurological basis for decision making. Short summary: The experiment explores the relationship between free will, decision-making, and brain activity. Marcus Du Sautoy participates in an experiment in Berlin where they have to randomly decide to press either a left or right button. Brain scans and computer records track when the decision is made in the brain and when the button is physically pressed. The results reveal that up to six seconds before Marcus Du Sautoy consciously makes a decision, their brain has already made that choice. Specific patterns of brain activity can even predict which button will be pressed. This finding challenges the notion of free will, suggesting that unconscious brain activity significantly shapes our decisions before we become consciously aware of them. The experiment also delves into the nature of consciousness. It argues against dualism-the idea that the mind and brain are separate entities. Instead, it posits that consciousness is an aspect of brain activity. The unconscious brain activity is in harmony with a person's beliefs and desires, so it's not forcing you to do something against your will. Marcus Du Sautoy finds the results shocking, especially the idea that someone else can predict their decision six seconds before they are consciously aware of making it. The experiment raises profound questions about the nature of free will, consciousness, and the deterministic mechanisms that may govern our decisions. From the lense of pysics: In order to question the belief in free will, one can conduct experiments and contemplations. Take an action you are convinced you performed and reverse-engineer it until you realize you had no control over it. This leads to the conclusion that all actions in life are the same, and the notion of claiming ownership falls away, so free will is non-existent. By 'reverse-engineering an action,' I mean tracing back the steps that led you to make a specific decision. Upon close examination, you'll find that your choice was influenced by a series of past events and conditions over which you had no control, and that your choice didn't originate from a single point. One could argue that everything originates from the Big Bang, making us essentially biological robots. This realization may prompt you to reconsider how much 'free will' you actually possess, as your actions are shaped by factors beyond your control, both in the past and likely in the future as well. So you can summarize everything is a happening according to cosmic laws.
@@sdhetan3hetsa That is bs. All is undivided. There is no separate you and no universal. Both are appearances. If you can name, perceive, or conceive it, it is not.
One of the best interviews to date on the purpose of our life drawn out very nicely for a lay person in great detail. Thank you so much from a dedicated follower of Bernardo, Essentia, Swami Savapriananda, Federico Faggin. I feel so at peace with how my life is flowing these days.
Just so grateful for the podcasters who feature Bernardo- a rare member of the Academy who has profound humanity, humility and generosity. The vast scope of his ideas are like rain on parched earth 🌏
Sounds like, sit back, relax and watch the movie of your own life play out in front of you. All the while feeling like you made all the decisions, whether you did or did not. Very interesting video indeed. ❤🙏
allowing Nature/Source/God to manifest itself through us... allowing ourselves, letting go of the habitual resistance to the majesty of Life, and therefore - also our own majesty... recognizing our origins. Source, one Being. Thank you for the interview, gentlemen!
Determinism comes through causality. Every person comes into the world as a causal event with a rule book ( genetical make up, status of parents, country of birth, education, religion, circle of friends, career, neiboughhood etc.). The path is now laid out, causal events will happen and your reaction to those events is already predetermined due to what has been laid out in brackets. "There are paths that guide our way rough hew them how we may"
thanks, so many good thoughts, and dear Hans, it is liberating to see you struggle to follow Bernados thought and how it exhaust you, bc then I am not the only one...
What if the universe wants to experience what its like to be tortured, murdered, a drug addict, constant struggle or just terrible life experiences over and over again through me should I just accept that even if i don't want it? Should i just ignore my own suffering for the sake of another input feature to the model of the universe...
What you are experiencing is resistance to your current experience. You want something different then what you have right now. Just because life is deterministic, does not mean you should not try to make changes. Look at what is important to you, ask yourself is this really true and do some sellf exploring. Create some space in your thinking, leaning into being, have a broader vision then just your personal experiences and interpretations, widen your horizon. Is this going to make you happier, less suffering? Maybe, maybe not, you will not find out, unless you try
Had very similar thoughts watching this. My open letter to The Universe: Dear Universe, Despite the apparent computational irreducibility problem, I can tell you where you are going - nowhere. You keep going in circles. You are like a toddler at a stove, placing one hand on a hot burner, only to put the other hand on as well since you are too stupid to learn that suffering sucks. It's not that I think that my life is about me - I have suffered a lot, but I know it could be worse, as it has been for billions of lives before me. You don't seem to be able to learn anything, so why don't us do us all (thence, yourself) a favor and f 0 @ d already. - Yours Truly, just another Job
I got an idea when listening to this presentation! That the sense of free will is like training wheels for human development. That it's needed for us to form individual selves and a society with things like laws and money. And then the next step in human development is the realization of free will as an illusion and it can be dropped when we have reached a certain level of individual and societal development.
Think the best way of condensing our wanting of free will is to view it as a desire for ownership over will so that, by extension, we also own the outcome. It's why this desire tends to also lead people who cave to it to a fear that giving it up will lead to immorality. They're already placing personal value on consequences and that is their motivation for doing "good", but they don't realize that that motivation can stand on its own if that is truly what they want. And the tendency to sacrifice this self honesty for an outcome shows that its their perceived ownership of it which is still taking precedent. Yet that attachment to ownership is the precise thing which leads to things like punitive justice over reform, pride for achievements over gratitude for the experience of being an organism driven towards its goals, blame and eventual demonization over compassion and eventual understanding... The most fundamentally moral thing that a metacognitive organism can do, in all cases, is to know itself. This includes the phenomenological practice of noticing what our desire for free will actually implies about our current priorities.
18:48 Sam Harris isn't a materialist, he's metaphysically agnostic. I really think he and Bernardo could have an amazing dialogue. I'd pay money to make it happen. I should add, it's wonderful to see Bernardo express the same ideas that I've been having myself for a long while now. No regrets, no guilt, but still personal responsibility.
If I identify as a separate self I seem to have free will. If I identify as consciousness itself (loving awareness eternal life) there is no free will.
There are many interesting observations and angles in this talk, but one of the most interesting to me is that you could reduce Bernardo's very technical and innovative message down to a very simple and ancient one. Namely, "life is the journey, not the destination." Or something similar. No? Toward the end when they were talking about the violin, I was reminded of Joseph Campbell saying something like "life is a guy walking down 5th avenue trying to play Mozart on a violin... but he doesn't know Mozart or what a violin is." But now I'm seeing... maybe I am the violin. "Let the universe play you." Fascinating.
