@@bayreuth79 In several of his videos Bernardo argues about how meaningless it is to engage in the differences among the archetypal religious symbolism and philosophical thoughts. The reason why perhaps at times he sounds like John Scotus Eriugena is because according to Bernardo we as human beings are the maps that were given to us by our ancestors before we were able to conceptualize narratives that create, influence, shape experiences and thoughts. And here I quote Bernardo.." When I feel strong or weak for that matter I will rush to grab a rosary and pray. "When I (Bernardo) feel devotional I will speak or serve nature in the Christian language." end of quote. This is not an argument that legitimizes Christianity over any other religious tradition rather to emphasize that we in the west have inherited a worldview, a lens, a story in which we have not arrived by a process of conceptualization. It is the root of our beings, it is that which permeates and flows through our bodies, it is who we are. It is our inheritance not something we learned via process of logic, reasoning, rationality. All that stays circling inside your brain but cannot penetrate the deepest essence of your being. I'm paraphrasing but these quotes represent Bernardo's contextual statements.
@vecumex9466 A Christian you become through the birth of the Spirit of God. A birth "from a high", cf. Joh. 3. Not through your ancestors, not through archetypes, not through reasoning etc. but through the Spirit of God. God is Spirit, a verse the philosopher Schelling liked a lot btw.
This was a most welcome addition to my subscription feed today. Many thanks to Bernardo and Keytoe. Bernardo, I'd love to hear you and Sam Harris debate these things, and I imagine many other viewers would, as well. Can someone make that happen? Cheers!
Analytic idealism is a fascinating philosophy/theory which reminds me greatly of pratyabhijñā ("re-cognition", an idealistic monistic theistic philosophy in Kashmir Shaivism - a Hindu tantric tradition). They however go one step further in pratyabhijñā, suggesting that core subjectivity (Śiva) is in fact not identical to Nature / the universe (Śakti), but beyond even Her/it. So not physical, bound by spacetime, energy, matter, and laws of physics, but "meta-physical". In the example of the dissociated dreamer that re-associates themselves upon awakening, there still is, throughout both phases, the silent presence of pure consciousness that is witnessing the whole thing. First as the dissociated dreamer, then as the re-associated whole person. This pure consciousness is the real core subject (Śiva), not only present in that singular perspective but in every perspective in existence across all of space and time. This would include the perspectives of the other dissociated characters of the dream world, the perspective of the dream world itself, that of the awakened person, the perspectives of every other person ever and their dream self, non-selves, and dream world, of other animals, of plants, rocks, water... and finally the perspective of Nature Herself / the universe itself (Śakti). All but perhaps absolutely nothing, no-perspective, non-experience, which may be the "blindspot" of pure consciousness due to it being its essence (which should actually be non-existent, therefore the "perhaps", the "may be"). The possible blindspot that - much like a blackhole - may or may not suggest the existence of something beyond it. Thus may there after all be something emerging from (absolutely) nothing. What's also fascinating is that a similar ancient idealistic monistic theistic philosophy can be found in the West in Neoplatonism and Jewish Kabbalah. Respectively, they call the core subject / pure consciousness / Śiva "the One" and "Kether", the pure mind that directly emerge from it "nous" and "Chokhma", and Nature / the universe / Śakti "world-soul"/"Binah".
Bernardo Kastrup I've read all your books and I follow your postings on your website. I really enjoy your work, an it's fun to see Essentia take shape. These videos are perfect bite size segments for the audience to get an introduction to this material. Good initiative.
There cannot be a meaning relevant to "you" if "life is not about you". This phrase, life is not about you, is just another enigma variation on materialism. In other words, there is an other-force, call it nature or mind at large, that does not have your interests at heart. If it has interests of its own that are not yours, then there cannot be meaning. There can only be meaning if private meaning is a subset of this mind-at-large meaning, which is possible, but not what Kastrup articulates.
