We've now released part 2: The Case for Idealism: ua-cam.com/video/Mar2X6bvid4/v-deo.html You can join our next discussion series with Bernardo starting 29th Oct with guest Christof Koch, the celebrated neuroscientist: dandelion.events/e/y54ag
@adventuresinawareness I sm so busy my head is twisted... I really enjoyed the last zoom I am trying to finish to start a project ....I do really want to dive and I am going to set time aside to rewatch vt and maybe put a sensible question . It was good to finally say Hello on Zoom All the best Marguerite 🐉🐲🐉
It's lovely to see all the polite criticism of Dr. Kastrup's ideas in the comments that open-mindedly listen to what he has to say and seriously consider it before examining it to find fault, and then wording that fault concisely and without ad hominem... Oh... Hang on a second...
I don't think that we have the right to demand to be treated with kid gloves in intellectual discussion. Just as artists put up with often savage criticism so should we. Kastrup in particular needs to be called out because his "theories" are nothing more than empty science fiction. But for many viewres this will not be evident unless we call his nonsense nonsense.
@Dingo-Blurps If you looked below you would have found my contributing comment. The point was that Kastrup displays a lack of even elementary understanding of single cell organisms, cellular signaling and biological information processing when he claims that these organisms lack "complex material arrangement" which would be necessary for sensory representation. Even bacteria exhibit chemotaxis which involves processing sensory input with respect to it's spatial directional information content. Kastrup makes grandiose pronouncements but all that he says amounts science fiction like the "one eye of the world" , the "universal consciousness" and the "dissociative boundary". WHat's particularly striking is that his story does not even promise a potentially workable answer to the very question that he claims to be the fundamental problem of consciousness. He starts with claiming that we need to be able to explain how subjective qualities can be reconciled with knowledge about the physical world. He suggest that this is solved by assuming that the physical world is really all just mental stuff, it only appears physical to us. OK. So than he needs to tell me how the "redness of the red" or the taste of mint or any other so called "fundamental mental quality" can explain the properties of any of the physical "appearances", say, why appearance that we call the electron appears to have a negative not positive charge . Hello ? An even better example is color experience. According to him this is one of the fundamental conscious qualities that the world is made of. OK. Does this quality also appear on the "screen of perception" ? Certainly, we can study electromagnetic radiation and part of the spectrum which is visible light. Can he say ANYTHING about how my experience of color could possibly explain why light is described by the Maxwell equations ??? Or any of the things on "on the screen of perception"? Notice that this is absolutely not helped by calling the electromagnetic wave description of light a "mere appearance". He can call it whatever he wants but he still needs to explain what we see, be it an appearance of not. And things get a lot worse for his incoherent nonsense if we asks some simple questions. For example if the visible spectrum of EM radiation is an "appearance" of my color experience, what about the rest of the EM spectrum? As far as my experiences are concerned UV light cause skin burns. So is the UV spectrum an appearance of my skin burn experience ? What happens to visible and UV spectrum when I close my eyes or recover from sub burn ? Do they disappear ? And how on Earth can I possibly ever discover from the "fundamentals" of how color looks or skin burn feels that their they have the same kind of appearance on the screen of perception ? Further both the color and skin burn experiences require there to be an appearance called my brain. Is my brain an appearance of these experiences ? Etc. THis is why the whole thing is completely vacuous nonsense.
Yes, exactly, I have been saying that everyone must be forced to defend the positions they take through a metaphysical analysis, that is what is going on here, holding the mirror up. Bravo.
Thank you🙏🏼😭 I wake up every morning in eager anticipation for a new Bernardo Kastrup video to drop. It’s very interesting… the most “enlightened” people truly are the ones who insist they have far from reached enlightenment…
The absolute of reality that we reduce to is; a consciousness that is not physical but is the multidimensional causative and creative source of all experience of reality! This is the ground or foundation of existence and reality, that science has to understand and accept and realise that this is the ultimate creative freedom! We as this consciousness can create anything. We might even equate quantum potentials as the ground of being in consciousness. We are experiencing a spiritual reality!
1:12:00 - 1:12:30 Its musical. The subjective information is moving across the gap connecting the two neurons.. reminds me of musical coherence between musicians. They are able to connect instantly and truly. And are able to adapt to changes and variations in the information to stay connected to keep the "song" alive and intergrated with the whole.
16:34 OK, I'm sold. I'm definitely a materialist by this definition. I believe our brain does the best it can inferring what's out there with whatever senses it has. What we perceive is a best guess in terms of what the senses can detect. Different sensors, different perception. So what's out there is only correlated with our perceptions. Our perceptions are manufactured inside our heads.
I thought idealism says that what we experience is not what is out there, but the dashboard- - here he seems to be saying that materialism says that- I guess I need to get the book
I don’t understand how idealists can be certain that spacetime exists only in our heads as the “cognitive scaffolding” within which we perceive our representations of the world. How can they be certain that spacetime is not also a feature of the world-as-it-is (ie Schopenhauer’s “Will”)?
I have been onboard with Bernardo a few years now, but I am over it, the physical is no less there just because you rebrand it as made from ideas, as opposed to physics which says it is made from energy (or whatever metaphor you want to insert). The question of agency from the physical is also something that Kastrup accepts because he says the physical and the mental are the same thing, dual aspect monism, they BOTH have agency, not one over the other or both together acting on one another. If he has a new way of doing physics that integrates ideas into the mathematics I would be impressed but he simply gives up that job to IIT. Dual aspect monism all the way but how to tie psychological theory etc with physics is not really something philosophers are tooled or schooled in.
@@bradmodd7856 Have you looked at Donald Hoffman's MUI theory and his conscious realism in general? He starts from conscious observers and uses maths to describe geometries beyond the Planck scale, such as the amplituhedron. He might be more to your liking.
@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist absolutely, he is bringing something to the table, like IIT. Just to say it is all ideas is not enough to me, cute but like Carlo Rovelli says, it is just a word, it makes no difference to the issue of resolving the mind/body (hard) problem of how ideas and matter work. Just saying rocks are made from ideas doesn't cut it, I need a theory that goes a bit deeper than just offering a word for what the universe is made of, we could call it anything, mind and matter are still the 2 players we have to reconcile, calling them ideas doesn't make them any easier to understand, it's better than dualism, yes, but monism is just a return to the old model.