If « universe » can't calculate himself to « know » the future and just live the « present » is there a name for the « out of space-time entity « who contain all of this or it's the same universe (s) who have all the imprints of all but does not have meta cognition « doesn't care » and just move in a direction.
"Why we want free-will so badly in the first place" That's not where im coming from. I just noticed that i have free will and started using it more consciously. So, for me, it's not a matter of "wanting it so badly," as you've assumed. It was just a matter of observation and conscious application... repetition...experimentation... and realizing that free-will is actually extremely useful in a world where choices count.
What an incredible conversation. I have a question: If we are supposed to allow nature to flow through us and not fight it by asserting our "free will," how do determinists respond to individuals who believe that nature compels them to engage in behaviors that most people would consider immoral? For example, if a person claims to be determined to molest children and feels that by doing so, they are allowing nature to flow through them, and find those acts meaningful, would Bernardo argue that they were predetermined to have those desires? Furthermore, if that is the way nature is calling them to live, would he consider it a valid algorithm that should be encouraged to be lived out? Bernardo contradicts his "just go with nature theme" and states, "We have a moral responsibility to keep the diamond in moral bounds." However, the question arises: who dictates what those moral bounds are? Who is to say whose behaviors fall outside of moral bounds? Could a person simply assert that they are "determined" to engage in certain behaviors, and believe that is how nature is expressing itself through them, part of the "unfolding," as a way to resist those attempting to keep the diamond within moral bounds?
This was mostly my opinion since forever and in 2002 I was glad that this was mentioned in the Matrix 2 movie, when the Oracle tells Neo that we don't come her to make choices but rather to understand the consequences of them
We have choice, free will, in some areas so that we may learn and grow. If we make bad choices we suffer the consequences. Our intelligence clues us in, for the most part, to what the bad choices are. Sometimes our emotions or magical thinking make us think the wrong choice is the right choice and we suffer the consequences. We can keep hitting our heads over and over against a brick wall and the results will always be the same, unless we decide to stop.
Every definition of free will makes sense and is very meaningful except for the claim that there is an inner chooser who could have selected a different choice. That's the only one that is incoherent. Thus, all people who cherish free will can celebrate! You have countless definitions to choose from.
@helifonseka9611 For me the "choice" is just how we talk about a certain mind of process. Whereas free will people say they could have chosen otherwise.
Firstly, there is no individual, therefore there is no free will nor determinism. Only an illusion can claim free will. Only an illusion can claim determinism. What appears to happen, happens, but for no one. All is an appearance that appears to an appearance that appears to appear.
As the great Gurdjieff supposedly said "We have free will, but we have one foot nailed to the ground." Why force a false dichotomy? Free will is a construct. Thus it's meaningless to say that we have it or we don't. Yes, experience/ witnessing is a key to experiencing meaning. But the idea of free will is useful, even if we exercise it within a constrained system. Free will in the way I think common people understand it, doesn't mean we think we will choose correctly every time.
The individual as a separate ego is a convincing illusion with the feeling that it actually is and that it has free will. Sometimes this illusion collapses.
When I remember correctly, Jung once proclaimed about free will; your free will is to follow (played by) your natural destiny, or to resist it. In my experience in-depth use of the oracle (I ching) can be helpful somewhat decoding one's daemon.
What Bernard would answer I cannot foresee. My experience with the Oracle is a slow diminishing of resistance in general., like a high tuning of your "instruments" (Kastrup). This results in what in Chinese terms is depicted as Wu Wei, which I call the "flow", without much aplomb.@@mariekuijkenhistoricallyaw2598
Whether or not Free Will (whatever that is) exists is irrelevant to what is necessary for our lives as humans. Knowing the universe and your choices are entirely determined by physics, changes.....nothing.
Even if one realices that there is no free will, who is the one that realice it? That one cannot be an individual mind (ego, alter), because and individual mind does not truly exist. What truly exists is the undifferentiated field of subjectivity (consciousness), or the whole of nature. So, it is the whole of nature that makes this individual mind understand that it has nothing and cannot do anything by itself, because it is essentially non-existence (as something different/separate from the whole).
A wonderful conversation. So many potential links to Advaita philosophy, which could be explored in another video? Please continue to share these important discussions. Thank you!
Nelson Mandela, when asked how he survived prison for 27 years said “I chose to be there every day”. I read this many years ago and have been in pursuit of it.
It is not so hardcoded if you know what you should do, as a consius person you can do the oposit (we know that it is kind of a contradiction). We cant even calculate caotic models like 3 body problem, imagine a model over consiusness that we dont even know what it is, it is just silly! You cant run gravity backwards and get a broken glass back! We watch ourself that is very important.
One thing I don't get is the chip analogy. It seems to me that nature goes on doing what it does even without us... where did I miss the metaphor here?
Bernardo makes sense but I'm not sure I would agree. Thomas Campbell gives the idea that consciousness intrinsically has freewill and without it our universe basically becomes very limited. Free will gives arise to richness of possibilities that could not happen in a predetermined system. Why such a debate of free will if it doesn't exist? We don't argue so intensely over things that don't exist.
I like to take the words of Richard Ramirez AKA "The Night Stalker" when he said: "I believe in the evil in human nature. This is a wicked, wicked world and in a wicked world wicked people are born. I'm not gonna blame society, my race or people or anything. It is up to the individual like myself to keep on knocking on whatever door they want to get into" Even the most evil of human beings knows they alone make the decisions in their life.
I think studying quantum mechanics might change Bernardo’s view on randomness. It’s pretty established among physicians these days (based on empirical evidence from experiments) that Einstein was wrong regarding God not playing dice.
My will is freeish. It is bounded by physics and the instincts and limitations of being a human being. But this doesn't mean that there is no choice in anything. The problem about these discussions is that free will is an attribute of conscious beings and we know NOTHING, ZIPPO, NADA about consciousness so we have no chance of speaking intelligently about this subject. We don't know enough yet. We are basically talking about volcano gods because geology hasn't been invented yet.
Just once I’d like a philosopher to speak with a mental health professional about the development of choice. Kastrup’s take, like most, is archaic and simplistic. If he is as serious as he says about seeking the truth, he’ll stop strawmanning this topic and start having genuine conversations filled with searching questions, rather than scripted responses filled with his own convicted prejudices.
