ICIS #95 A Conversation With Bernardo Kastrup
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2024
- After having met and dialoged with Michael Levin (episode #94) I asked Bernardo if he was up for a conversation about a few matters, he graciously said yes. This was an off the cuff interview on my end, I hope it was handled well.
Thanks to all of the new subscribers and thanks to all of the longtime subscribers as well.
Bernardo's links:
www.bernardoka...
/ bernardokastrup
www.essentiafo...
The reaction of so many mainstream scientists and so-called intellectuals to Bernardo's ideas is proof positive of what I came to recognize late in life that, as Max Planck accurately noted, science progresses one funeral at a time. What's truly astonishing is that some are so trapped within their ontological framework that they can't even fashion probative questions for Bernardo. I'm thinking specifically of his interview with Michael Schermer.
Michael Shermer is one of the most close-minded intellectuals in the mainstream. But people like that are literally everywhere in academia and science. Everywhere.
I was listening to Shermer and Rupert Sheldrake yesterday and just shaking my head the entire time, cause Shermer, like so many, was either just being way to skeptical of Sheldrakes ideas and studies (even though there are also “replication crises” in other fields that Michael isn’t skeptical of) or just being a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic. Now, is he smart? Of course! What people like Bernardo and Rupert Sheldrake and John V (check out John Vs convos with Bernardo!) have are a lot of wisdom AND intellect. People like Shermer have intellect and very little wisdom. Then people who have tons of wisdom without the intellect, like some legit gurus, are often great but you can’t take what they say as literally true, usually only metaphorically true.
Anyway… amen to what you said. Preaching to the choir 😉
I couldn't even bring myself to watch the Shermer Sheldrake conversation. I like Shermer as a person, but I think his brand of skepticism is dated and dogmatic. Thanks so much for watching!
I love Rupert but when he goes off and talks about the sun being conscious I can't relate. So, I almost didn't watch the conversation because of him. I ended up watching it, though, and it was actually pretty good. I think Shermer's softening up, at least a bit. But, of course, his whole identity is wrapped around his "skepticism."
Shremer isn't sceptic not one bit 0%
He is conformist 100%
@@bornatona3954 Agree. There's a guy on the interwebs who calls this type, a "Social Skeptic". theethicalskeptic.com/tag/what-is-social-skepticism/
Thank very much for posting! Bernardo is a brilliant thinker
Thanks for watching!
While I think Bernardo is our best living philosophy communicator (if not philosopher full stop), it definitely looked to me that he came out with his normal fairly confrontational style and when Tim matched that energy he kind of lost his cool. It's odd considering how often I've seen Bernardo clash with other personalities in a more measured manner. I figured that it was just a mood or bad timing, but it seems in this interview that he still feels personally disrespected.
That being said, this is a great interview and you're one of the few interviewers that can keep up with the professional nomenclature that Bernardo uses and youre familiar enough with hos ideas to ask poignant questions. Great stuff.
Addition: Just realized this is the same channel that had the Kastrup/Levin interview. Two bangers in a row. Easy sub.
Thanks Travis, I appreciate the sub and comment!
Thank you for sharing these conversations, Bernardo is incredible.
Thanks for watching Justin!
Keep up the spontaneous conversations! I am grateful for Bernardo’s work and insights into how it all fits together.
His contribution comes from a scientific perspective that concurs with non dual thought.
I just listen, contemplate, and learn. ❤❤
Thank you very much for watching and commenting!
Beautiful conversation, thanks for sharing.
We need to be humble enough to recognize all ultimates as mysteries. The problem with materialism is that they say "NO" just because their own paradigm cant understand what is not essentially material, which is everything at the core.
As Bernardo says, materialism is a representation, but it is not the source. Physicallty is the appereance of what is metaphysical, but denying the invisible is being blind.
Agree, thanks so much for watching!
Your phrase "their own paradigm" is so important when trying to explain idealism to others, especially those that never "think" about philosophy in their day to day lives. Thank you for stating this.
I often compare it to how random or weird people sound when then are speaking to you in a foreign language you are oblivious to. It may seem absurd. But take the time to gradually comprehend the language and you can eventually obtain the ability to communicate with them too. The same is true between idealistic and materialistic people.
@@craigbowers4016 Thanks for your comment!
Bernardo touches an important understanding here. Thx for platforming Truth!
Thanks for sharing! BK is always great
Thanks for watching!
Thank you, very interesting content..
Thanks for watching!