Matter, materialism, physics, chemistry, is cause+effect. Natural laws. Beyond that is awareness+intent (includes other things such as conscience and an ability to sense, recognition, and maybe visual memory), zero dimensional, outside of spacetime, the R/W entity of consciousness (some kind of biological emination of sensory input that is read with awareness and accepts the input of signals of intent). The test of spirit is intent which is the only measurable thing that is not retrained by physical laws of cause+effect.
@@adventuresinawareness I am curious how analytic idealism accounts for learning process (any hypothesis already?). Dissociated complex of mind at large is ‘certainly’ dynamic process, changing pattern (when we are forced to use language of time). When first formed it’s got certain pattern, innate predispositions, abilities, or talents if you will, which is then changing, e.g. thru learning process, while interacting with mind at large and other complexes ‘out there’ thru mitigation of dissociative boundary (environmental influence) as well as new associations between different thoughts within. It manifests physically as neural network re-configuration in the brain when observed from 3rd parson perspective. Free will of mind at large (consciousness) expresses itself by both, initial configuration and further complexification. What is really going on when we learn? Maybe Bernardo could address this topic during next lecture? I understand that this is an intrinsic drive, will of nature to do so; would be cool to entertain some hypothesis.
I find quite troubling the notion that materialists think all that actually exists are the descriptions of the material. I would claim that materialism is precisely the notion that all that exists is the material itself, and that our descriptions of that material are, a priori, a fantasy, and as such either simply do not exist, or whose existence cannot be discerned. Even the speed of light, to such a materialist, while of course scientifically falsifiable, (meaning, valid, true), is merely a description we use to refer to ultimately-unknowable material reality. I describe it like this; we will never discover in an onion, no matter how many layers we peel back, its onion-ness. Its onion-ness is merely, for the materialist, a projection of the self onto cold, unadorned material reality. The onion-ness, therefore, does not exist. Nonetheless I do find the speaker and this video entangling, and thank you for your work!
@@abraao2213 I agree with you, and if I understand your meaning, it is that to insist on the unknowability of something is to insist on having knowledge of the precise reasons it cannot be known. I know it did not come across clearly, or at all, but I think materialism is a position of philosophical faith, not in the least a precisely scientific position. I have no evidence whatsoever that material reality does not contain the onion-ness of an onion, as it were, but simply think it would be unbecomingly arrogant of us to assert that material reality does contain such a thing. I would even go so far as to say that such an assertion (meaning, that material reality does indeed contain the onion-ness of an onion) is unfalsifiable, and think we should therefore insist that it is something we at the very least don’t, and probably cannot, know. In this precise sense, we can see that both materialism itself and positions to the contrary (meaning, positions that assert there is more to reality than just the material) are both fundamentally positions of faith. To this it could easily be replied that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which, of course, is correct. But, it is precisely that; absence of evidence. Meaning, the absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence itself. All that is to say; oh, woe, how little we know…
I don’t have any hard metaphysical commitments, but I think the issue is that there are different ways of conceptualizing materialism. If you think that materialism means believing that all there is to existence can be captured in physical equations, then it’s an obvious absurdity (though there are many people who believe that like Tegmark). But there are other conceptions of materialism, wherein the material substrate has qualitative properties as well as the structural properties studied by physics. It’s the recognition of the difference between physics (the discipline) and physical things. This is a perfectly reasonable view. I find that approach much preferable to calling oneself an idealist. As far as Bernardo’s analytic idealism is inline with our observations, it’s compatible with the above view. In the ways where it is not (his murky speculations about a universal mind), it’s a strength to the above view as opposed to his.
I think there is still a major problem here and I think you missed it. The very notion you propose doesn't work in materialism, because materialism says that the physical things in question are all that really exists, therefore they can't have qualitative properties, because the qualitative and experiential things are not material, and so you end up with a contradiction. So materialism still doesn't work no matter how you slice it.
@@matthewoburke7202 to me that’s just arguing over semantics. If your theory of the material is one where the same stuff that from one perspective moves around akin to descriptions from physics, but when “viewed from the inside” by actually *being* that system presents qualitative properties, I see no reason why it would be improper to call it material.
@@rysw19 No it isn't semantics, because the question remains, is the physical or the qualitative fundamental? Because materialism says that the qualitative is not fundamental, but is emerging out of complex physical processes. If you say that the qualitative is not emerging but is fundamental, what you are describing is Idealism, not materialism.
@@matthewoburke7202 What I was referring to about semantics was your objection to material things not being able to have qualitative properties. That depends on your definitions of material. You are correct the distinction is exactly surrounding what is fundamental. But emergent materialism and idealism are not the only two options. There are panpsychist and neutral monist positions that both maintain material entities in their ontology but have fundamental ties between those entities and qualitative properties
@@rysw19 I'm certainly not saying that idealism and materialism are the only two options. However, under materialism (or physicalism) specifically, because of what it means, qualitative properties can't be in any way fundamental, no matter how you try and conceptualize it. That's because by definition physical things are fundamental and qualitative things are dependent or emerging from them. Idealism on the other hand means that qualitative properties are fundamental and physical ones are not, thus they lie on opposite sides of the spectrum so to speak. The other ideas you bring are more middle grounds between the two opposing viewpoints.
Even quantities are qualities as i see a wave from sensory experience. It is not only the map versus the territory, the territory ittself is a mapping.
Good upload, thanks. Bernardo argues on the one hand that Materialism makes a fundamental mistake by claiming that the World you see around you is all generated in your head and consciousness is therefore epiphenomenal and secondary, but also argues that what we actually see is just a dash board of a real world that exists out there, which we only have partial access to, and therefore is also only secondary (the dash board is also generated by your brain). Correct me if I am wrong, but both of these positions that we cannot know reality as it is in itself, or is this where he brings in Schopenhauer's idea of the Will into the picture?
Consciousness being epiphenomenal is a very unpopular opinion, but yes it is a sparse symbolic model of the self interacting with its environment. You understand how your senses work right?