In the light of non-duality and of Universal Consciousness everything is determined but from the standpoint of the individual, of duality, there is free will. Thus the function and necessity of morality. Morality only exists when you see the Universe through a key hole so to speak. From the determinist view a guru who teaches free will is teaching that because he is determined to. The only way to realize the reality of "no free will" is the recognition that our will is actually God's will. Swami Ramakrishnananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, explains it well: God the only Doer, Swami Ramakrishnananda The question was asked, "Can a man do as he likes?" The Swami's answer was "Sometimes he thinks he is doing as he likes, but in reality God is guiding all his movements. God is the only Doer, nothing is done by man." The devotee asked again: "Then what is the use of man's making any effort to be good or to realize God?" Swami Ramakrishnananda replied: "Your very nature is to act. Can you remain perfectly quiet even for a moment? The body is born to act. Your hands, your feet, your eyes and ears have a natural tendency to action. As long as you must act, you will want to do that which will bring the most desirable results; so long as you act, you will have to try to be good, to be virtuous, to be unselfish, in order to get the desirable results you are seeking; and since God is the most desirable result to be attained, you will have to strive to realize Him."
I think our capacity of understanding free will is too limited to make sense of it. To understand it we apply principles relevant to computation and observable physics, but it feels like these principles cannon be fully applied to "the mental essence" that manifests reality. So I respectfully disagree with Bernardo's take on free will, though I agree it's probably safe to say we don't have it to the extent many people think. My point is we can't make sense of "free will" with our human concepts, I'd bet the issue is far more nuanced than we think. I could be wrong though, I appreciate Bernardo's work on idealism and generally agree with his points.
"In truth the ego has no free will, because there is no ego; but on the level of apparent reality the ego consists of free will. ~ It is the illusion of free will that creates the illusion of the ego." : From The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
if it is nature's will that we are all riding along on. It seems that nature 's irresistible will is always trying to understand itself and to make itself better in doing that. What is better, though? That's where we play a part? Our little bit of mental activity? It seems that there are continuous chain reactions and containments going on and re configuring? We are the source of the chain reactions / ripples on the pond of nature? Other people's chain reactions affect ours? As a result of this.., something crystallises out? An idea? This either gets crushed or propagated? We are therefore integral in what happens. Like waves that are additive if they interact in certain ways, so are little bits of mental activity. If enough, similar ones coalesce, that becomes part of the driving force of nature. In this sense, one good man can change the world, it seems...or one bad? Depending on what force is greater overall?
Our justice system IS about punishment as well, it is a form of reparation for the victims or their relatives and it is needed to get support base for the legal system and the democracy by the people.
Our choices are not what we are... our choices are not yet materialized in the present they are unfolding in the present and will only entirely "outfold" in the future [from our current or present vantage point] so for a choice to be a choice it cannot be manifest it only becomes manifest when the choice is made "the choosing now occurring is creating the choice to be set in stone and no thus no longer a choice but a decision a goal a happening. So our choices are not what we are... our choices are what we become....and what we choose determines what comes into being, or comes to be. Freewill and determinism are time dependent. Freewill is real and exists as to the future from the vantage point of the present choice. Determinism is real and exists as the present from the vantage point of a choice that has unfolded or fully "outfolded" as a decision.
A broken watch is still correct twice a day. A brilliant genius still can’t be right about everything 😆 I love you Bernardo but I’m afraid saying we don’t have free will is akin to saying we don’t have a conscious! It’s ridiculous! You’re experiencing free will right now. I can tell at the end, you feel like you’ve actually realized this isn’t actually working. Again, 100% love everything you do and you’re 99.9999999% perfection. But free will is what you are experiencing. But you also talk about the idea of the universe must experience itself to know itself. Yours absolutely right. Your individualized consciousness is doing just that, traveling the roads of probability. Time isn’t real. It’s the paint on the wall of our experience. It’s no more real than the bars are in music. It’s just a guide. Your frontal ego consciousness realizes that much, sometimes all, of your choices are made by the obfuscated conscious that you don’t identify with as closely. And so you misinterpret that as being a lack of free will. I wouldn’t wash my hand for a week if I shook your hand, you brilliant man! I mean that!
Totally on board until Bernardo's take on moral responsibility-unless he's referring to a more superficial moral responsibility as opposed to what Galen Strawson calls "ultimate (or deep) moral responsibility."
It is amazing how Bernardo has the same thoughts and the same opinions that I have again and again. Like the revengeful justice system being Based on free will. I really think I never Heard him say anything I dont agree with which is spektacular.
Bernardo Kastrup, a scientist and philosopher, argues that free will is not necessary for finding meaning in life. Here are some of his main points: - Free will is an illusion, as our choices are determined by factors outside of our control, such as genetics and environment. - The idea of free will is a red herring that distracts from the true meaning of life, which is to bear witness and pay attention to the dance of existence. - The meaning of life has nothing to do with making free choices, but rather with allowing oneself to be what one cannot help but be and choosing to do what nature demands. - Reality is essentially mental, and consciousness is the underlying basis of the world. - Materialism is a nihilistic view that provides no real meaning to life. Kastrup suggests that finding meaning in life is possible without free will by embracing the idea that we are part of a larger consciousness and allowing ourselves to be what we are meant to be. He argues that the materialist paradigm is flawed and that reality is essentially mental.
I have free will. I often do things or no reason at all. Of course some argue that I am some kind of a machine and everything I do has reasons/causes, but that is THEIR model for the universe and of human beings. It is possible we, and the universe, are like no machine that humans have ever imagined, or perhaps can ever imagine. Anyway, there is no way to prove there is, or is not free will (or perhaps other options we can not conceive of). So we will just believe without proof, whatever we individually want to believe. Probably there is no way ever to prove any of it. But who knows, maybe a way to prove it will come about. Right now there is no proof. Bernard just talks around the idea of free will, but does not establish by proof anything about it.
I totally agree with no free will. And, I used to work men who were violet towards their partners and saw themselves as being wound up and not the one in control. Following a conversation about whose fist, whose arm who drove the fist, that hit their partner, there would be a shift in their taking responsibility. Before they saw themselves as controlling the action, they had no ability to act differently. When they shifted to seeing themselves as responsible for the action, they could change their behaviour. My input shifted their input, not free will.
