Ep. 98 - "A Consciousness-Only Ontology" | Dr. Bernardo Kastrup
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Is everything ultimately mental? Do we even need a theory of a physical world at all? Dr. Bernardo Kastrup joins me again to talk about idealism.
This time, we go into great detail, both put our ideas to the test, and the result was one of my favorite interviews ever. I end up asking Bernardo some of the most difficult questions in philosophy.
Check out more at: www.steve-patte...
If you think this content is worth $1, please check out my Patreon page to support the creation of more videos like this:
/ stevepatterson
Or you can enter Amazon through: goo.gl/ftfFLg
Or, you can support with Bitcoin Cash: qp35pt4qlgskgg05zjuuy84udnnhw4ma7vrn05qjfz
It's wonderful seeing brillhant people like you two thinking outside the box. Finally it seems we have a chance of not spending eternity searching in vain for this thing called matter outside consciousness
watch your step on the way out.......
How are they brilliant?
0:00 Introduction: Can everything be Mental, no Physical world at all?
1:10 Grateful for a Great Conversation with Idealist *Bernardo Kastrup*
3:00 He Lives In A WormHole!
*Bernardo Kastrup*
3:44 Congratulations on your second PH.D.
4:44 History with ideas
6:40 Quantities (In The World) and _Qualities_ (In Your Mind) of Experience
8:27 Monism, One Singleness, Not Dualism
9:08 Started as a Default Physicalist,
Mother is Catholic
Father is Scientific, Logical, Reasoning
*Getting Into Objective Idealism*
11:08 All that we are gifted with is Experience, _A World Of Qualities_
11:27 We Infer A Physical World to make sense of it all
12:08 *_Problem_* The Hard Problem of Consciousness
12:46 Replace "The Physical World" With The World of *_Objective Idealism_* 14:10 First-Person Perspective
16:11 Interaction of Objects. 17:23 The Universe Is The Body of Universal Consciousness
19:34 You can't measure Brain Experience by measuring Physical Body Measures
20:23 The Rubix Cube is an Inanimate Object, It Doesn't Experience
22:00 Neurons make up The Brain, There is nothing it is like to be a cell, there is something to being Bernardo
*Universal Law*
26:13, 27:05 It's A Gigantic Neural Network, or at least appears that way
27:42 Dissociative Altars?
29:46 Laws Of Nature: Abstract, Absolute, _Unconscious_
32:30 That's How It Is
33:43 "Your own human volition is Metacognitive"
*Self-Reflection, Thinking About Yourself, What You Desire*
36:30 Steve = Substance Pluralist
44:00 Regular Experience = Mental Glue
45:20 "Being entails properties. Modes of Being. Otherwise it would be Total Chaos" 46:05
46:05 Reductive Physicalism
This is one of the top discussions of this Podcast so Far. 9/10, 4.5 Stars out of 5 Stars
51:00 Modern Quantam Physics.
51:45 Fields obey Laws of Physics
53:05 We have to grant Metaphysical Properties to The Mind
(I plan to finish this)
54:03 Observable Regularities
55:07 There is a Limit in a Mind’s ability to know itself
55:59 They’re speaking in different forms
56:45 We are meaning seeking animals, agnosticism is respectable, but we don’t want to stop there
*_Parsimony_*
Superiority/Inferiority (58:58 )
Why do we do this classification?
1:02:00 Experiences and The Physical World
1:03:12 Atoms ⚛️
1:05:04 A Matter of Scale
1:05:53 A Dynamic, Fluctuating, Busy, Vibrant, Animated Universe
1:07:18 Evolution and Survival
*_Universal Consciousness is All There Is_*
1:09:35 Solipsism is the Ultimate Doubter
- Presents Consciousness
1:11:50 Conundrums
1:13:28 Evading Parsimony ?
1:15:00 Matter = The Outer Appearance of Inner Experience
1:16:25 Metalogical Parsimony. Multiple Worlds = Multiverse,
Infinite Timeline ♾
1:19:23
*Something Exists*
_Let’s stick to what is Given_
1:20:10 How Many Categories Are There?