Yes, I get that BK believes that all that exists is consciousness, and that our senses filter out from the vast complexity of all there is, a simplified model for our survival. When he says Dash board I always imagine an artificial mental construct that is different from the World out there,like in a planes cockpit in relation to outside the plane, whereas maybe he just means a limited window of conscious appearances, which mirrors some of what is real out there? I am new to BK and analytic idealism, so can you clarify that BK does believe that our senses are mirroring the World out there as it is in itself, rather than creating a model? thanks
@@Rhimeson He's just wrong. We know about em radiation and how retinas work. Colors are a symbol that represent an arbitrary segmentation of em radiation derived from evolutionary efficiency and usefulness. Those are facts, while as you point out Kastrup's claims are self contradictory.
@@jyjjy7 Okay,fair point. So do you think visible light exists in the same way as radio waves do, as just more invisible fields of energy? is everything just featureless perterbations of energy?
While Castrop raises interesting points about materialism's limits, doesn't idealism simply shift the mystery without solving it? If consciousness is the fabric of reality, how do we explain the consistent laws of physics that operate regardless of our perceptions? If we all create reality through consciousness, why is there a shared, objective world instead of billions of subjective ones? Materialism, despite its flaws, has propelled us forward like a reliable engine, while idealism feels like admiring the horizon without offering a path to reach it.
I just went back and watched the two brilliant discussions Bernardo had with Vervaeke this week. Been wanting another deep dive from BK, so this is perfect timing!
Almost - qualities are the attributes of an object and can be objective or subjective qualia specifically refer to subjective, conscious experiences, and cannot be directly observed by others.
@@walterbenjamin1386 I believe that is right - all qualia have qualities. I think whether or not all qualities are qualia depends on your metaphysics A materialist would say no I think an idealist would say all qualities are qualia, because all qualities exist in mind But I'm not the expert. Come join the discussion with Bernardo if you want!
The portion about panpaychism was self-contradictory. He makes two points about the combination problem and how two distinct conscious fields could never combine, and then the third point is about how the particles are not actually distinct entities. Gee, you think the panpsychists might be aware of that final point which basically refutes the first two? 😅
Thanks for your comment, you have focused on something important 🙏 I think his point is that it seems panpsychists don't include the third point in their models, otherwise they would be Idealists, if I've understood
@@adventuresinawareness Yes, check him out. Nobody talks about him, While reading him I felt he understand stuff he is talking about his philosophical method is phenomenology along lines of Husserl. His biography is available on the internet he is relatively unknown.
I'm really enjoying this, but there are these oceassional really loud and high pitched clipping sounds now and then that really hurt the ears with headphones on. Bit of a shame, I think will stop listening to this one, at least with headphones.
In fact the scientific description of matter is also a map of the real world and its very well understood to be a map. Its just a more precise map as its based on measurements by objective instruments as opposed to the inprecise subjective map in our heads or the verbal discription we make of that. So no there is no fundamenteel thinking error there, just multiple ways to describe the same stuff around us.
8:55, does Coyne really think bacteria have subjective experience? This doesn't seem to make sense because it should be obvious that no living thing without a nervous system can have subjective experience. Perhaps his statement is hyperbole, or we're missing context around the quote? Perhaps we will make AI that's not exactly living by our old definitions, but it could still have a mental landscape like a conscious being. Other than this AI exception, I'm not sure there is any other exception to my above statement: all living things must have a nervous system to have any kind of subjective experience (as far as we know).
@@miragetv1718 An earnest answer: I've used inductive reasoning to make that statement. A simple description of "inductive reasoning" is that we take many examples from the real world and make a general statement from those many examples. In the case of conscious beings needing a nervous system: I and many people have looked at a lot of living organisms and found that the only ones conscious are those with a nervous system. Consciousness tends to require a fairly complex nervous system. This is just an observational fact. Inductive reasoning isn't perfect. The famous example of inductive reasoning failing: "Swans are white." Yes, this generalized statement is largely agreed upon due to observational facts. Turns out, "Swans are almsost always white," might be a better general statement because we can, in fact, find black swans. They're just rare. Maybe AI consciousness can be a black swan of consciousness needing nervous systems. Maybe there are exceptions. Which ones interest you?
Yes, Jerry did say this. "Any sensation in animals, be they bacteria or humans, involves some sort of qualia. For example, what does it "feel like" to the crustacean Daphnia to detect a predatory fish in its pond?"
@@Paraselene_Tao And how exactly did you confirm of other entities' consciousness? Can you show me an example of their EXPERIENCE? Because that is what consciousness is.
@@miragetv1718 While that's interesting, I think there must be a pragmatic use of the terms conscious & consciousness because how do I know you're conscious? I don't experience your consciousness, do I? Likewise, you don't experience my consciousness. Nonetheless, we ought to treat each other as conscious beings because, primarily, we can say we are conscious, and secondarily, we behave as conscious beings. That secondary manner of recognizing others as conscious due to their behavior is how I treat lots of organisms that haven't or can't tell me they're conscious. Do they behave consciously? If so, then I pragmatically fall into treating them as conscious beings despite my never actually experiencing their consciousness firsthand.
I really wanted to get into this video, but the number of ads is simply making it unwatchable. I get that you have to make money, but placing ads every 3-5 min? As soon as i start to settle into Bernardo’s arguments, BAM there’s another ad for a product that i have zero interest in and will never buy.
Thanks for the feedback, and sorry to hear your experience is affected If you join the course you can get access to ad free versions of these videos, and more. I think with UA-cam premium you can also avoid ads. I'm not sure there's a way I can reduce the number of ads and we do rely on that income to cover basic admin costs
Is there any way someone could contact Bernardo and ask him to present a refutation of non-reductive physicalism? I haven’t seen him address it before. Or perhaps he could do a walk through of his arguments against every variant of materialism from behaviorism to functionalism and such. Also, do these criticisms here hold up against naive and direct realism?
2:52 ... Ok, so why does Bernardo use science to argue for metaphysics. It is borderline crazy to make that statement, while he is at the same time doing exactly that. For further analysis, check out my deep dive into the plethora of problems in Bernardo's philosophy, in multiple videos of mine, not least this series, which includes a very long list of problems : ua-cam.com/video/f5oOivivswg/v-deo.html Take that as a list of questions you could ask him, if you really want to dig deep
My understanding is that his view is that science can't and doesn't address metaphysics, but that good metaphysics can't contradict science - eg, our observations about how nature behaves...