BK’s philosophy is as consistent as his political activism (both based on methodological cherry-picking). Lucky you if you get to see this comment, since BK is notorious for blocking/ deleting critics of his. Cheers
I agree that the traditional debate, framed by determinism vs. free will, is flawed. The definition of free will, viewed as independent of the universe's choice, seems nonsensical. There is a problem with concepts like consciousness, free will, qualia, etc. Many people, even those well-versed in related fields, appear to lack clarity about the terms they use. I once discussed the nature of subjective experience with a friend, a computer scientist, who full-heartedly denied its existence. I assume he is not a philosophical zombie, so where did the disconnect lie? I've observed that mostly the ego gets in the way in these discussions. I wouldn't be shocked if, upon careful reflection, many Functionalists and Physicalists found their views aligned almost completely with analytic idealism.
as human entity i can do whatever i whant depending on my conditioning, but i have no control over other humans at all, because humans are social and live in society 100%of our choices directed towards others, so, for what do i need free will if i am not able to control outcome? even on everyone conditioning, no body has control, the time, place, parents and type of society come already with birth, free will is joke
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
Bernardo, please dont stop doing what you are doing. You have had a considerable impact on my life and i'm sure on thousands' else. You are a modern prophet. Every epoch needs its prophets.
Thanks!
is it just me or does he have really tiny arms?..like a t rex
@@xrp589baby its cuz his shirt sleeves are so long lol
The best method of avoiding to get ‘derailed’ by misunderstanding such ‘philosophical discussions’ is to apply the beautiful Mahayana Buddhism approach of deeply focusing on loving kindness and compassion. Even if it might not be my free will to chose this approach, it is a powerful antidote against all kinds of ‘dark sides’ along the pathless path.
If you choose that path, that's free will. The idea that introspection grants no agency over choice is a complete contradiction. There is a no introspection if there is no free will. You can't look inward if there is no agent to look there.
@@powerandpresence5290 I guess that we have a very different understanding of 'determinism' and 'free will'. This would require very precise definitions. Mahayana Buddhism invests years of studies into the required clarity of words and at the same time to understand the limitation of words. Determinism does (to 'me') not mean that we are functioning like mechanistic machines. 'I' am able to apply introspection because 'I' have created the causes and conditions for this and introspection can create the causes and conditions for recognizing that which has always been there. Very difficult to discuss by using words and concepts embedded in space and time. I very much like the approach, Baruch Spinoza has applied to explain this subtle dilemma.
“Determinism versus free will is like debating if the number 5 is married or not”. I like that. Spinoza (if I understood him right) had a beautiful approach to this: Even though deeply positing ‘determinism’, he outlines that (by applying consequent reasoning) it makes sense to work on oneself’s causes and conditions to become open for ‘intuition’, his third type of generating knowledge. To some extent, this discussion is still on the ground of this reasoning, applying concepts of space and time, of cause and effect - being ‘tools’ of our limited conventional reality, while describing something (that is no a thing) about unspeakable and unthinkable ultimate reality.
TH-cam: "jay dyer free will."
When an awakened human is also a brilliant philosopher with an authentic heart this is a conversation we inevitably receive. As for me, I thank you.
What a great conversation. I love how Bernardo makes me, not so much think, but know something that seems to be so obvious. I remember about 15 years ago in my meditation room asking 'The Nameless One' why It needed us as it was every Omni- possible. The answer that came was 'I expand Through you, Consciousness cannot expand and experience 'Self' otherwise" So when Bernardo spoke about 'It playing itself out through our eyes... I loved that.
... Essentias' Foundationally serendipitasamally timely appearence, comes now, at the squidgy-fudgey, cross-over-mid-point, ending-beginning of, not only decades & centuries or milenial eons, but of actual astronomical & astrological ages, end of Piscies, start of Aquarius. This no time-timely-moment is a rarety for almost all of those alive & living through it. Bernados' hard-won philosophical views & presentations are what every previous civilization has had to deal with. Age after age, since time immemorial, has had to face & go through much the same crisis of meaning that we are fa😮cing, where nothing is certain or seemly concrete, but rather fluid & unsetalingly indeterminatable ...
@@peteraddison4371 I love every interview Bernardo has done (that I have been able to find) It was interesting to see the dreams that played out last night and the insights from those. Wonderful time of deep-deep self discovery and joy. Thank you for interviewing him
But if everything is strictly determined then this applies to all that Bernardo said and to how you loved what he said. Thinking that this is ok and better than wasting time worrying about free will becomes just another case of strictly determined thoughts and feelings. If everything we feel and think and do is strictly determined, then we can actually not determine anything, including whether or not we are strictly determined.
No more choosing things as being true or false, good or bad, just strictly determined perceptions and conceptions, aversions and conclusions, with strictly determined feelings about all those states and experiences. If you are lucky then by chance it will be xeh case that you are determined to be OK with this. I am apparently not lucky in that way and so will continue pointing out the fallacy of proposing something that undermines the possibility of freely evaluating what has been proposed.
@@morphixnm ... One partickely vexingly sticky view comes with a strangerly isolatingly tap of the spirit. Ones sense of self being cut out and away from the falsety premise of herd snuggely safety securitynesesity, and throwing in your lot aquiesent acknowledgy relieving trust, and-just, letting-go ...
@@morphixnm if you truly have the experience of freely evaluating what has been proposed, why should thre be any doubt as to the status of that experience? Do you need permission to freely evaluate it? Can somebody take that experience away? Do you have to defend that experience against some fallacy?
You see, there is nothing else but free evaluation. Even the idea that there could be something else, throws a shadow on the sincerity of the experience of it. Remark that Bernardo, throughout the interview has said that he is neither a believer of free will nor of determinism, because he finds the question of which is true, nonsensical. There is only one thing, the will of nature, which is by necessity the experience of it.
So, in that experience, you will find some ideas nonsensical and others very sensible. The idea that all there is, is experience of what is, could be found to be very sensible. It is sensible only when it is a pure expression of what is, but totally powerless to replace the experience it is an expression of. Truth is not an idea. All ideas that are meant to replace truth are nonsensical.
You could ask yourself, if your experience needs any validation to be true? If you do that, be sure that you include in your investigation any (subtle or hidden) validation (or lack thereof) already going on. If you do this, you are bound to open up to being OK with this. There is no choice. To even think that we have the choice between finding something functional (like free will) and truth, is an illusion already. We cannot not want the truth. That brings peace and happiness. Which makes you forget all about free will and determinism. It is inconsequential. But of course, in the global debate on it, you cannot not play a role, and so you talk about it, expressing that the debate is nonsensical. And just that little point, the point that Bernardo expressed throughout the interview, at different moments, is missed. It is the most consequential point, and yet it is considered inconsequential.