• Sight • Taste • Sound • Touch •Smell
All Consciously experience
1:23:30 An Axe is Meant To Be An Axe
To Be is To Be Like What You Are
1:24:45 Nature comes in many categories
1:26:18 Unification, Function, Mental Experience Output
1:27:17 *_At The End of The Day, All you Have is Experience, and everything else is theoretical inference_*
1:31:01 Core Subjectivity, Ipseity(?)
1:31:53 “We are like branches of a tree, but we share the root” that’s poetic
1:34:15 We are the carriers of Reality
1:35:30 We Are Everything, We Are Nothing
Thanks Michael!
Awesome thanks for taking the time putting that together! 👍
Thanks for breaking this down
@@StevePatterson heay man, Ive contacted you on twitter about your stream with dr Bret Weinstein, and "your" theory on what traits the education system selects...
Nice theory.., is it yours?
And were you calling me out in the last few minutes of the stream?
These concept maybe new to you but not to me, i have had confersations with dates and timestamps which anybody can look up😉
Do what you think you can....
Ps. My narcisist/psychopath and empath theory will also prove it👍, the small parts that some are trying to steal...
@@StevePatterson i will rewatch the stream again when i have the time, im thinking of making a reaction vid, but im not sure yet👍
My favorite dude in the world of intellectual monism. Bernardo!
I'm compelled to commend you, Steve, for having the patience to speak at such length with someone who's ontology contrasts with yours to the extent I imagine Kastrup's does. It's a patience I feel inspired to strive for. Despite my nearly entire disagreement with him starting from the point of initial premises, your willingness to give him a voice here and press him a bit on a few points along the way makes it easier for those like myself to get a bit of a better idea of where he and those who follow him are coming from. Thank you!
What a great conversation. You two should talk once every two months.
Great job excellent guest hes one of the future leaders in thinking as related to our deepest questions in life
Great job keeping the conversation flowing nicely
Providing pseudo Philosophical answers to unanswerable questions doesn't make you a leader in thinking...
You really want to check out Steiner's philosophy of freedom - he demonstrates that neither concepts nor pure experience are ontologically complete without the other.
This is why science is so successful in our investigation of "what exists". High standards of evidence verify our concepts and our pure experience (Cataleptic Impressions).
Kudos, Steve and Bernardo. This is the most important discussion on earth at this chaotic time in history.
Have you read any Steiner on the difference between percepts and concepts? His book "intuitive thinking as a spiritual path" would be the go for it. Even though he is a bit of an outcast for philosophy - but you like outcasts I think
Indeed, there was a point in the interview that almost begged for Steiner's epistemology (or should I say "ontology"?!) to enter centre stage.
Well Nobelist Daniel Kahneman has dismantled all claims about the epistemic validity of intuitive thinking. He earn the Nobel with his work(with late Amos Tversky ) on different modes of thinking and the unreliability of intuition even by experts.
At the end I will agree that intuition is a path to spirituality and that renders spirituality unsuitable for any epistemic claim about the ontology of reality.
Book:Daniel Kahneman -Thinking Fast and Slow.
This was fantastic.
Bless you Steve! On the cusp of a unitary experience. We are all appearing to exist in Mind.
I never heard Bernardo mentioning the work of Tom Campbell for his scientific work in idealism. I wonder if Bernardo finds his work and ideas valid. He does seem to support the work of Don Hoffman.
It was a real treat for my exploration of truth about myself.Thanks.
How can this be an exploration of "Truth" when every single claim is an unfalsifiable pseudo Philosophical construction?
Great dialogue. I am curious as to why Bernardo feels so confident in subtracting intentionality, relflection, deliberation etc. from universal consciousness when these are some of the most striking features of first-person, human consciousness. If first-person, human consciousness is ground zero for interpreting the world, all we experience, what exactly could be meant by a non-intentional, non-reflective, non-deliberative consciousness? If universal consciousness is so fundamentally at odds with human consciousness, and first-person consciousness is our surest guide to consciousness as such, how can we (why should we) even call this universal consciousness, consciousness?