Bernardo Kastrup has admitted in previous podcast appearances that it is possible that some kind of dissociation might continue after death. Indeed, the evidence from NDEs seems to support this notion (when individuals have no brain activity they report having incredible experiences of an afterlife in which some sense of individuality remains). It seems to me that if my core subjectivity remains while I (with all my memories, experiences, love, etc) disappear forever then this is not sufficient to give us meaning and purpose.
The "insufficiency" is a label of the mind given with respect to the worldview of what it considers as eternal, which only Consciousness is. There is a 'psychological death' possible, with which the illusion of a separate psychological self, (i.e., separate from the Whole that Consciousness is), is seen through. In that Realization, sufficiency is abundant, and the mind is seen as a tool for which to find meaning in the various contexts in the world within which it finds itself, not the terrible master imagining the boundaries of belief giving rise to the sense of the 'separation'.
It's still meaningful, the point is the experience, not the memory of the experience. Just cause you are someone else doesn't mean they weren't meaningful.
It's the body that dies, There is no entity in the body to die. This is way nothing arose to you before the birth of the body and why nothing will arise to you after the body dies. Consciousness and awareness come and go and it's the absent of conscious awareness with a capital "A" that fades away into the Absolute. Pure stillness/eternal bliss for no one.
Bernardo, I love your work, and your theory. I have a question, though. You have argued that consciousness does not depend on matter, or bodies or brains, by, in part, reciting numerous studies that show cognition and consciousness are not always correlated to brain neuro-activity. So consciousness/cognition doesn’t need a brain, right? Brains are just what show up on our dashboards, within consciousness. So why, then, do you posit that META-cognition is dependent on brains, specifically human brains, or, possibly some other biologically evolutionary object? Is it because you don’t accept any of the other existing evidence of dis-embodied meta-cognitive consciousness? But even if you don’t take those data seriously, if you just look at the logic of what we know about consciousness, about mind… we know that mind is inexhaustibly imaginative. Why would mind only evolve or only meta-cognate within one particular dashboard? Mind is by its nature limitless. And if all there is is mind, without the constraints of time and space to govern reality, then there are no limits, presumably. I can imagine endless possibilities of worlds and ways to think, and I don’t even have aware access to the full mind of reality! I’m just not sure why you cling to biology, a category of objects on our dashboard within consciousness, when it comes to the possibilities of meta consciousness? Why would the pilot’s dashboard set the limits on the sky?
God (the universal consciousness) wanted to experience itself. But to do that you need three things: subject, object, and a medium. So God thought of the idea of life. Life is localized consciousness that is able to interact with other localized consciousness. But God went one step further and created the idea of a being that is aware that it is aware. Life is essentially consciousness continually resonating with itself. The medium is the universe we inhabit (it exists as an idea; we each project a material representation). When our body dies we will be subsumed back into the universal consciousness, but the idea of your prior body doesn't just disappear. It also exists in the universal consciousness. You will have access to "your" old thoughts and feelings, as well as every other thought and feeling in existence. Humanity is continually adding to this universal consciousness through the creation of life.
Bernardo ignores millions of data points that can enlighten as far as death is concerned. Which body is more dead, one on psychedelics or one bleeding out on the pavement after an accident? When consciousness returns from such an NDE it nearly always reports an experience of incredible Love and cognition that is more clear and comprehensive then it is when the body is considered alive. I find integrating the information from these data points with the analytic approach to be most useful.
He's not ignoring data. He is referring specifically to experiencing the fragmentation of the ego. I have not had a NDE, but from the little I've seen on them, most bypass the frightening ego breakdown and go straight to what is beyond the ego. Still, I think there are also reports of frightening NDEs. He is only speaking of a specific aspect of a process.
What about people who make bad trips on psychedelics then? Is it always incredible experiences of love? I'm not sure about that... this idea makes me very scared. I know that most people on DMT experience incredibly beautiful things and gain a deeper understanding of life, just like he says realizing that here was "only a dream", but what if you get stuck somewhere that you don't want to be? 😢
In my sleep I delve into another reality, even though its physics is unstable. Whilst in my death, I don't know. But what I'm sure of is we are a fraction of the vast amount of mental reality. And perhaps in death we transmute our energy back to what we were originally. Perhaps, the origin that managed to create and co-create everything that we see, within and without the human spectrum.