@@Mandibil Metaphysics is about the framework from which one understands reality. Kastrup's ideas are glaringly obsolete in context of modern science but no, that is not one of its problems. You can't take the physics out of metaphysics, that's why someone sciency arguing (poorly) for idealism/religion like Kastrup is so popular; it helps the religious believe they aren't just delusional.
@@jyjjy7 What are some examples of his ideas being glaringly obsolete? You seem to be taking a quite confrontational attitude (and acting rather superior I might add) so I'm sure you have something damning.
@@jyjjy7 lmao science has literally nothing to say regarding the truth of physicalism, idealism, even solipsism. it takes very little reflection to realize that you can't use empirical data to refute descarte's demon. by it's very design, science has nothing to say about this class of claims.
It seems to be a really useful theory for physics and a pointless one for psychology. Kastrup is a dual aspect monist like Hegel, Spinoza and countless physicists and the interesting thing to me is that, if the physical is the mirror image of the mental, it has agency too. So, in a way, the agency of the physical is embedded in idealism.
8:45 Mr. Kastrup claims that sensory processing by single cell organisms that don't have a nervous system contradicts materialism . Why on Earth would this contradict materialism ??? Who said that biological computation and representation of information can only be performed by nervous systems ??? (This is apart from the fact that Coyne was referring to a crustacean which are not single -cell organisms and very much does have nervous systems). At 8:45 Kastrup then explains that the sensory representation by single cell organisms contradicts materialism because of the absence of a "complex material arrangement " in these life forms. Jesus - Mr. Kastrup needs to read an introductory to cell biology book.
Coyne references both bacteria and crustaceans. He says both have qualitative experience. This doesn't contradict all conceivable forms of materialism, but it's pretty widely believed that things like plants and single-celled organisms aren't conscious because they lack the complexity of a nervous system.
@@Sam-hh3ry Complexity is necessary but not sufficient. WHat's missing is realizing that a system's responding to a stimulus only becomes an "experience" if in addition to the properties of the stimulus the system also represents it's own process of reacting (analyzing, relating to) the stimulus. Doing this does not necessarily require a nervous system, any sufficiently, complex physical (chemical, biological) system capable of creating representations will do. But the real question is whether there is an explicit representation of the processing of the stimulus that accompanies the representation of the stimulus properties. If there isn't then asking whether the system has or has not an "experience" is like asking if the number 7 is married or not. The system needs to perceive (register, know...) its own processing and reactions in order for the term "experiencing" to have any meaning.
Even as early as 10:25 Bernardo is simply wrong, and that was just the timestamp I randomly forwarded to. According to quantum mechanics, there are indeed unmeasurable quantities in physics, but that does not mean they exist in some fantastical "conscious" or "soul" realm, they are simply strange properties of matter at the microscopic level in which there is a built-in uncertainty around determining the exact value of certain pairs of values, like position and momentum or time and energy (not as in measurement is not precise enough, but that the quantities themselves take on unpredictable values in a large range). This fact does not somehow deny the epiphenomenal nature of consciousness. So this is a huge misunderstanding on Bernardo's part. As for the previous quote, he asserts that simply because an organism does not have a nervous system, therefore it is simple on the level of a bacteria or virus and therefore consciousness must be some sort of intrinsic property because there is not enough complex matter to generate such experience. First of all, this is factually wrong. Crustaceans DO have nervous systems - their brains connected to a ventral nerve cord of ganglia / nerve centers. And even if they didn't, they are obviously far more advanced in terms of development of other key biological components, most notably the brain, than a bacteria or virus is. We don't know what makes up consciousness or whether the nervous system is necessary or can be replaced by other systems. So this argument, Bernardo is not only wrong on the facts, but he is wrong logically as well. If he is wrong so badly at just the start, what exactly is the point in continuing? Honestly I come away from this deeply unimpressed with Bernardo's intellectual acumen. This is a stunningly bad level of thought for someone who considers himself a philosopher. I doubt he has the formal academic training and qualifications to actually be considered one. And the fact you openly applaud him at the start, I would think, is slightly embarrassing for you as well
Bernardo has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on Scientific American, the Institute of Art and Ideas, the Blog of the American Philosophical Association and Big Think, among others
"According to quantum mechanics, there are indeed unmeasurable quantities in physics" No, QM does not say there are "unmeasurable quantities." It just says that there are limits on what we can know about a quantum system. Which is perfectly consistent with idealism. "but that does not mean they exist in some fantastical "conscious" or "soul" realm" Idealism does not claim that quantum things exist in a "soul realm." It just denies the need to posit the existence of some separate category of being aside from what is immediately given, i.e mental stuff. "This fact does not somehow deny the epiphenomenal nature of consciousness." Almost no one takes the idea of epiphenomenalism seriously because it is so obviously wrong. "So this is a huge misunderstanding on Bernardo's part." Your entire post is made up of basic misunderstandings.
Bernardo puts this too complexly for people who are wanting to get into the subject. the level hes speaking on is for someone like me whos already been into non-local consciousness & psi & quantum for years.
Thanks for sharing your perspective 🙏 I've come across lots of people including myself who got a lot out of his presentations without the experiences you've mentioned. But like everything, it's not for everyone and I appreciate his language can be precise and technical
@matswessling6600 1. It's a monist ontology, so it presupposes that everything that exists can be reduced to one type of stuff: material. 2. It presupposes that everything within the strictly material world can be exhaustively described through quantitative measures. 3. Consciousness and qualia either don't exist, or we will somehow find a way to quantify subjective first-person experience. There are plenty more, but I think this is enough, considering most of them are covered in this video. I think the biggest issue is that people think they're materialists when they believe that consciousness is generated by brains of sufficient complexity (emergentism) or when they think there's a tiny unit of material thing and consciousness is a property of it and human qualia/experience builds from there (pansychism). Emergentism and panpsychism are both dualist ontologies. They posit a material thing which then generates a non-physical thing, consciousness. This is called property dualism. You are probably a property dualist, which has some problems, but so does every other attempt to tackle the hard problem of consciousness.