I am not sure Kastrup's really understands what he is talking about. He doesn't even bother to define the concept and to compare it to the Scientific definition of consciousness. This is pseudo Philosophy.
Very good question and I totally agree. Also I think Bernado fails to account logically for his claim that only “life” (humans, animals etc.) have personal conscious experience but not the parts like cells that it consists of. Where does he then claim the boundaries are for consciousness to rise or appear and how? How many cells does there have to be before an embryo is “life” enough to start having a consciousness? Nobody ever presses him on that fallacy of his logical reasoning.
The closing comments he made are something that needs to be explained to everyone.
i find radical agnosticism to be the EASIEST position to live in day-to-day
you just have to accept that... “i don’t know for sure”
i have my theories and they work pretty well most of the time
but i certainly don’t need to believe that they are THE TRUTH... THE WAY IT REALLY IS
they’re just the best stories i’ve come up with... so far
here’s a link to an episode of my
gendo: tactical language podcast
the 5 stupidities of english
www.talkshoe.com/episode/4572581
the following two links accompany the second
of the five stupidities... reification
first is a template paragraph that you fill in
with 16 words from a list
of highly abstract words (reifications)
do it several times to get a feel for how it works
www.gendo.net/twm1.html
next is the same template
but filled in with “real” nouns
you’ll notice the difference immediately
obviously, there is some problem
with the noun structure of english
reifications carry NO specific reference
real nouns do
www.gendo.net/twm2.html
People justsy love to pretend to know things they don't know. It eases their existential and epistemic anxieties.
Thank you for all of your work! Your videos are very interesting! Please keep making more! All the best to you.
all we have is immediate sensory experience
and stories about my ISE
and stories about my stories, etc.
that’s it
“concepts” are stories in language
Well in Philosophy of science We have our Cataleptic impression that are informed by our sensory inputs. Then we direct our conscious attention to those cataleptic impressions and interpret them based on what we expect and what we experience.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 i have no idea what you're talking about
? how does it relate to what i said
@@heronstone immediate sensory experience = Cataleptic Impressions
Nickolas Gaspar ? well then, isn’t that (more or less) what i stated originally
? what was the intention of your post
@@heronstone to put it in an academic perspective.
We can consciously attend our Cataleptic Impressions or ISEs.
Going beyond them by assuming their ontology(by claiming to use logic) is an irrational pseudo philosophical practice.
This is why all philosophical worldviews (idealism, occasionalism,materialism etc) are indefensible irrational positions.
I like Kastrup a lot and I think his analytic idealism or "cosmic idealism" (the name Chalmers has given it) is a vast improvement on the fundamentally mindless universe that metaphysical materialism posits. And indeed, it has the excellent merit of not running into the so-called "hard problem", which, as Kastrup has pointed out, is merely an artifact of circular thinking. However, the idea that ultimate reality, or universal consciousness, is, to quote Kastrup, "low level instinctual experiential activity" (24:05), à la Schopenhauer's cosmic "Will", means that Kastrup's version of cosmic idealism falls prey to the very same objection faced by naturalism (the idea that nature is causally closed), which is roughly: Why should nature, or the universe, exist in the first place? This is because, on the face of it, the "Will", or universal consciousness, of Kastrup's idealism is no less contingent than anything else. But that reality should consist of nothing but contingent being/s is a metaphysical absurdity; it raises the question "why?", and only offers the the non-answer, "just is", or "brute fact". The solution to this for philosophers like Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas was to say (and offer an argument to the effect) that contingent being (nature) is an expression of, and so dependant on, ontologically transcendent necessary being (wajid al-wujud bi-dhatihi or, roughly equivalently, actus essendi subsistens). The trouble with Kastrup's idealism, on the other hand, is that it does not identify universal consciousness with necessary being (or, if you like, Atman with Brahman), but only with nature (that is, the totality of contingent beings); Kastrup's universal consciousness then, being contingent, is still on the same ontological level as nature (even if, at the same time, it completely embraces and subsumes nature as nothing other than its extrinsic appearance to dissociated alters of itself). This is actually very different to the classical forms of "cosmic idealism" such as Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism - or, for that matter, Neoplatonism - in which ultimate reality, or universal consciousness, is genuinely transcendent. Incidentally, this is also why Schopenhauer's metaphysics is not nearly as close to Vedanta as he apparently thought or suggested. I understand now why Kastrup describes himself as a naturalist; analytic idealism may indeed be described as a "naturalistic idealism". Although this certainly makes him relatively more "respectable" or "orthodox" (right-thinking and mainstream), it does not make his analytic idealism a better thesis.