Generally, when we wake up, we might remember a dream or two. If death is the end of disassociation, will the entity after death, remembers every living being that was dead before. Considering there is only one undisassociated mind. Any thoughts on this ?
Hopefully someone will kindly address this for me: I saw another video with a discussion between Bernardo and Rupert Spira, which gave me the impression that once we die our mental state will be one of awareness, but with no actual experiences. This sounds like the ultimate psychological torture to me!! Imaging being aware but there being nothing to be aware of! I've been hearing for years from Rupert that what lies beyond is peace, love and happiness. How can that be, if there is no experiences to be had at all? Thanks in advance for any replies :)
P.S. I'm starting to wonder if dissociation in mind at large is the result of trauma. Sweet relief from the hell of nothingness! It's back to being afraid of death again for me :(
@@miniarms8872 From my own experiences, I think you're free from the bounds of perceiving time, so you don't have to feel boredom, also there isn't any individual that stuff is happening to, so you're free from suffering. When you put those two together, it's quite relieving.
@@miniarms8872 from what i understand, I mean, with Bernardo's scientific background and how he verbalizes it and a little delving into eastern beliefs, our collective trauma is feeling separated from our source but of course this is at a subconscious level. All we are doing here in this metadream is, finding our way back to source, and it seems that here on earth with our thinking... that is to feel completed with everything and everybody that we interact with here. Of course that we're always finding it difficult to get integrated or completed with everything and everyone... don't you think? I mean, do you really feel that you love everything and everyone..? No, right? So there lies why we suffer
@@ilianamarisolromero7816 Thank you. I guess you're right. My (healthy and active) 80 year-old mother tells me she doesn't want to keep living for much longer. It's really tough to hear, and I find myself trying to convince her that there's plenty in life left for her to enjoy, but she says she can think of "nothing worse than living for another decade". She's as far as you can get from spiritual, and analytic idealism would fly right over her head, but maybe when it's time it's time and she senses source calling her home.
I see a contradiction in your model of meaning. Certainly meaning is only relevant to beings who are metacognitive. We spend our lives accumulating experiences and when we die these living experiences become part of nature. Nonmetacognitive nature. Our metacognition dies with us because, as you said only life can be metacognitive. I don’t see how your idealist model is any more sanguine than materialism.
Metacognition while consciousness experiences the state of disassociation now back to universal consciousness. What do you do with the experiences? Put them in a bottle and throw them where? Not a good theory, everything needs to be integrated. There is no contradiction experiences are just release into the broader universal consciousness.
@@vecumex9466 This “broader universal consciousness “ is, according to Bernardo, not metacognitive. Which means that it can experience things but can’t analyze them. Without metacognition there is no meaning. The meaning of your experiences will be lost at death when you lose your ability to metacognize. Analytic idealism might be a better description of reality but it doesn’t replace religious belief, dare I say it, God.
@@edlabonte7773 Not interested in a philosophical explanation that needs to replace religious propositions that I cannot explain coherently and with some degree of continuity. For now analytic idealism does question the assumptions of hard materialism, physicalist propositions. It is merely an attempt to explain that our subjective perceptions are limited in what we can observe-define. Like Bernardo says we are not looking at reality through a glass mirror rather a dashboard like the pilot flies the plane. The goal is not to replace God or argue in favor of it (I personally am not obsessed with any of that) but to acknowledge that you, I and every human being have been on this planet perhaps 30-40K years. What makes you think that our primitive brains can capture the immensity of reality, God however some attempt to label it? Even more important human languages and any other form of communication are at best tools with enormous limitations. So for now we should take what is been given with a grain of salt and reserve the right to make assumptions that often lead to illusive degrees of certainty.