I cannot express how grateful I am to TH-cam's algorithm for suggesting to me that I might be interested in this channel, which it did last week with the video on Bernardo's choice of the ten books that smash materialism. (I got my copy of book #1 - Jung's Answer to Job - today.) Since discovering Bernardo, I make a habit of spending one or two hours a day watching his many videos on analytic idealism. His ideas give me great pleasure, even a sense of joy. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on what might happen to universal consciousness when the universe has played itself out as far as it can go, which I suppose would be when it has achieved maximum entropy.
And I'll stay away from Christopher Janaway.
Entropy would start to go down until in the process of contraction of the Universe it collapses to the initial singularity it all started with. Then - boom - the story repeats all over again. It's been happening forever.
The Universal consciousness would not be bothered, because it is in the state of Sat-Chit-Ananda, Being-Consciousness-Bliss, and any transformation happens to the Maya. Think of relative reality - our Universe - and absolute reality - the eternal Brahman who is dreaming of it all.
@@Михаил-д6х1з And I would add that in all of that, nothing happens. What Is is untouched because it is everything and nothing. Nothing ever ends, because nothing ever started.
Jai Jai Bernardo 🎉 Sometimes a video just makes me want to press the like button not once, but 20 times..! Bernardo's 'variable inputs' is like nature speaking it's own essence. It hits powerfully. Thanks for all you do. 🙏🏼
Lucky Number 7
Incredibly valuable conversation. Thank you for putting this out. Essentia is doing such important work in the world. Looking forward to what comes next!
Great dynamic between you two. Hans asks the questions I would ask, and Bernardo answers them the way I need them answered.
I garnered a few new anti-freewill inputs there, lol.
Wow! Bernardo is a visionary. He may be one of the most important teachers on the planet. I can't believe I listened to this whole thing and didn't get bored. He may be very far ahead of his time, but it is so exciting to learn about.
Gotta love TH-cam and this time and space to be able to witness these kind of conversations ❤🙏
I used to be so scared of this notion of "not having free will". Yet the simple realisation that the personal and "universal" will are one on the same thing is actually endlessly freeing.
You can still have separate will, and universal will is realised through the "voting" process; therefore your personal will is not canceled. Your free will can be not aligned with universal free will or it can - it is up to you.
Free will is an illusion and here is the argumentation:
From the lense of neuroscience:
Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science) participates in an experiment conducted by John-Dylan Haynes (Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin) that attempts to find the neurological basis for decision making.
Short summary:
The experiment explores the relationship between free will, decision-making, and brain activity. Marcus Du Sautoy participates in an experiment in Berlin where they have to randomly decide to press either a left or right button. Brain scans and computer records track when the decision is made in the brain and when the button is physically pressed.
The results reveal that up to six seconds before Marcus Du Sautoy consciously makes a decision, their brain has already made that choice. Specific patterns of brain activity can even predict which button will be pressed. This finding challenges the notion of free will, suggesting that unconscious brain activity significantly shapes our decisions before we become consciously aware of them.
The experiment also delves into the nature of consciousness. It argues against dualism-the idea that the mind and brain are separate entities. Instead, it posits that consciousness is an aspect of brain activity. The unconscious brain activity is in harmony with a person's beliefs and desires, so it's not forcing you to do something against your will.
Marcus Du Sautoy finds the results shocking, especially the idea that someone else can predict their decision six seconds before they are consciously aware of making it. The experiment raises profound questions about the nature of free will, consciousness, and the deterministic mechanisms that may govern our decisions.
From the lense of pysics:
In order to question the belief in free will, one can conduct experiments and contemplations. Take an action you are convinced you performed and reverse-engineer it until you realize you had no control over it. This leads to the conclusion that all actions in life are the same, and the notion of claiming ownership falls away, so free will is non-existent.
By 'reverse-engineering an action,' I mean tracing back the steps that led you to make a specific decision. Upon close examination, you'll find that your choice was influenced by a series of past events and conditions over which you had no control, and that your choice didn't originate from a single point. One could argue that everything originates from the Big Bang, making us essentially biological robots. This realization may prompt you to reconsider how much 'free will' you actually possess, as your actions are shaped by factors beyond your control, both in the past and likely in the future as well.
So you can summarize everything is a happening according to cosmic laws.
@@sdhetan3hetsa That is bs. All is undivided. There is no separate you and no universal. Both are appearances. If you can name, perceive, or conceive it, it is not.
@@Koort1008nope, God divided himself into souls (not everything) and souls participate in creation
@@sdhetan3hetsa What? That is the kind of crap religions teach you. What you are is that what God is and that is unknowable.
Great intro production and - always - EXTRAORDINARY insights from Bernardo🙏
One of the best interviews to date on the purpose of our life drawn out very nicely for a lay person in great detail. Thank you so much from a dedicated follower of Bernardo, Essentia, Swami Savapriananda, Federico Faggin. I feel so at peace with how my life is flowing these days.
I experienced loving this talk and feeling even more at peace, thanks for the input even though there was no way I would not get the input :)
This man spits nothing but wisdom, very intelligent beautiful mind
Just so grateful for the podcasters who feature Bernardo- a rare member of the Academy who has profound humanity, humility and generosity. The vast scope of his ideas are like rain on parched earth 🌏
Sounds like, sit back, relax and watch the movie of your own life play out in front of you. All the while feeling like you made all the decisions, whether you did or did not. Very interesting video indeed. ❤🙏
Good point. We can only function on the data we have gathered. The more we listen, the more input we can play better.
i don´t like that at all and i highly doubt that this is within univeral laws. There is a universal law of free will.
Thank you for this mind-bending conversation.
nice input variable
allowing Nature/Source/God to manifest itself through us... allowing ourselves, letting go of the habitual resistance to the majesty of Life, and therefore - also our own majesty... recognizing our origins. Source, one Being. Thank you for the interview, gentlemen!
Great video as usual. Also loving how Hans is stepping up EF's reach with these formats. Cool addition to the already excellent blog series!
Determinism comes through causality. Every person comes into the world as a causal event with a rule book ( genetical make up, status of parents, country of birth, education, religion, circle of friends, career, neiboughhood etc.). The path is now laid out, causal events will happen and your reaction to those events is already predetermined due to what has been laid out in brackets.
"There are paths that guide our way
rough hew them how we may"
thanks, so many good thoughts, and dear Hans, it is liberating to see you struggle to follow Bernados thought and how it exhaust you, bc then I am not the only one...