Interesting comment. I agree with a lot of it. Someone ought to ask him about this stuff, but it seems that the majority of people he is interviewed by don't have the philosophical training or rigour to tackle some of these complex issues (which isn't entirely his fault, of course). I say that as someone who is VERY sympathetic to idealism.
That's why this interview with Stephen is probably the best one out there.
Just read his book "Why Materialism Is Baloney"
really need this podcast to grasp my head around this concept of everything being mental. I just can't conceptualise it however hard I try. And I've read the whole book.
Well most of his concepts are empty deepities based on bad language mode(Sophistry). So don't blame your self for failing to understand ideas that make no sense.
That happened to me for a while and, with continued reading and listening to him and others, it finally clicked. I had to go through the same terrain over and over again, though. You could also take his course, starting in January. Check out his Facebook page for more information. If having a solid position on metaphysics is important to you, I encourage you to not give up. Bernardo is the most important proponent of idealism alive today.
Thank you, great interview. Yes, we can only experience experience. And obviously only now, here.
Hazel Goodman
and yo made a nice theory about it...
those functions are inseparable in my experiences
lol nice.,..useless tautology. The issue is to answer HOW EXPERIENCES emerge. And then you need to understand why the experiences that we call physical display the qualities of empirical regularity and external limitation in relation to our mental experiences. Why do you experience only what exists but you don't experience Jaberfarger, Lamanasky and Perpinordy?....because they don't exist and our Cataleptic impressions don't register them at all mate...
Great guys! Very knowledge. They just step short in investigation the primary experience/asumption, the one of the I, the separate self. A little Ramana maharshi would maybe not resolve but reder most of their open questions as erroneous because they are based on an erroneous assumption and would therefore not arise if that asumption itself would be investigated. 😘
Philosophy is quite monetarily attractive in the West. It's not true in the rest of the world.
Idealism is wrong, but it is also irrefutable. Folks in CERN knows that. The are living in an alternate world captivated by idealism. Their world escapes the categories of classical and modern logic. As a computer scientist, Kastrup has a unique engagement with reality and his philosophy is a philosophy of his science.
If the rubiks cube doesn't have something like an experience, then how can it exists within the idealistic universe? It looks like a contradiction or at least an exception to the whole theory...
Have you got a video explaining your view of conciousness arising due to laws?
Never mind. Found it.
Can you please share it with me? :)
He asserted that the mind be an object by claiming "in- and outside it"
Very interesting. Excellent discussion. At 44:00 you talk about patterns. Can we also see it as habits? Like our human behaviour that always strives towards habitual behaviour?
I am not sure how to articulate this intuition but let me just say this: it seems to me at least questionable that cosmic consciousness- of which we are only a dissociated alter- understands 'itself' _less_ than we do. Somehow we can understand ourselves and the cosmic mind in a sense better than "God" himself/herself/itself. My consciousness, which is only split-off from the cosmic mind, is somehow more intelligent than the cosmic mind. Perhaps Kastrup is right but it does seem strange that I should have greater insight than the cosmic mind itself. Moreover, it is unaware of us but we are aware on it.