The mountain is measured through the map and the map is measured in my brain, both the measurement and the thing exist. To say only one does, is either a strawman or you encounter very weird materialists. When you say "a blind person can not imagine red even if we describe it" thats an argument for materialism, without the material tools in the eyes, the person does not see red. Just because it is very difficult to recreate a brain, you say "its impossible" Where was idealism when experience did not exist in the universe? Experience evolved out of quantities. There is clearly inherent experience in the universe, our experience is made of electromagnetic comparisons and measurements, but these things are too material. Even if experience is inherent to matter, there has to exist that which has no experience, if everything was experience, then there would be nothing to experience. A painting exists only with a brush, canvas, paint and object to be painted, our thought exists only with the material conditions for it to exist. We are not only what we experience, we are also what we don't experience, if I never see my face, of course I have a face and it is made of cells and matter. Science is part of philosophy, it is called the philosophy of science, this is why science is created by philosophers. Explanatorily powerful is something I have never heard before, but the way you explained it "it has to be important and useful" seems to apply to science more than philosophy. 53:00 First you claimed materialism believes only experience of a thing exists, now you claim materialism believes only a thing in and of itself exists. Materialism says both exist. How does superposition prove the world is not physical? Superposition stops eventually. Superposition does not show that things dont have a defined position, it can't have infinite positions, its either up or down or inbetween and sometimes it stays as one, would you at least admit that it becomes material then? observation and measurement in quantum science, are not the same as what we call "observation" and "act of measuring" it does not require consciousness, it just means an interaction. A 55:42, you were saying "materialists think there exists only the map" you said now "everything arises from experience" so now you believe that "map is inherent and it creates the universe" you have used a strawman . I will repeat one more time: Materialism says, matter is inherent, thought is also matter and matter creates thought, without material tools there is no thought. Science is part of philosophy, experience is part of matter, qualities make quantities and quantities make qualities, these are the two things we disagree on I guess. The green of the forest is not created in your head, its is the photons that are not part of an object, light that is not part of the object, the light we see is reflected, the light we don't see is whats absorbed or non existant. I have experience, you have experience, there are two experiences, so a quantity of qualities. Sight is a quality gained by a quantity of cells. More parsimonious explanations are always the truer ones, because as evidence grows, your explanation expands, but only relative to the evidence. Idealism does not explain experience better than materialism, how do you explain experience? You claim all particles are conscious, but you cant have a thought that is miniscule, thought has to include at least two things, in reality each thought includes thousands of ion exchanges, not just one of them. I agree that matter has inherent experience, but experience is only the measurement of difference between matter and lack there of, experience is therefore material and non matter is also physical, because matter exists, but if only matter existed there would be nothing to compare it to. There are conjoined twins and craniopagus twins, its not hard to imagine two people having the same thought at once, or one person hearing the thoughts of the other. Your experience feels unitary, but it is clear that what you see is what the countless tiny cells in your eye see, in other words we know that it is many singular ion exchanges at the same time. The lake does exist and it does change shape, the quantum fields do exist and they do have excitations. There is nothing in and of itself. Things don't have to be seperate to interact with each other, the difference between less excitation and more excitation of quantum fields is reality. And quantum fields are multiple. A quantity of quantum fields. Your thoughts arent only yours, your thoughts are what you share with the universe, there is no universe without a contradiction, contradiction has to exist for anything to exist. There is no fundametal mass and speed, but there are fundamental laws of the universe. Its not the physical that is conscious but conscious that is physical. There is no unity of the quantum fields. Your conclusion is that matter exists in consciousness, but there is no reason to claim that, matter can exist without experience, experience can only exist with matter. The purpose and meaning of human life is to enjoy it and the best way to enjoy it is through taking care of each other, those are our material needs. It is in fact in idealism that meaningful action is not taken, it is materialism that saves us from commodification of life, it is capitalism that rejects measurable human needs and affection that is heartfelt is a human need, so is food, so is water and housing, these are the material things we should be giving each other through labor and study.
@@discordlexia2429 Just to be coherent, my conclusion is that, experience is a type of internal contradiction of matter through time. Am I using any useless terms? Does my conclusion contradict something I said? and if this conclusion is fine, does it describe idealism?
An interesting expansion of your red/blind story: I read that if you take a blind person and put three different colored balls in front of them, and ask them to choose a certain color, they do it successfully a statistically significant number of times.
Love this. But it is always a bit weird for me when Bernardo rails against the fact that materialism denies our intuition that the qualities we experience are actually out there, and yet Bernardo's view is the each of us creates our own physical world around us as a perception. In other words, Bernardo's view is that the mountain I'm staring at in the distance (all of its visual qualities) is only in my mind. Yes, he certainly believes that it can be reduced to universial consciousness, but that is NOT the image I'm seeing. So, in this case, Bernardo himself is making a similar claim that the colors that seem to be of the objects around us are really only in our personal alter.
I've had the same thought! The difference I guess is in one case all the colours are inside a skull, and in the other, part of a particular perspective of the whole on itself....
@@adventuresinawareness Yeah, there is an important difference that has to do with the fundamental problem with materialism. I guess where I get hung up is that Bernardo stresses so strongly that materialism steals away our shared intuitiosn that the mountain actually has all of those colors we see on it. He says that materialims is so absurd that it claims they aren't actually part of the mountain but are just in our skull. Yet, Bernardo says that those colors only exist inside my individual alter. And, even more, he says the mountain itself doesn't exist, that my alter produces it as an image based on natural selection, that there really is no object out there that is a mountain. In that sense, his claim is even more radical (I agree with him) than materialism. Materialism would at least honor our sense that we are all staring at a structure in the shape of a mountain that is out there. This point is only relevant to me in how often Bernardo stresses it and with such force. I worry that people new to his work will be really confused when they, a few minutes later, hear Bernardo stress that the colors only exist in individual alters and there really are no mountains and streams and vallys outside of our individual alters.
