Відео

Yes, 'spontaneous' knowledge through intuition rather than deduction or observation plays a central part for the mystics. I don't know much of Bruce Lee's understanding - did it has to do with 'bodily intuition' about how to react in a particular situation, or was it about being in general?

Originally, I used my own bookcases at home as background in the videos, but for practical reasons I moved the recording to a used book store (which now constitutes the background in the videoes). My own 'library' contains a lot of philosophy books, among others (if you are interested, I can list some of them), but most of the books shown in the videos are simply random art books, if I recall correctly (that section was they best spot in the book store for shooting the videos :-D )

Yes, that is definitely a possibility. The question is then whether we should stop trying to understand these things given that possibility.

I think it's fair to say that these are exercises, and they sometimes bring us closer to an understanding. But we must really understand how far we are from actual knowledge of the immensity of everything.

Interesting - thanks!

Yes, if the NDEs are taken to express actual reality they seem to indicate that.

Thanks :) I has been a while, but I plan to do some more videos soon

@@thenatureofreality2100 that's great. Excited to tune in. You have a rigor that stands out

@@hiyoowihamainza949 Thanks :) Well, I do try to maintain a bit rigor (at least in the 'advanced' videos)

Well, you've got your share of it in this video :)

Yes, hard core materialists would probably say that. Many materialists do acknowledge the problem of consciousness though, I think - some believe it will be solved eventually, while others view it as unsolvable. But for some it perhaps leads to a more open approach on the question of the nature of fundamental reality :)

Explain anything without reference to actuality and you have explained nothing. Only to put labels on idle dithering.

Yes, that is quite interesting. It could indicate either no experience or just no memory of it.

Yes, Pam Reynolds is another very interesting example - these are both examples of (some kind of) verified experience occuring at a time where brain activity was monitored to be absent (the only two examples on that I know of), which makes them extraordinarily intersting.

Interesting example :) Yes, the problem of the interaction between the mental and the physical does seem perplexing indeed.

Mange tak :) Ja, der er nogle forskellige problematikker i forbindelse med den materialistiske position (hvis du er interesseret har jeg skrevet nogle artikler mm. i den retning - der er også lidt (dog ikke 'hård' fagfilosofi) på min anden kanal 'Nikolaj Pilgaard Petersen') :) Det er David Chalmers - han skriver: "No position on the mind-body problem is plausible. Materialism: implausible. Dualism: implausible. Idealism: implausible. Neutral monism: implausible. None of the above: implausible. But the probabilities of all of these views get a boost from the fact that one of the views must be true." (D. Chalmers, ”Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem," in W. Seager (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism (2019), p. 370)

Thanks - glad you found it useful :)

Haha, thanks for the info. And thanks for the thank you :)

@@thenatureofreality2100 ❤😊

Thanks :) It is David Chalmers - he concludes: "No position on the mind-body problem is plausible. Materialism: implausible. Dualism: implausible. Idealism: implausible. Neutral monism: implausible. None of the above: implausible. But the probabilities of all of these views get a boost from the fact that one of the views must be true." (D. Chalmers, ”Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem," in W. Seager (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism (2019), p. 370)

Just going on studies :) Haven't had any such experience myself.

Yes, it does indeed seems like a rather improbable explanation.

Thanks :) And welcome to the channel :)

Thanks :) That is a part of the game, I guess - hopefully it will improve a bit over time :)

Glad you found it to be useful :)

Thanks :)

Thanks :)

Thanks - glad you liked it :)

Yes, objective experimential data would provide a strong argument. It is hard to get, though - these kind of experiences are difficult to examine in controlled scientific experiments. The AWARE study continued, though. A research paper on the second batch of results is about to be published, I think.

@@thenatureofreality2100 yeah... n nice!

Yes, such cases are very interesting indeed and does point towards plausibility of the view that there is actually something about the notion of a continued existence after physical death. Research have been done for several decades, but is is hard to obtain data under controlled scientific conditions (although modern studies such as the AWARE study do seem able to provide such data).