I commented separately: "The idea that the whole/God/the universe would not be aware of one insignificant person's thought, as it would be like an event within a single cell in my body... This would seem to be a projection of human cognitive and perceptual limitations? Christian tradition, if I understand correctly, has it that God is not only aware of but loves every sparrow..."
I think we are in agreement?
I can imagine a 'primordial soup' with an evolving mind looking around at the unaware matter from which it emerged, but Kastrup is supposed to be arguing against that physicalist paradigm, not proposing something analogous..?
@@FrogmortonHotchkiss Yes, I think we are in agreement. Moreover, I think that aspects of Kastrup’s theory are questioned by the NDE: individuality appears to continue into the next life and the cosmic mind encountered there appears to be not only meta conscious but also love. I think Kastrup is closer to Shankara but the NDE is closer to Ramanuja.
@@FrogmortonHotchkiss Yes, I do indeed. I’m mostly interested in the scientific study of NDEers, such as Dr Pim Van Lommel’s longitudinal study
@@bayreuth79 I find scientific study interesting to keep tabs on, but not to seek certainty and definitive answers. It's like the difference between an 'ignorant' ant and an 'educated' ant that has read a little ant-book. Mystical 'knowledge' seems to be something else. When I listen to people relate their NDEs, I contemplate how their descriptions of transcending space, time and individuality relate to my own here-and-now experience.
@@bayreuth79 You might like this talk. It explicitly mentions Kastrup and distinguishes his view from that of traditional Vedanta, which I would be inclined to follow rather than his view.
czcams.com/video/Cmtju1pUBLg/video.html
Is the unknown part of mind the space that generates experience that we interact with that psychologists would term the subconscious?
Simple answer to your 18:50 question:
If you were in a dream, and you saw a Rubik’s cube, you’d be looking at something that looks physical, but is purely mental. The Rubik’s cube would have experienced or even be an experience per se - but it would be inherently mental
1:20:30 - answer to your question: are red and blue different things? Or are they both aspects of sight experience?
1:34:00 - saying stars are stars is a mere tautology. When you call them stars you’re already saying they are stars - and then you repeat the claim that they are stars. That’s nothing. You know nothing else besides what you said when you first referred to them as stars. So, you don’t know anything by that statement.
I liked the conversation and i find Kastrup's model to have some beauty.
Nevertheless it didn't convince me.
1)There is no clear-cut correspondence between alters and 2nd person-point views. Are alters bacteria? If yes, is my hand which is made of cells part of my alter ,is it fragmented into many cell-alters, or part of the universe's total mentality? Also i don't believe that all body parts are the appearance of my consciousness. You can draw blood from an artery of my brain and yet, to an extend that a brain part is not affected, my consciousness will not be affected.
2)The 1st person point of view has less information than the 2nd person point of view, suggesting that we don't have a simple 1-1 correspondence.
The 1st person experience is a subset of the brain, that is, lots of this activity is unconscious. First, this suggests that not even the whole brain at any given time corresponds to experience. Looking at the brain, there is "more information' about you, with only a subset of it becoming experience for you.
Similarly, If the universe has similarly conscious experience which is a subset of its' unconscious mentality, then the 2nd person point of view of the universe-which is uncounscious is "richer' and "overflows" the consciousness of the universe. That is, the 2nd person point of view, is "richer" than the 1st person experience of the universe, suggesting that there is more to first person experience for the universe. The "Structure" of the 2nd person point of view seems to be richer and has more information than the 1st person point of view.
3)Moving around the universe's object would change the universe's mentality. This just seems to re-brand 'physical" as mental, since the causal aspect does job through physical means. Ofcouse, Kastrup could say that instead of spatial relations, there are mental relations that allow for this causality, but it seems word-playing at this point, baptizing the physical stuff as mental. This is the reason that this model can be interpreted as a neutral monist model in a better way ,than "idealist". Both "inside"/1st person and "outside'/2nd person aspects are real and possibly complimentary, but not identical. Despite that, it is not neccesary to pose 2 different substances, but could be viewed as two different aspects or properties (for a stronger view) of one thing.