That said, i appreciate how you framed the difference as being how BK's view does state that the image of the colors and mountains is a particular perspective of the whole on itself. Well, THAT said, most of my materialist friends do have an experience of awe that they translate as "We are the universe exploring itself," so I know that this sense of the whole learning how to observe and study itself can fairly easily be had by materialists. They can argue for it philosophically very well, but thankfully they can have the same basic experience of awe in realizing that they are the vehicle through which the entire universe can observe itself.
What you've described is a form of dualism called property dualism. It's the idea that a non-physical thing (qualia, consciosuness) can be generated by certain configurations of matter. You have redefined materialism to be a circular reasoning fallacy. "Materialism means anything observable, including non-material things, are material. Everything is either material or non-material, therefore everything is material."
@@travisbplank yes, I think these things can be further reduced to complex emf interactions in a dynamic process that increases the speed of entropy within a open system that is receiving energy faster than it can disperse that energy. This I believe at all levels. The Sun is the source of life on Earth.
@@travisbplank I do admit that the defining of all things that interact with the physical as being physical has circular reasoning. If not for that as a presupposition and definition then I would not hold this stance. By looping the definition back on itself I ensure clear boundaries of meaning that can't have moving goalposts. I consider this type of thinking about things as more honest and consistent. It represents a truth that doesn't care about opinions and feelings.
This guy doesn't even understand materialism. He is either being disingenuous or isn't particularly bright. Is he just offering confirmation for the spiritual? I don't understand why he is so popular otherwise. Anyway to counter this confused hit piece on materialism, the brain is categorically a computer, consciousness is part of the software it is running (most of what the brain is doing is subconscious). This conception has literally none of the problems he is ascribing to "materialism". And yeah our experiences are generated by the brain, they are symbols abstractions. We literally know how our sense organs work. Color does not exist, only a continuous spectrum of EM radiation. the experience is a symbol in a model designed to help you easily differentiate objects reflecting the light given off by our local star.
Why be insulting when you could make a genuine and polite approach to criticise the viewpoint? If everything what you say is established and irrefutable then why not make a bulletproof case against analytical idealism and in that deal with it once and for all? Write a paper on it and deconstruct analytical idealism for good. No offence but What you wrote comes across as a little infantile and triggered instead of profound.
@@gameaudioshaman You are kidding right? Do you NOT know how retinas work? It's not infantile to point out scientific fact and how it is incompatible with Kastrup's barely coherent claims. No I'm not going to write a paper on basic scientific fact and how it invalidates the claims of this preacher pretending to be a scientist. Why are you defending him? You don't seemingly have an argument against what I'm saying, you just claim it's infantile for me to point out that this guy is preying on the confirmation bias of religious philosophy majors. Do explain why you find his ideas attractive despite the basic facts I point out that contradict them or you are the one being insulting in an unfounded manner, not the person trying to help you not fall for sketchy mysticism adjacent ancient philosophy cloaked poorly in psuedoscience.
Reducing one thing to another is fine Bernardo says. The boeddhists think differently. They also see consiousness not as fundamental. If Bernardo really wants to make a case out of idealism he will have to show why boeddhist views are wrong. Until then he is assuming just as much as materialists. Yogacara for example also see mind as fundamental, but consiousness not. For them emptiness is fundamental and natural laws are illusory and build on collective karma. When there is enlightenment according to this views natural laws stop working as karma also has stopped. They try to explain how a common world arises from consiousness from shared karma. But if this view is problematic how then can it be explained. And why consiousness and not emptiness, and how can a world arise from it. He has still much work to do.
Almost nobody thinks that the world is exhaustively described in terms of quantities. He tries to put realism into a tiny tiny box of his own making. Maybe there are a few out there who have a strictly realist view of mathematical models, but most scientists believe that science is only creating models of the world using mathematics. So if he is wrong on this really basic starting point, why continue on with his more complex arguments about mentation. He also ignores process with his simplistic depiction about what realists think. Any modern realist philosopher/scientist will think of the experience as being generated by complex processes in which the body interacts with the world. He depicts with his drawings that for realists, the brain sits passively in a box, cut off from the world except for some inputs through sensory organs, and then it somehow generates experience in isolation from the world. That's a ridiculous portrayal of how a good realist would view perception. The inclusion of process now brings in other contemporary ideas related to complex systems and emergent properties, which for good realists are sufficient to give a very full account of how our own conscious perception, that we know and love, arises out of a simply physical brain interacting with the physical world, while also reflecting on its own representations thereof.
Beardo's problem is that he lacks imagination and mental discipline, and gets carried away by his ego. It's one thing to say that everything May be non-material, but he has absolutely no reason to be certain of that fact. He is being a lazy scientist to just assume, because the problem is very complex and he has lots of lofty, philosophical opinions and analogies, that he has the answer. That's just giving up and taking the easy way out.
Thanks for sharing your perspective Ray 🙏 Our preference on the channel is to address the views presented, rather than offer judgements on the characters of the people presenting them. Perhaps you could point out specific objections to the reasoning? thanks for engaging 🙏
@@adventuresinawareness Sure. His entire argument seems to boil down to 2 points (1) consciousness can't be a product of something non-conscious, and (2) Consciousness can't be a product of complexity. The problem is, he cannot back-up these assertions with facts, only opinion. Someone needs to tell him that there is no such thing as proof-by-analogy.
@@RayG817 Thanks for clarifying. 🙏 Point one is widely recognised as a major problem for materialism, 'the hard problem of consciousness' etc, which I'm sure you've heard of... its not very unique to Bernardo - its just that he shines a light on how hard the problem really is, and how it was created by the strange definition of physicalism which he goes into in the video. Also in the video he explains that one can't prove a metaphysics, - it is a different category from science. What you can do is come up with the best metaphysics possible based on criteria like parsimony, logic and not contradicting science etc If we are going to demand proof, however, I would say the burden of proof is on physicalists who infer a 2nd category of reality that no one has ever experienced... Thanks again for engaging 🙏🙏
@@adventuresinawareness I disagree. he does more than shed light on how hard the "hard problem" of consciousness is. He says we don't have an answer, then strongly (arrogantly) implies that he knows the answer, and often laughs at people who bring up opposing arguments. He claims to examine the problem as a scientist, but he does not. All of his "arguments" are philosophical, not factual. He has decided, and that's that.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. As you may know, Bernardo worked at CERN, famous for its groundbreaking work in particle physics. He also completed a PhD in which he had to defend his understanding amongst academic peers. So its easy to think he has the credentials to claim a robust understanding of materialism. Of course, he could be wrong, and no one has to agree with him. Can you offer a more robust understanding of materialism, or a link to a source you appreciate?