@@thenatureofreality2100 You don't need controlled scientific conditions, there are far too many real life experiences that are already documented. People seeing things that actually happened and hearing people say things that actually happened that are impossible in our existence.

@@thenatureofreality2100 Yes, it does.

@@robertbrown7470 LOL of course you need controlled scientific conditions, or you simply accept anything anybody says? That's why "hearsay" is not allowed in a court of law, because it can't be verified, just like these cases.

Thanks! :) You are not the first who mentions that, so I am currently looking into it. Have bought an external microphone and plan to use it for the next recording (the next video has been recorded already, but after that one hopefully the audio will be improved a bit :) ) (As for donations, very kind of you :) I have a Patreon - link in the description - but there aren't really any special content, so that is only for those really interested in supporting the channel :) )

Haha, thanks for the kind words :) Well, I probably don't do videos often enough to really satisfy the algorithm (they take quite some time to produce since English is not my first language). Also, UA-cam is a rather competitive space with a lot of great content. But sounds like the videos reach at least some of the people who might find them of use :)

@@thenatureofreality2100 I certainly find them of use 😊

A good point. Within a materialist framework, neo-darwinism is the best available explanation. If one aims for different types of explanations, the metaphysical premise will probably have to be changed (i.e., no fixed premise of materialism - there are some interesting theories on evolution if e.g. metaphysical idealism is not excluded beforehand).

Interesting! I have seen something along some of those lines in the psychological research on happiness, but some of it are new to me. You are very welcome to post the studies - it would be interesting to read them. Thanks :)

Nice proverb :) Yes, you can definately change if you will it. A determinist would propbably argue, though, that there are underlying reasons or causes that determines whether you even wish to change or not in the first place. That is, that even your will to change is determined by something outside your will. That is still under the assumption of determinism, of course. It seems to be exceedingly hard to prove either of the positions of determinism or genuine free will.

@@thenatureofreality2100 True. It's come to my view though that life is a bunch of paradoxes and contradictions. Just one or more things contradict doesn't necessarily mean one is right it wrong.

You could be right maybe what we call hallucinations are more varied in scope. And that NDE are the same. I do wounder if these OBE experiences are part fabricated memories and part dreams.

That is as likely the case. In those initial stages of death, the body is responding and cell death most certain in not immediate. Likewise the brain will be responding is a manner that ease the process, even make it quasi-enjoyable, or at least not so traumatic.@@restorationofidentity

This doesn’t explain all the accounts of nde’s that experiences during the nde that can be verified, even from outside the room the body was in, that the person had absolutely no way of knowing. Is every single one of these claimed experiences a hoax? Only a single one needs to be real to negate the idea that consciousness originates from the brain and is dependent on it completely.

Frankly, the vast majority can be attributed to the body's processes and the manufactured memory. Very, Very few if any of these NDE accounts can be validated as actual. If anything they are the physiological process of death itself and the endorphin rush to ease those final moments. Likewise, time and time again, anecdote is not proof, and just as eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable in court, memory too is fickle and largely fabrication.@@CampingforCool41

Yeah, the technical side is perhaps somewhat lacking - thanks for the input :)

Do you have any particular questions that you would like answered? :)

Yes, I have recently lost my grandmother. I wd like to know is there any life or anything else after death? Will I meet with her again? Is astral projection true', And many more questions I have If u patiently help me to get out this answer it will be helpful for me. Thanks in advance. Love from India ❤

Interesting book - thanks for the link :)