Best 80 minutes of conversation I’ve ever seen be played through me. ✨🙏🏼✨
What if the universe wants to experience what its like to be tortured, murdered, a drug addict, constant struggle or just terrible life experiences over and over again through me should I just accept that even if i don't want it? Should i just ignore my own suffering for the sake of another input feature to the model of the universe...
What you are experiencing is resistance to your current experience. You want something different then what you have right now. Just because life is deterministic, does not mean you should not try to make changes. Look at what is important to you, ask yourself is this really true and do some sellf exploring. Create some space in your thinking, leaning into being, have a broader vision then just your personal experiences and interpretations, widen your horizon. Is this going to make you happier, less suffering? Maybe, maybe not, you will not find out, unless you try
Had very similar thoughts watching this. My open letter to The Universe: Dear Universe, Despite the apparent computational irreducibility problem, I can tell you where you are going - nowhere. You keep going in circles. You are like a toddler at a stove, placing one hand on a hot burner, only to put the other hand on as well since you are too stupid to learn that suffering sucks. It's not that I think that my life is about me - I have suffered a lot, but I know it could be worse, as it has been for billions of lives before me. You don't seem to be able to learn anything, so why don't us do us all (thence, yourself) a favor and f 0 @ d already. - Yours Truly, just another Job
@@SG-uu7quwhy should I? I resist any unsatisfactory life experiences WE ALL SHOULD, fuck the universe.
I got an idea when listening to this presentation! That the sense of free will is like training wheels for human development. That it's needed for us to form individual selves and a society with things like laws and money. And then the next step in human development is the realization of free will as an illusion and it can be dropped when we have reached a certain level of individual and societal development.
Think the best way of condensing our wanting of free will is to view it as a desire for ownership over will so that, by extension, we also own the outcome. It's why this desire tends to also lead people who cave to it to a fear that giving it up will lead to immorality. They're already placing personal value on consequences and that is their motivation for doing "good", but they don't realize that that motivation can stand on its own if that is truly what they want. And the tendency to sacrifice this self honesty for an outcome shows that its their perceived ownership of it which is still taking precedent. Yet that attachment to ownership is the precise thing which leads to things like punitive justice over reform, pride for achievements over gratitude for the experience of being an organism driven towards its goals, blame and eventual demonization over compassion and eventual understanding... The most fundamentally moral thing that a metacognitive organism can do, in all cases, is to know itself. This includes the phenomenological practice of noticing what our desire for free will actually implies about our current priorities.
so good that you are doing this series...very helpful
18:48 Sam Harris isn't a materialist, he's metaphysically agnostic. I really think he and Bernardo could have an amazing dialogue. I'd pay money to make it happen.
I should add, it's wonderful to see Bernardo express the same ideas that I've been having myself for a long while now. No regrets, no guilt, but still personal responsibility.
If I identify as a separate self I seem to have free will. If I identify as consciousness itself (loving awareness eternal life) there is no free will.
There are many interesting observations and angles in this talk, but one of the most interesting to me is that you could reduce Bernardo's very technical and innovative message down to a very simple and ancient one. Namely, "life is the journey, not the destination." Or something similar. No?
Toward the end when they were talking about the violin, I was reminded of Joseph Campbell saying something like "life is a guy walking down 5th avenue trying to play Mozart on a violin... but he doesn't know Mozart or what a violin is."
But now I'm seeing... maybe I am the violin. "Let the universe play you." Fascinating.
or: the journey (life) is the destination
If « universe » can't calculate himself to « know » the future and just live the « present » is there a name for the « out of space-time entity « who contain all of this or it's the same universe (s) who have all the imprints of all but does not have meta cognition « doesn't care » and just move in a direction.
Loving all this content. Chicken soup for my soul at the moment.
"Why we want free-will so badly in the first place"
That's not where im coming from. I just noticed that i have free will and started using it more consciously. So, for me, it's not a matter of "wanting it so badly," as you've assumed. It was just a matter of observation and conscious application... repetition...experimentation... and realizing that free-will is actually extremely useful in a world where choices count.
A truly productive input for this organism. Thank you
What an incredible conversation. I have a question: If we are supposed to allow nature to flow through us and not fight it by asserting our "free will," how do determinists respond to individuals who believe that nature compels them to engage in behaviors that most people would consider immoral? For example, if a person claims to be determined to molest children and feels that by doing so, they are allowing nature to flow through them, and find those acts meaningful, would Bernardo argue that they were predetermined to have those desires? Furthermore, if that is the way nature is calling them to live, would he consider it a valid algorithm that should be encouraged to be lived out?
Bernardo contradicts his "just go with nature theme" and states, "We have a moral responsibility to keep the diamond in moral bounds." However, the question arises: who dictates what those moral bounds are? Who is to say whose behaviors fall outside of moral bounds? Could a person simply assert that they are "determined" to engage in certain behaviors, and believe that is how nature is expressing itself through them, part of the "unfolding," as a way to resist those attempting to keep the diamond within moral bounds?
I've been thinking this and saying this for 2 years now:- "Bernado is a Mystic speaking through the lenses of a scientist."
Very intense and meaningful contribution to the overall being/becoming/playing out" of nature
Looking forward to part 2!!
beautyful approach. Thank you
This was mostly my opinion since forever and in 2002 I was glad that this was mentioned in the Matrix 2 movie, when the Oracle tells Neo that we don't come her to make choices but rather to understand the consequences of them
Bravo guys, a pleasure listening to you Bernardo !! Let see if we meet someday?
We have choice, free will, in some areas so that we may learn and grow. If we make bad choices we suffer the consequences. Our intelligence clues us in, for the most part, to what the bad choices are. Sometimes our emotions or magical thinking make us think the wrong choice is the right choice and we suffer the consequences. We can keep hitting our heads over and over against a brick wall and the results will always be the same, unless we decide to stop.
Fantastic conversation, awesome content. Thank you.
Every definition of free will makes sense and is very meaningful except for the claim that there is an inner chooser who could have selected a different choice. That's the only one that is incoherent. Thus, all people who cherish free will can celebrate! You have countless definitions to choose from.
Why does one choice predominates above others ?
@helifonseka9611
For me the "choice" is just how we talk about a certain mind of process. Whereas free will people say they could have chosen otherwise.
Firstly, there is no individual, therefore there is no free will nor determinism. Only an illusion can claim free will. Only an illusion can claim determinism. What appears to happen, happens, but for no one. All is an appearance that appears to an appearance that appears to appear.
As the great Gurdjieff supposedly said "We have free will, but we have one foot nailed to the ground."