Love Truth above All Things ❤️
Accept and Thank the Suffering 💚
(from the knowledge of truth)
Confront and Illuminate Malevolence 💜
Tirany is the Seed of its Own Destruction !!!
The Ends Never Justify the Means
The Means Always Determine the Ends
From the UnConscious Hell ❤️
To the Conscious Hell 💚
Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜
Stay Awake Not Woke ❤️ 💚 💜
There is no One so Intelligent capable of Be a Complete Lie And
There is no One so Enlightened Being capable of Be a Absolute Truth
As All and Each One of Us are the Reality of the Spirit-in-Action and the
Translater of the Personal Experience ❤️💚💜
The advantage Bernardo has over other contemporary philosophers and scientists is his knowledge of and personal application of psychoanalysis. He does some good self reflection here and acknowledges his shadow, to borrow the Jungian term. However, I think his use of the phrase “grotesque theoretical fantasies” still set the tone for the “silly” response from Maudlin. All that said, BK still earns the title for most respectable and compelling philosopher of the day, in my opinion. Keep up the good work, Bernardo!
An Insult can Provoque an InSight
If We are in a Real Dialectical Conflict
I would like to see a trialogue with Bernardo, David Chalmers and Sam Harris. His come a long way since I asked him to appear on Evita's podcast several years ago.
The universal consciousness wants you to setup a conversation between Bernardo and David Deutsch
That would be interesting for sure!
I'd love to see a conversation between BK & David Albert. He's always seemed to me to also be an extremely clever guy who is not only educated in physics but mostly doing philosophy & is also a top name regarding "foundations of physics".
Thanks for passing along David's name. I will see if I can arrange this next year.
@@ideacastilluminate Yup, even alone would be fine too. I was aware of him for years but was really impressed with his multi-hour discussion mostly about QM with Sean Carroll like a year or 2 ago.
@@realcygnus Thank you, I'll pin this suggestion!
The Simple Prof that
Nothing came from Nothing
Is the Expression of Order
I Am the Whole
I Am the Whole
I Am the Whole and
I Am not the Nothing
I Am Peace I Am Love
I Am the Fury and I Am the Rage
I Am the Lover CareGiver ❤️ 💚 💜
I Am the Fury that Veils the Sacred
TBH I was rather disappointed that Bernardo let Tim trigger him so early on. Not that he never claimed to be "enlightened" & immune from emotions or anything. Although both of their endeavors(BK's Essentia Foundation & TM's John Bell Institute) seem to be quite similar on the surface, IMO there is a certain sense in which they are polar opposites, where Tim is literally "the face of/embodiment" of exactly what BK has been battling from the very get-go.
I agree, it would have been interesting to see some reasonable exchange between them, alas.
I find Tim confusing. He is so conceited that he cannot handle being completely wrong without experiencing emotional doomsday. So, he behaves the way he behaves... He is (subconsciously) defending his errors by attacking...
Give Spiritualists the Legitimacy to Answer Contempt Provocation ❤️💚💜
As I understand it, IIT has panpsychistic implications, suggesting that consciousness exists to some degree in all physical systems, albeit to varying degrees. This means that everything, from humans to animals to inanimate objects, has some level of consciousness.
Therefore, I would find it very interesting to hear how Bernardo integrates IIT with Analytic Idealism.
It'll be interesting to see how he works with IIT. Thanks for commenting!
BK states that he intentionally uses provocative language to reflect the attitude that materialism has historically taken toward idealist approaches. In my experience, the use of provocative language, whether spoken or written, is not helpful in a scientific discourse. The failed discussion with Maudlin is a good example.
Towards the very end, BK states that some of the old guard in academia too are starting rethink old assumptions. Who do you think he may be referring to?
As always, great questions and conversation. Cheers!
Thank you very much for watching, I will ask him about that if I can get him and Michael together for another conversation.
David Chalmers is moving towards Idealism.
@@samrowbotham8914that’s a substantial pillar. Thank you.
penrose
@@goldwhitedragon that’s huge.
Consciousness is the Whole
Or maybe better... UnConsciouness
Mind is a Bubble of Consciousness Identify and Differentiated
From the Whole
Bernardo's use of the phrase "the real world" is a bit confusing, as I think that when people in everyday life use this phrase, they are referring to an experienced physical world, while Bernardo here is referring to that which is represented.
don't worry Bernardo i know you are not right in your sithlib politics : P
Oh no, this boring guy again...