Thanks - glad you enjoyed it :) (And all types of input are welcome :) ) I have included a few references during the video. Otherwise, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is excellent to get an overview of the academic debates (also debates on Kant). Criticism of naturalized epistemology, e.g., Plantinga, Alvin (1993): Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford: Oxford University Press and Nagel, Thomas (2012): Mind and Cosmos. Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lowe gives a general defense of metaphysics as traditionally conceived, including a short criticism of Kant, in the introduction in Lowe, E. J. (2009): A Survey of Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I think the term 'metaphysics' is sometimes used more broadly now than it was earlier (see, e.g., the discussion of 'old' and 'new' metaphysics plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ ). For the 'aristotelian' view in contemporary (meta-)metaphysics see, e.g., Tahko, Tuomas E. (2015): An Introduction to Metametaphysics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (or Tahko, Tuomas E. (ed.) (2012): Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for a more in-depth discussion )

Yes, when the Theory of Evolution is examined more closely, that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable conclusion :)

:)

Yes, that is indeed a possibility :)

Yes, you are right it is not a logical proof - it is simply a model af reality that avoids major problems other positions or models face, thus (arguably) making it attractive. The problem you mention is pretty much the decombination problem, I think - how to divide a single consciousness. The approach in this model to avoid that problem is to posit not a fundamental consciousness that simultaneously is a multitude and a single mind, but a fundamental substance that is that which experiences - not a consciousness per se. The EICO structure is what 'separates' into individual consciousnesses - consciousnesses don't come into play until at that level (not at the most fundamental level).

@@thenatureofreality2100 Thanks for the reply, but I have a question: You speak of a fundamental substance that experiences, but is not consciousness. A substance that experiences without consciousness? How is that possible, when to experience is to BE conscious. Am I misunderstanding something?

@@charlesvandenburgh5295 Yes, to experience is indeed to be conscious. According to Hume's view (which roughly matches the modern materialist understanding) there is not anything substantive that has the experiences - there is just a 'bundle' of experiences, but not some substance (e.g., a 'soul' or a substantive self) that experiences them. According to the triadic model, though, there is something that 'has' the experiences, the substance. It is that which experiences. So the substance is conscious - it possesses consciousness - but it _is_ not itself consciousness per se. Don't know if that makes it any clearer? :)

@@thenatureofreality2100 I think I’m even more confused by your reply. Is the substance innately conscious to its core, or is it some kind of non-conscious substance to which consciousness somehow adheres? Or are you suggesting that outside of the conscious substance there is some kind of non-experienced free-floating consciousness you are labeling “consciousness per se.”

@@charlesvandenburgh5295 Fundamentally, the one 'thing' is simply everything that exists (including consciousness and experience, etc.). That is not a very informative description, though :) So instead it is described in (a little :) ) more detail by a theoretical model. But that is just a model, though, not reality itself, so we have no choice but to do analytical description. For example, describing the one substance as constituted in three 'parts': something that experiences (the substance), something that allows for experience (the EICO structure) and that what is experienced. So 'that which exists' is conscious to its core, but if we imagined it (analytically) consisting of only the substance part, it would then not posses consciousness. That is just an analytic distinction, though - in reality ( :-D ) it does - the three parts are inseperable, as they are only an analytical description of 'that which exists'. Hmm, don't know if that makes it any clearer :-D The main point is that in the model consciousness only enters with the EICO structure - ('pure') consciousness is not the fundamental substance in this model, and that sets it apart from a number of other idealistic models.