@@vecumex9466 in this video that I was commenting on, Bernardo made the claim that nothing other than life is metacognitive. So God in that universe is not metacognitive. I doubt if that is consistent with many theistic religions. BTW, before you start making claims about the goals of analytic idealism you should maybe see if your goals and Bernardo’s are the same.
@@edlabonte7773 Who is making claims about the goals of analytic idealism. Read my comment again as there is no reference of such especifically attributed to AI. Let's try to stay in the subject to avoid making comments out context. Bernardo's AI proposition makes the claim the particles do not have stand alone propetties. Now idealists do not need to prove anything bwcause the burden of proof is in the defenders od materialist- hard physicalism. But so far they have been quite open in stating that tbet have found no evidence whatsoever. That is the first step in developing a theory in AI.
My thought on the subject is that only ideas exist. We exist as ideas in the mind of God (universal consciousness). For instance, my body (including my brain) exist as ideas. The material representation of them is just that, a representation of what it is like to be a human body/brain. However, we are not our brains. To put it another way, we are not the state of being of a brain. The brain feels pain, hunger, sounds, sights, taste, etc. It has its own state of being - direct awareness of experience. But we are not that direct experience; otherwise we wouldn't know that we exist. We are the meta-awareness. We are the awareness of the awareness. This means that when the body/brain dies, so does the state of being of the brain. But we will continue to exist detached from a body/brain. We will no longer experience the experience of a brain. But being detached from one localization of consciousness means that we are therefore subsumed back into the universal consciousness, which is the entirety of feelings and thoughts to ever exist. So yes the idea of our body/brain will die, and with it the state of being of the brain, but we are unique in that we exist as pure meta-awareness, which will continue on. Our knowledge of our old self will actually continue on in the universal consciousness too, because all ideas are contained in the universal consciousness.
Dying is terrifying and frightening but in what context? witnessing it happening to me (to my ego) moment by moment through the whole process of dying; say like witnessing moment by moment a first time rollercoaster horrible experience (probably worse in case of death) but still which context is worse; witnessing it (the way as we now imagine it will occur) or to die in a split of second like in an explosion?
The mind of nature learns from our suffering? That's pretty cold comfort for those who experience in this life brutality, violence, disease, deprivation, etc. It may be grist for the universal "mind" but its regrettable for the experiencer, the human subject. This suffering-for-the-greater-(humanly unfathomable)-good sounds like warmed over Christianity. Or the Wizard of Oz.This sounds like a rationalization for suffering. See Monty Python's "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" in Life of Brian.
Alguém pode me explicar o que é, afinal, essa mente cósmica? Seria a mente de um ser q realmente existe e nos estamos dentro dele? Eu nao entendi essa parte. Ok, somos fragmentos dentro duma mente. Mas de quem é essa mente??
I find your narrative about death a bit fear inducing. If the ego doesnt resist there doesnt have to be fear. And when the ego is gone great bliss is reported.
Thank you Bernardo for taking the time to open up the minds of the masses.
This is like listening to a modern day John Scotus Eriugena. Worth every minute!
How so? John Scotus Eriugena was a Christian and Kastrup’s philosophy has more similarities with Advaita Vedanta
@@bayreuth79 In several of his videos Bernardo argues about how meaningless it is to engage in the differences among the archetypal religious symbolism and philosophical thoughts. The reason why perhaps at times he sounds like John Scotus Eriugena is because according to Bernardo we as human beings are the maps that were given to us by our ancestors before we were able to conceptualize narratives that create, influence, shape experiences and thoughts. And here I quote Bernardo.." When I feel strong or weak for that matter I will rush to grab a rosary and pray. "When I (Bernardo) feel devotional I will speak or serve nature in the Christian language." end of quote. This is not an argument that legitimizes Christianity over any other religious tradition rather to emphasize that we in the west have inherited a worldview, a lens, a story in which we have not arrived by a process of conceptualization. It is the root of our beings, it is that which permeates and flows through our bodies, it is who we are. It is our inheritance not something we learned via process of logic, reasoning, rationality. All that stays circling inside your brain but cannot penetrate the deepest essence of your being. I'm paraphrasing but these quotes represent Bernardo's contextual statements.