@@adventuresinawareness It's nice of you to respond. If Bernardo's understanding of materialism is robust, as you propose, then his account must be what I propose -- more of a deliberate misrepresentation ;-) Indeed, he says in various places in the video that "according to materialism" the stars, a mountain, the room where I am only exist inside of my head. But any materialism that I know of postulates the existence of objective reality. There are plenty of holes in Bernardo's critique of materialism and in his own philosophy, but that's not your question. You ask me for "a more robust" understanding of materialism. Sure. The main question of philosophy is of the First Cause. Idealist accounts claim that the Ideal is primary, and materialists claim that Matter is primary. It's a question of causality, not exclusivity. A non-naive understanding of materialism does not exclude the ideal as a fundamental part of our reality, only posits that matter came first. There is an objective world in the Universe where we are, which does not depend for its existence on our perception. We perceive the world through sensations, which evolved to represent the reality in a way that is useful for our agency within our ecology. With encephalization and increased sophistication of animal material brains we've transcended the purely material: with abstract thought we developed notions and ideas that are not purely material, such as our form of society. Society has material properties, but is not only irreducible to neurons and atoms, it's not even reducible to an individual organism. It's not quantifiable through low-level processes. Our society exists through subscribing to certain ideas, e.g. laws, which are in themselves immaterial, but are expressed in matter in our heads and can cause tangible material effects on our lives. What do you think about that?
@@montycobra Thanks for your reply and engaging. Here's my best shot at a response: When Bernardo says that "according to materialism" the stars, a mountain, the room where I am only exist inside of my head" I don't understand him to deny that materialists posit an objective reality. He is just reminding us that according to materialism, the mountain emits electromagnetic rays called light that hit the retina of your eye, convert to electrochemical signal in the brain, make their way to the back and get interpreted into a picture of a mountain. That mountain which we experience is not "out there" - what is really out there, what "matter" is in and of itself, is not something materialists have been able to define. All that we have are theoretical phenomena like quarks or a quantum field which help explain patterns in what we perceive. Certainly atoms out there would not look anything like a mountain, table or chairs etc. That is what I think Bernardo means when he says a materialist says all those things are in your head according to materialism. Regarding the 2nd part of your response, I liked how you demonstrate that not all ideas are reducible to neurons and atoms etc. You also clarify that you don't deny consciousness (although some materialists do.) I understand that most materialists say that matter is primary and consciousness emerges from matter. I'm certain that Bernardo understands this too and I think his presentation makes this clear. What your answer hasn't done is demonstrate what matter is, (other than to say it isn't conscious.) It also doesn't explain how consciousness could emerge from matter. There is a major advantage to Bernardo's model - consciousness is all that we can be certain of. To take it as the primary, and create a model that would explain the appearance of matter, means that everything is explained based on the one phenomena of which we can be certain. Anyway, I'm not a professional philosopher, I may have misunderstood both you and Bernardo, but I find it useful to discuss as it improves my understanding. Many thanks
@@adventuresinawareness A word of caution: what Bernardo says and what you think he says are very different things. In any case, thanks for this tactful exchange.
As far of my limited reading of philosophy goes, Bernardo creates a scarecrow he calls materialism in order to make his argument look stronger and his course more relevant. Lay people who watch this course are just invited to believe "oh my, how scientists are so stupid to believe such and such things". But that is because their arguments and methods are misrepresented here.
Idealism is a busted flush. When the fist hits the jaw we can all shrug and say, 'Material fists don't exist, jaws can't break'. Materialism is the simplest explanation of all epistemological and ontological theories.
Materialism doesn't even have a conceptual idea of how to explain the only thing we know for sure exists; consciousness. Read about neuroscience theories and you'll see that it is basically toy theories.
@@gustav4539Neuro-science has made great strides in the last 50 years and can point to and explain many aspects of the functioning of consciousness. It is early days. Idealists have no explanation. They see no connections between brain and body activity and consciousness. None. You then get charlatans like Chambers waffling on about simulations where he never defines what a simulation is. Fist hits jaw. Law suit initiates. Man found guilty. Man goes to jail. Do men, prisons, courts of law, cartilage and blood exist. Does pain exist? Do bruised knuckles exist? Materialism provides the only conceptual framework to describe this entities and events. Descartes Berkeley, Kant, Hemel, Russell and all of the post moderns have taken us through the looking glass. See John Searle.
You acknowledge the existence of fists. And Jaws. Pain is now understood in neurological terms and the effects it can have on the brain and hence perception by the sufferer. If you languish in the discredited world of dualism then you should get out more and read a few books. Read medical research and sensible philosophers who haven't drunk the Kool Aid.
We've now released part 2: The Case for Idealism: ua-cam.com/video/Mar2X6bvid4/v-deo.html You can join our next discussion series with Bernardo starting 29th Oct with guest Christof Koch, the celebrated neuroscientist: dandelion.events/e/y54ag
We release the 2nd lecture "The Case for Idealism" next week 😊
Edit: now released! ua-cam.com/video/Mar2X6bvid4/v-deo.html
Certainly curious about the Micro and Macro Universe ...Amir, lovely to meet you....
Yes I love the Materials of the Universe ....Belfast Ireland 🇮🇪
thanks for uploading these! just registered for the upcoming discussion series
@@John12512 Great to have you joining us John!
@@margueriteoreilly2168 Let us know what you think when we've uploaded 🙏🙏
@adventuresinawareness
I sm so busy my head is twisted... I really enjoyed the last zoom
I am trying to finish to start a project ....I do really want to dive and I am going to set time aside to rewatch vt and maybe put a sensible question .
It was good to finally say Hello on Zoom
All the best
Marguerite 🐉🐲🐉
It's lovely to see all the polite criticism of Dr. Kastrup's ideas in the comments that open-mindedly listen to what he has to say and seriously consider it before examining it to find fault, and then wording that fault concisely and without ad hominem...