Thanks for the kind words and the thoughtful comments. Yes, the main weakness of the model is indeed the brute status of the EICO structure/principle - it is simply posited that this principle brings about exactly the experiences that we actually experience. In that regard it is still merely a rough outline of a model of reality - a more detailed treatment of that structure would be needed in order for it to be a more comprehensive (and explanatory satisfying) model. Yes, good point about how to explain how the internal impulses are formed. According to the model it is simply a property of the substance - again a (somewhat unsatisfying) brute principle (in a sense, the forming of the impulses can be interpreted as the innermost or most fundamental acts of will of the subject - the origin of (free) will as such, perhaps). So there is indeed plenty of room for further development of the model :) (As I mentioned in the video, the inspiration for core elements of the model is the metaphysical system of the mystic Martinus - in his comprehensive (and very interesting) system these things are much more detailed (although not presented in a concise philosophical way)). Yes, there are indeed many similarities with Kastrup's model. (Good idea to do a video on that, btw - I don't have much time atm, but I will definately consider doing a video like that when I get the time - thanks for the suggestion :) ). A main difference is that in Kastrup's model the basic substance of reality is consciousness (per se) - iirc he operates with consciousness only - while in the triadic model the fundamental substance is not consciousness per se, but that which _possesses_ consciousness, i.e. that which experiences (in theory, had the EICO structure not been a property of the substance, the substance would have existed, but would have had no experiences, that is, no consciosness). Also, Kastrup uses the analogy of Dissociative Identity Disorder, as you mention, that is, he has at least some empirical support that a single mind in principle could be differentiated into multiple 'subjectivities', whereas the triadic model is purely speculative (by necessity, according to the model - all the empirical stuff belongs to the sphere of experience, which precisely does not include the substance directly)