Why force a false dichotomy?
Free will is a construct. Thus it's meaningless to say that we have it or we don't.
Yes, experience/ witnessing is a key to experiencing meaning.
But the idea of free will is useful, even if we exercise it within a constrained system.
Free will in the way I think common people understand it, doesn't mean we think we will choose correctly every time.
The individual as a separate ego is a convincing illusion with the feeling that it actually is and that it has free will. Sometimes this illusion collapses.
When I remember correctly, Jung once proclaimed about free will; your free will is to follow (played by) your natural destiny, or to resist it. In my experience in-depth use of the oracle (I ching) can be helpful
somewhat decoding one's daemon.
I think Bernard would answer: the resisting is part of it, it's part of the will of nature, and your struggle is your contribution
What Bernard would answer I cannot foresee. My experience with the Oracle is
a slow diminishing of resistance in general., like a high tuning of your "instruments" (Kastrup). This results in what in Chinese
terms is depicted as Wu Wei, which I call the "flow", without much aplomb.@@mariekuijkenhistoricallyaw2598
I would love to see a discussion between Bernardo and Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche on analytical idealism and Madhyamaka.
Bernardo is fabulous modern nondual philosopher
Whether or not Free Will (whatever that is) exists is irrelevant to what is necessary for our lives as humans. Knowing the universe and your choices are entirely determined by physics, changes.....nothing.
love this! Thank you so very much!
These interviews is what I am missing after reading all the Bernardo’s books.
Thank you for a beautiful conversation!
I really like this video format. You are doing a good job!
I get what he's saying now. I think i finally get it.
Even if one realices that there is no free will, who is the one that realice it?
That one cannot be an individual mind (ego, alter), because and individual mind does not truly exist.
What truly exists is the undifferentiated field of subjectivity (consciousness), or the whole of nature.
So, it is the whole of nature that makes this individual mind understand that it has nothing and cannot do anything by itself, because it is essentially non-existence (as something different/separate from the whole).
Beautiful and profound variables shared 👏 Thank you !!
A wonderful conversation. So many potential links to Advaita philosophy, which could be explored in another video? Please continue to share these important discussions. Thank you!
Free will we have only when we are conscious enough at the moment to guide ourselves
I think it is something like that
any researchable research questions for a thesis im writing? please :) about the subject, fantastic talk btw!
Nice that you are wearing that tee shirt Bernardo
Nelson Mandela, when asked how he survived prison for 27 years said “I chose to be there every day”.
I read this many years ago and have been in pursuit of it.
It is not so hardcoded if you know what you should do, as a consius person you can do the oposit (we know that it is kind of a contradiction). We cant even calculate caotic models like 3 body problem, imagine a model over consiusness that we dont even know what it is, it is just silly!
You cant run gravity backwards and get a broken glass back!
We watch ourself that is very important.
One thing I don't get is the chip analogy. It seems to me that nature goes on doing what it does even without us... where did I miss the metaphor here?
Bernardo makes sense but I'm not sure I would agree. Thomas Campbell gives the idea that consciousness intrinsically has freewill and without it our universe basically becomes very limited. Free will gives arise to richness of possibilities that could not happen in a predetermined system. Why such a debate of free will if it doesn't exist? We don't argue so intensely over things that don't exist.
I like to take the words of Richard Ramirez AKA "The Night Stalker" when he said: "I believe in the evil in human nature. This is a wicked, wicked world and in a wicked
world wicked people are born. I'm not gonna blame society, my race or people or anything. It is up to the individual like myself to keep on knocking on whatever door they want to get into"
Even the most evil of human beings knows they alone make the decisions in their life.
0️⃣➕♾️=1️⃣ Zero Resistance + Infinite Attention equals Freedom
We are free to find meaning or suffering in that pre-determined experience
What song is being played in the background in the beginning?
I think studying quantum mechanics might change Bernardo’s view on randomness. It’s pretty established among physicians these days (based on empirical evidence from experiments) that Einstein was wrong regarding God not playing dice.
My will is freeish. It is bounded by physics and the instincts and limitations of being a human being. But this doesn't mean that there is no choice in anything. The problem about these discussions is that free will is an attribute of conscious beings and we know NOTHING, ZIPPO, NADA about consciousness so we have no chance of speaking intelligently about this subject. We don't know enough yet. We are basically talking about volcano gods because geology hasn't been invented yet.
I really love those - keep em comming! :)
Just once I’d like a philosopher to speak with a mental health professional about the development of choice.
Kastrup’s take, like most, is archaic and simplistic. If he is as serious as he says about seeking the truth, he’ll stop strawmanning this topic and start having genuine conversations filled with searching questions, rather than scripted responses filled with his own convicted prejudices.
In the light of non-duality and of Universal Consciousness everything is determined but from the standpoint of the individual, of duality, there is free will. Thus the function and necessity of morality. Morality only exists when you see the Universe through a key hole so to speak. From the determinist view a guru who teaches free will is teaching that because he is determined to. The only way to realize the reality of "no free will" is the recognition that our will is actually God's will. Swami Ramakrishnananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, explains it well:
God the only Doer, Swami Ramakrishnananda
The question was asked, "Can a man do as he likes?" The Swami's answer was "Sometimes he thinks he is doing as he likes, but in reality God is guiding all his movements. God is the only Doer, nothing is done by man." The devotee asked again: "Then what is the use of man's making any effort to be good or to realize God?" Swami Ramakrishnananda replied: "Your very nature is to act. Can you remain perfectly quiet even for a moment? The body is born to act. Your hands, your feet, your eyes and ears have a natural tendency to action. As long as you must act, you will want to do that which will bring the most desirable results; so long as you act, you will have to try to be good, to be virtuous, to be unselfish, in order to get the desirable results you are seeking; and since God is the most desirable result to be attained, you will have to strive to realize Him."
I think our capacity of understanding free will is too limited to make sense of it. To understand it we apply principles relevant to computation and observable physics, but it feels like these principles cannon be fully applied to "the mental essence" that manifests reality. So I respectfully disagree with Bernardo's take on free will, though I agree it's probably safe to say we don't have it to the extent many people think. My point is we can't make sense of "free will" with our human concepts, I'd bet the issue is far more nuanced than we think. I could be wrong though, I appreciate Bernardo's work on idealism and generally agree with his points.