All of the objections you raised, as reasonable as they are, demand that the consciousness model be understandable in terms of certain assumptions about the universe. The main hurdle being the belief that matter is fundamental, not consciousness. Therefore the objections are begging the question. 1 - Our body as a whole is the image (appearance) of consciousness. It's meaningless to fragment it into various parts and say this part is an appearance but not that part. Our hands are part of the appearance as is every other body part, including the microscopic parts. The alter is merely an analogy, not the model. Its purpose is to demonstrates that the aspects which are hidden from any particular point of view are still a part of the whole. 2 - There is not more information in the 2nd person perspective, there is only the division, differentiation, and fragmentation of the whole. The parts cannot supply more information than the whole. Depending on your perspective, you will either experience a bewildering array of information, or an integrated and undifferentiated whole. 3 - Moving objects around may or may not change the universe's experience, but that is simply stressing an analogy. We can come up with many analogies to describe what happens when we move objects around. Either way, everything still occurs within consciousness. There are not 2 substances, only 1 substance (consciousness) and an appearance (image)..
Fantastic thanks
Wow🌅you get a sunshine💚
Hegel and the gnostics already claimed all this in case no one noticed that BK is just rebranding them….
If it's all mental where did mental come from?
The hierarchy of awareness is a fractal scaling of event horizons.
Sarcasm is a high form of comedy
Anything that has permanence in state space relies on harmonic regularity.
Dennett would reply "empty deepities".
Would "consciousness only epistemology" not be a more appropriate definition ?
Not really, because idealism is an ontology. Meaning it's a view about what exists. Whereas epistemology is about knowledge.
Ontology is basically asking: what is it?
Epistemology is basically asking: how do we know?
So a consciousness-only ontology is a conclusion about an aspect of what it (reality) is (ontology), and epistemology would be an integral part of how to arrive at that conclusion.
Rasmus Enbom Dont you have to understand knowledge and define it before you can claim anything exists ?
@@highvalence7649 Ontology and metaphysics in general is what we do to form questions. If we answer those question then they become our epistemology.
A verified ontological explanation is part of our epistemology.
@@Mandibil I don't know. Good question. Do you think so? If you do could you say more about that?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I don't really see that. Could you say more about that?
The idea that the whole/God/the universe would not be aware of one insignificant person's thought, as it would be like an event within a single cell in my body... This would seem to be a projection of human cognitive and perceptual limitations? Christian tradition, if I understand correctly, has it that God is not only aware of but loves every sparrow...
Right, "Consciousness Only exists", but be careful in using the word "mental"! Pure Consciousness "In-Itself", is the Essence of Bernardo's Idealism but it's not new. The most eloquent proponent of the Consciousness only philosophy was Shankara (788-820). His Advaita Vedanta states that the entire universe IS Pure Consnciousness. However, to directly experience that, one must use certain methods developed by the ancient Buddhists and Hindus designed to enable one to enter in a non-dual state that transcends the mind. Logic and mathematics won't get you there.
i love Bernardo but WAIT! how can the Universe have a simple mentality and have put together all the cosmological constants? these guys have it in reverse. the universe is all knowledge. WE ARE THE DEVOLVED little pieces that are primitive.
Bernardo, why can't we be disassociated and still connected? We are never disassociated.
Yes, I agree, and it's the one topic where I think Bernardo has gone slightly wrong in his theory of everything. It makes little sense to me that we the tiny disassociated processes would be capable of greater foresight, insight and self-reflection than the entire freakin' universe. Bernardo is often quick to decry arrogant anthropocentrism but I think he's falling for it himself here, by giving humans mental powers greater than the universe itself. Ultimately I have to chalk it up to his metaphysical/religious reluctance to accept that mind at large basically necessitates a monotheistic belief in God. So he tries to explain the universe as being instinctual rather than deliberate. But it seems like such a tortured stretch to do so, and much simpler and theoretically beautiful to just accept that (a) God mind must be actively running the universe at some level.