@@vecumex9466lol
@vecumex9466 A Christian you become through the birth of the Spirit of God. A birth "from a high", cf. Joh. 3. Not through your ancestors, not through archetypes, not through reasoning etc. but through the Spirit of God. God is Spirit, a verse the philosopher Schelling liked a lot btw.
Both Eriugena and Kastrup understand apophasis and cataphasis.
WHAT a contribution, Brilliant, love this insight! Not for nothing...
This was a most welcome addition to my subscription feed today. Many thanks to Bernardo and Keytoe.
Bernardo, I'd love to hear you and Sam Harris debate these things, and I imagine many other viewers would, as well. Can someone make that happen? Cheers!
yeah right? Maybe Sam can become a little humble and see beyond his nose
Analytic idealism is a fascinating philosophy/theory which reminds me greatly of pratyabhijñā ("re-cognition", an idealistic monistic theistic philosophy in Kashmir Shaivism - a Hindu tantric tradition).
They however go one step further in pratyabhijñā, suggesting that core subjectivity (Śiva) is in fact not identical to Nature / the universe (Śakti), but beyond even Her/it. So not physical, bound by spacetime, energy, matter, and laws of physics, but "meta-physical".
In the example of the dissociated dreamer that re-associates themselves upon awakening, there still is, throughout both phases, the silent presence of pure consciousness that is witnessing the whole thing. First as the dissociated dreamer, then as the re-associated whole person. This pure consciousness is the real core subject (Śiva), not only present in that singular perspective but in every perspective in existence across all of space and time. This would include the perspectives of the other dissociated characters of the dream world, the perspective of the dream world itself, that of the awakened person, the perspectives of every other person ever and their dream self, non-selves, and dream world, of other animals, of plants, rocks, water... and finally the perspective of Nature Herself / the universe itself (Śakti). All but perhaps absolutely nothing, no-perspective, non-experience, which may be the "blindspot" of pure consciousness due to it being its essence (which should actually be non-existent, therefore the "perhaps", the "may be"). The possible blindspot that - much like a blackhole - may or may not suggest the existence of something beyond it. Thus may there after all be something emerging from (absolutely) nothing.
What's also fascinating is that a similar ancient idealistic monistic theistic philosophy can be found in the West in Neoplatonism and Jewish Kabbalah. Respectively, they call the core subject / pure consciousness / Śiva "the One" and "Kether", the pure mind that directly emerge from it "nous" and "Chokhma", and Nature / the universe / Śakti "world-soul"/"Binah".
Bernardo Kastrup I've read all your books and I follow your postings on your website. I really enjoy your work, an it's fun to see Essentia take shape. These videos are perfect bite size segments for the audience to get an introduction to this material. Good initiative.
There cannot be a meaning relevant to "you" if "life is not about you". This phrase, life is not about you, is just another enigma variation on materialism. In other words, there is an other-force, call it nature or mind at large, that does not have your interests at heart. If it has interests of its own that are not yours, then there cannot be meaning.
There can only be meaning if private meaning is a subset of this mind-at-large meaning, which is possible, but not what Kastrup articulates.
Bernardo Kastrup has admitted in previous podcast appearances that it is possible that some kind of dissociation might continue after death. Indeed, the evidence from NDEs seems to support this notion (when individuals have no brain activity they report having incredible experiences of an afterlife in which some sense of individuality remains). It seems to me that if my core subjectivity remains while I (with all my memories, experiences, love, etc) disappear forever then this is not sufficient to give us meaning and purpose.
Yes, it's just a different type of dream after death: FWH Myers' plane of illusion.