Free will SEEMS limited because you CHOOSE not to use it
"In truth the ego has no free will, because there is no ego; but on the level of apparent reality the ego consists of free will. ~ It is the illusion of free will that creates the illusion of the ego." : From The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
if it is nature's will that we are all riding along on. It seems that
nature 's irresistible will is always trying to understand itself and to make itself better in doing that. What is better, though?
That's where we play a part? Our little bit of mental activity?
It seems that there are continuous chain reactions and containments going on and re configuring? We are the source of the chain reactions / ripples on the pond of nature? Other people's chain reactions affect ours? As a result of this.., something crystallises out? An idea? This either gets crushed or propagated? We are therefore integral in what happens. Like waves that are additive if they interact in certain ways, so are little bits of mental activity. If enough, similar ones coalesce, that becomes part of the driving force of nature.
In this sense, one good man can change the world, it seems...or one bad? Depending on what force is greater overall?
Maybe there is no good or bad, just learning.
Is there hope, though?
Hope that nature is good ( whatever that is) ?
The nature of nature is love?
Our justice system IS about punishment as well, it is a form of reparation for the victims or their relatives and it is needed to get support base for the legal system and the democracy by the people.
O Dr Bernardo tem e-mail pra contato?
Wouldn't they all that is have as a primary postulate - avoid entropy? The inverse of which would be be creative
This is great stuff!
Exquisite, thank you
Just like heaven.
Everyone has an internal moral dialog. To deny this is to deny the evident reality. We always have a choice.
Life and Will is Eternal,
try to Undertsand this,
before You get Lost in 'free will'.
Our choices are not what we are... our choices are not yet materialized in the present they are unfolding in the present and will only entirely "outfold" in the future [from our current or present vantage point] so for a choice to be a choice it cannot be manifest it only becomes manifest when the choice is made "the choosing now occurring is creating the choice to be set in stone and no thus no longer a choice but a decision a goal a happening. So our choices are not what we are... our choices are what we become....and what we choose determines what comes into being, or comes to be. Freewill and determinism are time dependent. Freewill is real and exists as to the future from the vantage point of the present choice. Determinism is real and exists as the present from the vantage point of a choice that has unfolded or fully "outfolded" as a decision.
A broken watch is still correct twice a day. A brilliant genius still can’t be right about everything 😆 I love you Bernardo but I’m afraid saying we don’t have free will is akin to saying we don’t have a conscious! It’s ridiculous! You’re experiencing free will right now.
I can tell at the end, you feel like you’ve actually realized this isn’t actually working.
Again, 100% love everything you do and you’re 99.9999999% perfection. But free will is what you are experiencing.
But you also talk about the idea of the universe must experience itself to know itself. Yours absolutely right. Your individualized consciousness is doing just that, traveling the roads of probability. Time isn’t real. It’s the paint on the wall of our experience. It’s no more real than the bars are in music. It’s just a guide.
Your frontal ego consciousness realizes that much, sometimes all, of your choices are made by the obfuscated conscious that you don’t identify with as closely. And so you misinterpret that as being a lack of free will.
I wouldn’t wash my hand for a week if I shook your hand, you brilliant man! I mean that!
Totally on board until Bernardo's take on moral responsibility-unless he's referring to a more superficial moral responsibility as opposed to what Galen Strawson calls "ultimate (or deep) moral responsibility."
It is amazing how Bernardo has the same thoughts and the same opinions that I have again and again. Like the revengeful justice system being Based on free will. I really think I never Heard him say anything I dont agree with which is spektacular.
Bernardo Kastrup, a scientist and philosopher, argues that free will is not necessary for finding meaning in life. Here are some of his main points:
- Free will is an illusion, as our choices are determined by factors outside of our control, such as genetics and environment.
- The idea of free will is a red herring that distracts from the true meaning of life, which is to bear witness and pay attention to the dance of existence.
- The meaning of life has nothing to do with making free choices, but rather with allowing oneself to be what one cannot help but be and choosing to do what nature demands.
- Reality is essentially mental, and consciousness is the underlying basis of the world.
- Materialism is a nihilistic view that provides no real meaning to life.
Kastrup suggests that finding meaning in life is possible without free will by embracing the idea that we are part of a larger consciousness and allowing ourselves to be what we are meant to be. He argues that the materialist paradigm is flawed and that reality is essentially mental.
Thanks Bernardo for your insight.❤❤❤❤❤
I have free will. I often do things or no reason at all. Of course some argue that I am some kind of a machine and everything I do has reasons/causes, but that is THEIR model for the universe and of human beings. It is possible we, and the universe, are like no machine that humans have ever imagined, or perhaps can ever imagine. Anyway, there is no way to prove there is, or is not free will (or perhaps other options we can not conceive of). So we will just believe without proof, whatever we individually want to believe. Probably there is no way ever to prove any of it. But who knows, maybe a way to prove it will come about. Right now there is no proof. Bernard just talks around the idea of free will, but does not establish by proof anything about it.
Life changing....❤✌
I totally agree with no free will. And, I used to work men who were violet towards their partners and saw themselves as being wound up and not the one in control. Following a conversation about whose fist, whose arm who drove the fist, that hit their partner, there would be a shift in their taking responsibility. Before they saw themselves as controlling the action, they had no ability to act differently. When they shifted to seeing themselves as responsible for the action, they could change their behaviour. My input shifted their input, not free will.
BK’s philosophy is as consistent as his political activism (both based on methodological cherry-picking). Lucky you if you get to see this comment, since BK is notorious for blocking/ deleting critics of his. Cheers
I agree that the traditional debate, framed by determinism vs. free will, is flawed. The definition of free will, viewed as independent of the universe's choice, seems nonsensical. There is a problem with concepts like consciousness, free will, qualia, etc. Many people, even those well-versed in related fields, appear to lack clarity about the terms they use.
I once discussed the nature of subjective experience with a friend, a computer scientist, who full-heartedly denied its existence. I assume he is not a philosophical zombie, so where did the disconnect lie? I've observed that mostly the ego gets in the way in these discussions. I wouldn't be shocked if, upon careful reflection, many Functionalists and Physicalists found their views aligned almost completely with analytic idealism.
as human entity i can do whatever i whant depending on my conditioning, but i have no control over other humans at all, because humans are social and live in society 100%of our choices directed towards others, so, for what do i need free will if i am not able to control outcome? even on everyone conditioning, no body has control, the time, place, parents and type of society come already with birth, free will is joke
No free will is context dependent. Free will means only making self decisions. You can not decide for anyone else but that does not inhibit free will
Brilliant. More!
Freewill is an illusion - I have experienced this fact.