I think the reason why he says its more instinctive is because it doesn't change on a whim (like our thoughts can). I think what he's saying is, essentially the universe is thought, but its stuck in a pattern, which is pretty much how instinctive thought works. I'm being fairly simplistic with the wording just to make the point succinctly. How it came to be so instinctive could be down to the state of its initial conditions, making it inevitable that it would become locked in a certain set of routines. It may have started more freely, but then became locked in place as it built upon itself. Also, if you can say that it has DID, then maybe you could take it further and say it also has OCD :D
Knowledge is not an intrinsic feature of the Universe. Knowledge is an abstract concept of how we use things we record in nature. So it's observer relative....i.e. when you drop a pen, the pen doesn't do any mathematical calculations in order to follow a trajectory. We as thinking agents record the characteristics of the forces and can describe the phenomenon through mathematical formulations.(Newton).
We are not "devolved". We evolved from the properties of the structural elements of the universe.
Kastrup's and your ideas are products of Magical Thinking and bad language mode.
@@meerkat1954 only one topic? His ideas are disassociated from a meaningful epistemic framework that we could act upon and produce testable predictions and technical applications.
Unfalsifiable pseudo Philosophy is not Philosophy.
@@Daysdontexist our brain (conscious states) informs us of what exists. All our thoughts (even our ego) are a product (good or bad) of what exists.
In order to be aware of anything something must exist in the first place. Existence (independent of all ontological speculations) is primary.
So pluralists exist...
Perception divides the holomovement.
Does this mean universal consciousness is evolving?
I would think the content of mind is and perspective in general, but I think the condition of mind at large is as always is, that being pristine, formless, ever present.
Instead of natural laws use the concept of habits... universe is volitional AND habitual.
The more something happens the easier it can re-occurs... habits build up. More and more and faster and faster is the game.
Absolutely adore Bernardo, but does he, like many of us, want his cake and eat it too?
How so?
If it's evolving then it must have had a beginning.
Hi Steve, your questions are too, too long. Put all the knowledge, you are always trying to show, into your questions, into the first part of the question. 70 % of your questions are unnecessary shows.
I love theories like this. We don't understand consciousness, so obviously it must be MAGIC! There is no hard problem of consciousness. Nearly every day the pile of evidence gets higher pointing to consciousness being nothing more than an emergent process of a sufficiently complex system. But, by all means, keep grasping at your magic of the gaps nonsense.
I don't think you understood what he said...
Where is this magic pile of evidence you claim?
A Typical materialist defensive response. Where is this emergent process taking place if you claim it is coming from the brain then you are busted because it's well documented in the medical literature that there are people born without brains this congenital condition is called extreme hydranencephaly and you can see the brain scans of such people at the link below.
These people have no cerebellum, no amygdala, no corpus callosum, no pineal gland in short no definable brain structure. So pray do tell where is Consciousness emerging from?
blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/07/26/is-your-brain-really-necessary-revisited/?fbclid=IwAR1qoBK0EhiDE1m7UXLR4ePyoUx7HL9KQEVtYuOYlm0clVs31isIxNFUTSM#.XWzmY0co-Ul
“If the body came into being because of consciousness that is a wonder, but if consciousness came in to being because of the body this is a wonder of wonders.”
The Gnostic Christ The Gospel of Thomas
@Sam Rowbotham
Did you even read the article you posted? it actually contradicts what you are trying to show!
"Therefore in my view, these cases probably won’t require us to rethink neuroscience, although they do raise the issue of how much white matter is necessary. It may be that much of our white matter is redundant"
Talk about a self-own!
@@Dhorpatan Yes I read it and he is saying that objects in the world are symbols that are hiding the True nature of reality from us. You don't need to be any kind of scientists to understand that.
It does not contradict anything I have said.
If consciousness is all there is, and humans are in that universal matrix of consciousness, then
calling human beings 'alters', doesn't explain the phenomenon responsible for that dissociation.