The "insufficiency" is a label of the mind given with respect to the worldview of what it considers as eternal, which only Consciousness is. There is a 'psychological death' possible, with which the illusion of a separate psychological self, (i.e., separate from the Whole that Consciousness is), is seen through. In that Realization, sufficiency is abundant, and the mind is seen as a tool for which to find meaning in the various contexts in the world within which it finds itself, not the terrible master imagining the boundaries of belief giving rise to the sense of the 'separation'.
We probably get reincarnated.
It's still meaningful, the point is the experience, not the memory of the experience. Just cause you are someone else doesn't mean they weren't meaningful.
If we are generating our dream space, imagine how much more Universal Consciousness is capable of in creating our waking life.
It's the body that dies, There is no entity in the body to die. This is way nothing arose to you before the birth of the body and why nothing will arise to you after the body dies. Consciousness and awareness come and go and it's the absent of conscious awareness with a capital "A" that fades away into the Absolute. Pure stillness/eternal bliss for no one.
Nothing in science supports this notion.
@@gregwood7575because science is material and thought-based, not direct consciousness and self-inquiry
In the beginning was Logos (word, knowledge, wisdom, consciousness, meaning et alii); cf. Joh. 1, 1ff. Thank you & blessings 🙌
In islam Allah say we day every night. I love your understanding of dream avatars
Obrigado!
Bernardo, I love your work, and your theory. I have a question, though. You have argued that consciousness does not depend on matter, or bodies or brains, by, in part, reciting numerous studies that show cognition and consciousness are not always correlated to brain neuro-activity. So consciousness/cognition doesn’t need a brain, right? Brains are just what show up on our dashboards, within consciousness.
So why, then, do you posit that META-cognition is dependent on brains, specifically human brains, or, possibly some other biologically evolutionary object?
Is it because you don’t accept any of the other existing evidence of dis-embodied meta-cognitive consciousness?
But even if you don’t take those data seriously, if you just look at the logic of what we know about consciousness, about mind… we know that mind is inexhaustibly imaginative. Why would mind only evolve or only meta-cognate within one particular dashboard? Mind is by its nature limitless. And if all there is is mind, without the constraints of time and space to govern reality, then there are no limits, presumably. I can imagine endless possibilities of worlds and ways to think, and I don’t even have aware access to the full mind of reality!
I’m just not sure why you cling to biology, a category of objects on our dashboard within consciousness, when it comes to the possibilities of meta consciousness? Why would the pilot’s dashboard set the limits on the sky?
God (the universal consciousness) wanted to experience itself. But to do that you need three things: subject, object, and a medium. So God thought of the idea of life. Life is localized consciousness that is able to interact with other localized consciousness. But God went one step further and created the idea of a being that is aware that it is aware. Life is essentially consciousness continually resonating with itself. The medium is the universe we inhabit (it exists as an idea; we each project a material representation).
When our body dies we will be subsumed back into the universal consciousness, but the idea of your prior body doesn't just disappear. It also exists in the universal consciousness. You will have access to "your" old thoughts and feelings, as well as every other thought and feeling in existence. Humanity is continually adding to this universal consciousness through the creation of life.
The meaning of life is life itself
Bernardo ignores millions of data points that can enlighten as far as death is concerned. Which body is more dead, one on psychedelics or one bleeding out on the pavement after an accident? When consciousness returns from such an NDE it nearly always reports an experience of incredible Love and cognition that is more clear and comprehensive then it is when the body is considered alive.
I find integrating the information from these data points with the analytic approach to be most useful.
He's not ignoring data. He is referring specifically to experiencing the fragmentation of the ego. I have not had a NDE, but from the little I've seen on them, most bypass the frightening ego breakdown and go straight to what is beyond the ego. Still, I think there are also reports of frightening NDEs. He is only speaking of a specific aspect of a process.