​@@thenatureofreality2100 Thank you, this makes sense. I would like to share with you a metaphysical hypothesis within the framework of idealism. I do not claim that it is true and offer it only as a conjecture. This hypothesis addresses and resolves a number of fundamental metaphysical problems. I will use the abbreviation of the OF (ontological fundamental) or “reality” for “That which experiences” within the monistic ontology of idealism, because OF is also the reality. In short, it is a variant of "process theology" with built-in retro-causal loop to solve the problem of the first cause and explain the existence of the EICO structure. The first point to consider is the problem of the prime cause ("why there is something rather than nothing?"). There are a few options here: 1. OF exists without any cause. This position is rather an admittance of inability to provide any plausible solution to the problem. 2. There is a prime cause of OF more fundamental to it that caused it into existence. This proposition is problematic because it does not provide a closure: we can apply the same question to the prime cause - what is the prime-prime cause for the prime cause to exist, and then what is the prime-prime-prime cause etc. It’s “turtles all the way down”. Obviously, this solution is implausible. 3. OF contains its own cause. This solution makes sense because if there is a prime cause for reality to exist, then such prime cause must itself be real and therefore must inevitably be part of reality. However, this requires an assumption for the existence of a self-referential causal loop within the fabric of reality. 4. "New mysterianism" - there may be a cause for the reality to exist, but we do not know it and may never know it because of the lack of sufficient cognitive capacity to know it. Just like #1, this position is another way to admit our inability to provide any plausible solution to the problem. Now, how can we apply the option #3 to idealism? Here is the proposed scheme: 1. Let’s start from the Bernardo’s Kastrup’s idealistic paradigm, from the original state of non-metacognitive MAL (Mind-At-Large) that, by its instinctive will, manifests the world as its own excitation and dissociates into alters in order to experience it. The question can be asked: where did this will to create came from? Why exactly this will is to create the world in the direction of evolution of sentience and not any other kind of will (for example, a will to simply rest in the peace of its unexcited state)? In Bernardo’s version of idealism this question remains unanswered. We will return to this question later in #4. 2. Consequently, within the arrow of time from the perspective of the alters, the process of evolution of the world progresses and the alters evolve into sentient beings with progressively higher developed cognitive abilities until they become able to attain metacognition and realization of their own fundamental nature as consciousness. 3. At some point in the evolution the cognitive abilities of the alters become so powerful that they make the MAL itself also highly evolved and metacognitive when they merge with it at the end of their evolutionary paths. This soul’s evolution may involve ascending through multiple hierarchical levels of cognition. At the end of this evolutionary process the MAL reaches the state of omnipotence and omniscience beyond the limits of space and time that monotheistic religions refer to as “God”. 4. At this point the MAL knows that in order for itself and for such omniscient state to exist it had to go through the whole process of evolution from the instinctive to metacognitive state through the development of cognition of individual alters, so it was necessary to have the telos and will to evolve implanted in the original non-metacognitive state of the OF. However, at this point MAL abides beyond time, which allows it to act at any moment of its own evolution and of the historical apparent axis of time of the apparent world. This makes it possible to for the OF to retro-causally create and “implant” the EICO structure, telos and will to evolve into its own original instinctive state whereby creating its own cause to exist, evolve and become cognizant. Now, this paradigm solves a number of metaphysical problems: 1. The problem of prime cause is resolved: the OF creates the cause of its own existence by creating the EICO structure and the process of its own evolution from the primitive instinctive state into the final omniscient state. Everything that has an existential possibility to exist does exist. In other words, the existential possibility is the same as existential necessity. The reality of self-causing, self-manifesting and self-aware OF is definitely the reality that have the existential possibility to exist, the proof of this possibility is our own existence as conscious self-aware thinking activity. But the existential possibility of such reality must be contained within this reality, which means that such reality is self-caused. However, if the reality is not experienced and if it is not cognitively known, it is indistinguishable from nothing. So, this "something" that has the possibility to exist necessarily has to have the ability to experience and to cognize this experience. The ability to experience (awareness) must be fundamental because it cannot "brutally emerge" from any other non-self-aware cause (per the "hard problem of consciousness"). But the ability to cognize needs to be evolutionary developed. It seems to be less plausible to assume that the OF primordially exists as an omniscient conscious being (aka "god" in the theistc idealism) without any cause than to assume that the cognizance of the OF is a result of its own evolution (as per Whitehead's "process theology"). 2. The question in idealism whether or not the OF is metacognitive and even omniscient (aka “God” in the theological idealist paradigm) is resolved, and the answer is that it is both non-metacognitive in its original state and highly metacognitive in its final state of evolution through time. It also provides a naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the OF from the instinctive state into the final God-like state and reconciles the naturalism and evolutionism with the theistic premise of the existence of metacognitive God. God indeed exists beyond time in its omniscient and metacognitive state, but it has evolved into that state naturally by creating its own cause to exist and evolve. 3. The problem of suffering and evil is resolved. The OF realizes that in order to exist it has to create its own cause by undergoing the process of evolution, but such natural evolution inevitably involves suffering of sentient beings. Note that the OF knows that it itself would be the only and single experiencing subject in the universe who would experience the suffering, so it has all moral rights to decide for itself whether it would choose to undertake the suffering. However, the OF knows that the only alternative choice to such evolution would be the choice not to exist, because if the OF would choose not to undergo such suffering, then it would not be able to exist through the self-caused evolutionary process. In other words, the choice to exist inevitably involves the choice to suffer. This can be called “the Divine courage to exist”. 4. Based on #3, this paradigm also gives a meaning and justification for our human suffering and a sense of purpose for our human life. First, by personal development of our cognitive abilities and growing intellectually and spiritually we participate in and contribute to the evolution of the OF. But even deeper than that, by agreeing to live as subjective activities of OF and to undergo the suffering and troubles of our human lives we agree to participate and contribute to making the very existence of the reality of OF possible, we participate in and agree with the choice of the OF to exist which would not be possible without the evolution of consciousness with our participation in its inevitable suffering. Simply speaking, we say “yes” to the choice of the OF as conscious reality to exist. As the great Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said, "God cannot know itself without me" and “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”

@@eugenei7170 Very interesting stuff! (I don't think I have ever seen content like that in a UA-cam comment before :-D ) I have only just read it now - will give it some thought and respond :) (Interestingly, Martinus would agree fully with the Meister Eckhart quote - according to Martinus we are precisely the 'sensory organs' of God/the Godhead/OF :) )