Because, unless some other ontological category existed, the 'alter' theory, doesn't explain the idea of a boundary in any meaningful way. If there is a boundary, in what does that boundary consist.
If there is only mind, then a boundary between what and what. If we posit only a single substance, mind, then how could there be a boundary, between an 'alter', which is mind, and universal consciousness, which is also mind.
The 'alter' theory does not offer a plausible explanation for the cause of dissociation of the alter.
At least if we posited the existence of another ontological category, such as matter, it would readily provide that boundary and at the same time provide an explanation of that boundary. Matter at least would provide an explanation for the boundary and separation of one person from another, by means of a physical body, which also conforms
to our experience.
@@JAYJAYBEBE A whirlpool is an emergent phenomenon product of an existing process.
You can not override existence..its primary no matter how your supernatural metaphysics wanna call it!
You,as an existing entity talks to John (not to fourdelarezupe or call it whatever you like) because he exists too.
In order to interact with him...like you do through this youtube thread...you will need to perform some actions that are registered as Physical Impressions.
"Physical" is a descriptive term not an ontological claim. We use it to distinguish our physical impressions(products of actions) from our mental impressions(thoughts and dreams). You can many any claim you want about their underlying ontology but you are unable to provide sufficient, necessary and objective facts about it.
This renders this "theology" irrational by definition.
Pair up and write a book...you’re still infinitely far away from actual truth and real , fundamental explanation as apposed to derivative models and human, developed, conceptual reflection...imagination always infers, this is a supreme paradox...start with language, because that is all that is happening here...go backwards, and consider human development from conception, consider the level of nervous system development at birth, consider how human development unfolds, consider that perception and language is mostly hardened at each level of development, and that the hard physical and metaphor are the imperative anchor...this is only the beginning
Is Bernardo a theist?
Not in the conventional sense
Why pseudo philosophy is so appealing to people? Maybe because it pretends to have comforting "answers" for our existential and epistemic anxieties.
Have you experienced psychedelics?
@@carrot8687 are psychedelics illegal?
Is it only "pseudo" because, as a philosophy, it doesn't resolve your particular anxieties?
@@geralddecaire6164 of course not. Its because we distinguish Philosophy from pseudo Philosophy by using specific criteria. This ontological concept of reality is a Philosophical ectroma
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Ontological discussion is an abortion of philosophy? Ontology inferentially seeks to understand the fundamental nature of the universe by referring to the hard data. Sounds like you're either arguing for a logical positivist position which, for the most part, was discarded by serious thinkers a long time ago, or a phenomenological position that maintains there is no truth. Either position is bullshit and no less presumptuous than any other ontology. If you really understood Kastrup and his more parsimonious approach of referring to an alternative paradigm or premise in his argument, I doubt you'd be so quick to write him off as some charlatan
I would call him a spiritual materialist. Essentially what happens when you spiritualize materialism. Still no meaning to the universe, just a dumb flux of stuff.
I agree with your description that he's a spiritual materialist (or idealist materialist) but on your point about meaning What sort of view is required for us or you to have the sense the universe has meaning?
Even kastrup cant create a thought. So our logic, rational 'reasoning' flies out of window. We cant reason.
Idealism is easily refuted.
Same with that.
The claim that idealism is easily refuted is easily refuted. Is consciousness experienced..? Yep. Is a fundamental substance outside consciousness (aka matter) experienced..? Nope.
@@MidiwaveProductions " Is consciousness experienced..? " -- Nope, consciousness *IS* experience.
Not by you. People like Dan Dennett cannot refute Kastrups arguments so you have no chance of ever doing so.
@Midiwave Productions
*"Yep. Is a fundamental substance outside consciousness (aka matter) experienced..? Nope."*
The above is question begging. You don't realize that the above is predicated on a certain position of perception. Which is called the Idealist view of perception. You need to show why the Idealist view of perception is correct and all other positions on perception are wrong for the above to be correct.