This is absolutely not an exhaustive extrapolation on his data points. He talks about that in other videos
What about people who make bad trips on psychedelics then? Is it always incredible experiences of love? I'm not sure about that... this idea makes me very scared. I know that most people on DMT experience incredibly beautiful things and gain a deeper understanding of life, just like he says realizing that here was "only a dream", but what if you get stuck somewhere that you don't want to be? 😢
In my sleep I delve into another reality, even though its physics is unstable. Whilst in my death, I don't know. But what I'm sure of is we are a fraction of the vast amount of mental reality. And perhaps in death we transmute our energy back to what we were originally. Perhaps, the origin that managed to create and co-create everything that we see, within and without the human spectrum.
Thanks for your experience of wisdom and sharing it!
Magnificent thank you
Tell it like it is Doc! Thanx.
Hell and heaven are not 'instruments' to dominate a civilication, it means that what we care with us, caused by our actions. We have a concience.
When we die, you are associative memories and feelings remain associated?
Do semantically related structures of thoughts bunch together like synchronistic events? It be like nonpolar compound in water?
thank you
“Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then I am not...." Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.)
Regarding death, what he says is in contrast to the peace and love reported by NDEs.
Generally, when we wake up, we might remember a dream or two. If death is the end of disassociation, will the entity after death, remembers every living being that was dead before. Considering there is only one undisassociated mind. Any thoughts on this ?
Hopefully someone will kindly address this for me: I saw another video with a discussion between Bernardo and Rupert Spira, which gave me the impression that once we die our mental state will be one of awareness, but with no actual experiences. This sounds like the ultimate psychological torture to me!! Imaging being aware but there being nothing to be aware of! I've been hearing for years from Rupert that what lies beyond is peace, love and happiness. How can that be, if there is no experiences to be had at all? Thanks in advance for any replies :)
P.S. I'm starting to wonder if dissociation in mind at large is the result of trauma. Sweet relief from the hell of nothingness! It's back to being afraid of death again for me :(
@@miniarms8872 From my own experiences, I think you're free from the bounds of perceiving time, so you don't have to feel boredom, also there isn't any individual that stuff is happening to, so you're free from suffering. When you put those two together, it's quite relieving.
@@StevensBorowsky Thanks, Steve :)
@@miniarms8872 from what i understand, I mean, with Bernardo's scientific background and how he verbalizes it and a little delving into eastern beliefs, our collective trauma is feeling separated from our source but of course this is at a subconscious level. All we are doing here in this metadream is, finding our way back to source, and it seems that here on earth with our thinking... that is to feel completed with everything and everybody that we interact with here. Of course that we're always finding it difficult to get integrated or completed with everything and everyone... don't you think? I mean, do you really feel that you love everything and everyone..? No, right? So there lies why we suffer
@@ilianamarisolromero7816 Thank you. I guess you're right. My (healthy and active) 80 year-old mother tells me she doesn't want to keep living for much longer. It's really tough to hear, and I find myself trying to convince her that there's plenty in life left for her to enjoy, but she says she can think of "nothing worse than living for another decade". She's as far as you can get from spiritual, and analytic idealism would fly right over her head, but maybe when it's time it's time and she senses source calling her home.
I don't think the scythe is for harvesting but for mowing.
Just Awesome 👌
I see a contradiction in your model of meaning. Certainly meaning is only relevant to beings who are metacognitive. We spend our lives accumulating experiences and when we die these living experiences become part of nature. Nonmetacognitive nature. Our metacognition dies with us because, as you said only life can be metacognitive. I don’t see how your idealist model is any more sanguine than materialism.
Metacognition while consciousness experiences the state of disassociation now back to universal consciousness. What do you do with the experiences? Put them in a bottle and throw them where? Not a good theory, everything needs to be integrated. There is no contradiction experiences are just release into the broader universal consciousness.
@@vecumex9466 This “broader universal consciousness “ is, according to Bernardo, not metacognitive. Which means that it can experience things but can’t analyze them. Without metacognition there is no meaning. The meaning of your experiences will be lost at death when you lose your ability to metacognize. Analytic idealism might be a better description of reality but it doesn’t replace religious belief, dare I say it, God.