@@thenatureofreality2100 Well, myself being just an amateur philosopher, it's the first time I share my ideas with a professional philosopher like you. Thanks for your interest. I do not claim to be the one who discovered this idea and I have to give credit to people who approached this idea long before. I believe the hypothesis of self-caused reality was first suggested in the Western academic philosophy by Bertran Russel and then John Weeler attempted to apply it to a physical model of the universe within the framework of physicalism calling it “The Universe as a self-excited circuit” (Wheeler, J. A., “Beyond the Black Hole”, in Some Strangeness in the Proportion: A Centennial Symposium to Celebrate the Achievments of Albert Einstein, Woolf, H. (Ed.), Addison-Welsley, 1980, p. 362). I myself learnt about it from Christopher Langan’s paper "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory", and even though I do not subscribe to many other propositions of his CTMU theory, the “reality contains its own cause” hypothesis seemed very appealing to me and I realized that it can nicely fit into the idealist paradigm. It also aligns with Martinus view of the cycle of involution and evolution but it also explains the reason why the Godhead needs to go through this involution-evolution cycle in order to accomplish the self-causality.

​@@eugenei7170 A very interesting line of argument you presented. A few thoughts: "why there is something rather than nothing?": 1. No cause: I think that perhaps the 'no answer' is a little more acceptable when it comes to precisely this question of existence at all - the entire concept of ‘cause’ is within the framework of ‘there being something’, that is, is seems reasonable not to talk about ‘cause’ ‘beyond’ something (at all). In other words, perhaps we are outside the scope of the entire idea of ‘cause’ when it is this specific question. But otherwise, I agree, it is indeed inability to provide a cause. Agree on 2 and 4 as well :) As for 3, it also matters what we mean by ‘cause’ - usually it is something affecting things (as in physical cause), but the cause for existence (specifically) seems to be perhaps something different - it is not a matter of affecting something that already exists, but to even bring into existence (‘creation from nothing’ - if that is even possible). Applying to idealism: 1.-3. Yes, interesting 😊 4. Did MAL _have_ to go through the stages - if true omnipotence, then perhaps didn’t _have_ to. But perhaps it wanted to 😊 (where did this want come from then, though - perhaps it was fundamental - simply an urge to experience rather than not experience - somewhat like Kastrup’s 'will' perhaps). Also, MAL is beyond time, but still ‘does’ things in a specific order, that is, first recognize and then retro-casually create, which, perhaps, implies some kind of 'time' or at least ordering of the sequence of actions. Solving the problems: 1. Prime cause. In the triadic model the EICO structure is only analytically separable from the one substance - it is not a separate ‘entity’ but a ‘property’ or an ‘aspect’ of the substance/reality - that which allows experience to even exist. But reality could in principle be retro-casually arranged in such a way, that the EICO structure or principle came into being at some point in time, I guess 😊 ‘Everything that has an existential possibility to exist does exist.’ Not sure I fully get this? Is this because of the omniscience/omnipotence? I don’t know much about Whitehead, but interesting to see him incorporated here 😊 2. Yes, I like that it combines naturalism and idealism (and as you note, it roughly corresponds to Martinus’ view - 3. does as well). 3. Interesting point about the moral rights to decide for itself - hadn’t thought of that before. Again, if it is a matter of true omnipotence, couldn’t reality have been made so no suffering was necessary for this evolution - otoh one could argue, that experiencing suffering allows for the contrast necessary to experience happiness, i.e., that happiness (or perhaps even experience at all) is impossible without suffering as well (in that case, the omnipotence seems to be restricted by what is (logically) possible, though). Nice Meister Eckhart quote (Martinus would fully agree with this as well - in his view the living beings are the ‘sense organs’ of the Godhead - there must be something through which the Godhead experiences). Very interesting concepts and a nice handling of several of the major problems. The main thing, of course, is whether the retro-causal loop is possible. And-like the model I presented-the theory is (by necessity) without (direct) empirical grounding. But thanks for sharing! Nice to see other people grapple with the same issues and follow a roughly similar path 😊