@@edlabonte7773 Not interested in a philosophical explanation that needs to replace religious propositions that I cannot explain coherently and with some degree of continuity. For now analytic idealism does question the assumptions of hard materialism, physicalist propositions. It is merely an attempt to explain that our subjective perceptions are limited in what we can observe-define. Like Bernardo says we are not looking at reality through a glass mirror rather a dashboard like the pilot flies the plane. The goal is not to replace God or argue in favor of it (I personally am not obsessed with any of that) but to acknowledge that you, I and every human being have been on this planet perhaps 30-40K years. What makes you think that our primitive brains can capture the immensity of reality, God however some attempt to label it? Even more important human languages and any other form of communication are at best tools with enormous limitations. So for now we should take what is been given with a grain of salt and reserve the right to make assumptions that often lead to illusive degrees of certainty.
@@vecumex9466 in this video that I was commenting on, Bernardo made the claim that nothing other than life is metacognitive. So God in that universe is not metacognitive. I doubt if that is consistent with many theistic religions. BTW, before you start making claims about the goals of analytic idealism you should maybe see if your goals and Bernardo’s are the same.
@@edlabonte7773 Who is making claims about the goals of analytic idealism. Read my comment again as there is no reference of such especifically attributed to AI. Let's try to stay in the subject to avoid making comments out context. Bernardo's AI proposition makes the claim the particles do not have stand alone propetties. Now idealists do not need to prove anything bwcause the burden of proof is in the defenders od materialist- hard physicalism. But so far they have been quite open in stating that tbet have found no evidence whatsoever. That is the first step in developing a theory in AI.
My thought on the subject is that only ideas exist. We exist as ideas in the mind of God (universal consciousness). For instance, my body (including my brain) exist as ideas. The material representation of them is just that, a representation of what it is like to be a human body/brain. However, we are not our brains. To put it another way, we are not the state of being of a brain. The brain feels pain, hunger, sounds, sights, taste, etc. It has its own state of being - direct awareness of experience. But we are not that direct experience; otherwise we wouldn't know that we exist. We are the meta-awareness. We are the awareness of the awareness. This means that when the body/brain dies, so does the state of being of the brain. But we will continue to exist detached from a body/brain. We will no longer experience the experience of a brain. But being detached from one localization of consciousness means that we are therefore subsumed back into the universal consciousness, which is the entirety of feelings and thoughts to ever exist. So yes the idea of our body/brain will die, and with it the state of being of the brain, but we are unique in that we exist as pure meta-awareness, which will continue on. Our knowledge of our old self will actually continue on in the universal consciousness too, because all ideas are contained in the universal consciousness.
Dying is terrifying and frightening but in what context? witnessing it happening to me (to my ego) moment by moment through the whole process of dying; say like witnessing moment by moment a first time rollercoaster horrible experience (probably worse in case of death) but still which context is worse; witnessing it (the way as we now imagine it will occur) or to die in a split of second like in an explosion?
The mind of nature learns from our suffering? That's pretty cold comfort for those who experience in this life brutality, violence, disease, deprivation, etc. It may be grist for the universal "mind" but its regrettable for the experiencer, the human subject. This suffering-for-the-greater-(humanly unfathomable)-good sounds like warmed over Christianity. Or the Wizard of Oz.This sounds like a rationalization for suffering. See Monty Python's "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" in Life of Brian.
Alguém pode me explicar o que é, afinal, essa mente cósmica? Seria a mente de um ser q realmente existe e nos estamos dentro dele?
Eu nao entendi essa parte. Ok, somos fragmentos dentro duma mente. Mas de quem é essa mente??
It is only subjective existence. There is no being but the beingness itself so to speak.
I find your narrative about death a bit fear inducing. If the ego doesnt resist there doesnt have to be fear. And when the ego is gone great bliss is reported.
The problem with believing in an immortal soul is that I'm much more tempted to end my life 😂
Life is meaningless
That’s a shame you feel like that x
Really brilliant and truly insightful