Oh... Hang on a second...
I don't think that we have the right to demand to be treated with kid gloves in intellectual discussion. Just as artists put up with often savage criticism so should we. Kastrup in particular needs to be called out because his "theories" are nothing more than empty science fiction. But for many viewres this will not be evident unless we call his nonsense nonsense.
@Dingo-Blurps If you looked below you would have found my contributing comment. The point was that Kastrup displays a lack of even elementary understanding of single cell organisms, cellular signaling and biological information processing when he claims that these organisms lack "complex material arrangement" which would be necessary for sensory representation. Even bacteria exhibit chemotaxis which involves processing sensory input with respect to it's spatial directional information content. Kastrup makes grandiose pronouncements but all that he says amounts science fiction like the "one eye of the world" , the "universal consciousness" and the "dissociative boundary". WHat's particularly striking is that his story does not even promise a potentially workable answer to the very question that he claims to be the fundamental problem of consciousness. He starts with claiming that we need to be able to explain how subjective qualities can be reconciled with knowledge about the physical world. He suggest that this is solved by assuming that the physical world is really all just mental stuff, it only appears physical to us. OK. So than he needs to tell me how the "redness of the red" or the taste of mint or any other so called "fundamental mental quality" can explain the properties of any of the physical "appearances", say, why appearance that we call the electron appears to have a negative not positive charge . Hello ? An even better example is color experience. According to him this is one of the fundamental conscious qualities that the world is made of. OK. Does this quality also appear on the "screen of perception" ? Certainly, we can study electromagnetic radiation and part of the spectrum which is visible light. Can he say ANYTHING about how my experience of color could possibly explain why light is described by the Maxwell equations ??? Or any of the things on "on the screen of perception"? Notice that this is absolutely not helped by calling the electromagnetic wave description of light a "mere appearance". He can call it whatever he wants but he still needs to explain what we see, be it an appearance of not. And things get a lot worse for his incoherent nonsense if we asks some simple questions. For example if the visible spectrum of EM radiation is an "appearance" of my color experience, what about the rest of the EM spectrum? As far as my experiences are concerned UV light cause skin burns. So is the UV spectrum an appearance of my skin burn experience ? What happens to visible and UV spectrum when I close my eyes or recover from sub burn ? Do they disappear ? And how on Earth can I possibly ever discover from the "fundamentals" of how color looks or skin burn feels that their they have the same kind of appearance on the screen of perception ? Further both the color and skin burn experiences require there to be an appearance called my brain. Is my brain an appearance of these experiences ? Etc. THis is why the whole thing is completely vacuous nonsense.
Yes, exactly, I have been saying that everyone must be forced to defend the positions they take through a metaphysical analysis, that is what is going on here, holding the mirror up. Bravo.
Thank you🙏🏼😭 I wake up every morning in eager anticipation for a new Bernardo Kastrup video to drop.
It’s very interesting… the most “enlightened” people truly are the ones who insist they have far from reached enlightenment…
Great to be of service
Thanks so much for your comment! ✨🙏
The absolute of reality that we reduce to is; a consciousness that is not physical but is the multidimensional causative and creative source of all experience of reality! This is the ground or foundation of existence and reality, that science has to understand and accept and realise that this is the ultimate creative freedom! We as this consciousness can create anything. We might even equate quantum potentials as the ground of being in consciousness. We are experiencing a spiritual reality!
1:12:00 - 1:12:30 Its musical. The subjective information is moving across the gap connecting the two neurons.. reminds me of musical coherence between musicians. They are able to connect instantly and truly. And are able to adapt to changes and variations in the information to stay connected to keep the "song" alive and intergrated with the whole.
16:34 OK, I'm sold. I'm definitely a materialist by this definition. I believe our brain does the best it can inferring what's out there with whatever senses it has. What we perceive is a best guess in terms of what the senses can detect. Different sensors, different perception. So what's out there is only correlated with our perceptions. Our perceptions are manufactured inside our heads.
30:00 quantities we use to communicate about our internally felt qualities. It's a way of communicating our shared experience.
Some fantastic work by Bernardo 👏🏼
I thought idealism says that what we experience is not what is out there, but the dashboard- - here he seems to be saying that materialism says that- I guess I need to get the book
I don’t understand how idealists can be certain that spacetime exists only in our heads as the “cognitive scaffolding” within which we perceive our representations of the world. How can they be certain that spacetime is not also a feature of the world-as-it-is (ie Schopenhauer’s “Will”)?
Amazing lecture!!!!
Great! We'll release part two tomorrow
Materialism Is false! Well done, Bernardo 👍🏻
I have been onboard with Bernardo a few years now, but I am over it, the physical is no less there just because you rebrand it as made from ideas, as opposed to physics which says it is made from energy (or whatever metaphor you want to insert). The question of agency from the physical is also something that Kastrup accepts because he says the physical and the mental are the same thing, dual aspect monism, they BOTH have agency, not one over the other or both together acting on one another. If he has a new way of doing physics that integrates ideas into the mathematics I would be impressed but he simply gives up that job to IIT. Dual aspect monism all the way but how to tie psychological theory etc with physics is not really something philosophers are tooled or schooled in.
@@bradmodd7856 Have you looked at Donald Hoffman's MUI theory and his conscious realism in general? He starts from conscious observers and uses maths to describe geometries beyond the Planck scale, such as the amplituhedron. He might be more to your liking.
@@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist absolutely, he is bringing something to the table, like IIT. Just to say it is all ideas is not enough to me, cute but like Carlo Rovelli says, it is just a word, it makes no difference to the issue of resolving the mind/body (hard) problem of how ideas and matter work. Just saying rocks are made from ideas doesn't cut it, I need a theory that goes a bit deeper than just offering a word for what the universe is made of, we could call it anything, mind and matter are still the 2 players we have to reconcile, calling them ideas doesn't make them any easier to understand, it's better than dualism, yes, but monism is just a return to the old model.
@@bradmodd7856 call in Dan Winter
Matter, materialism, physics, chemistry, is cause+effect. Natural laws. Beyond that is awareness+intent (includes other things such as conscience and an ability to sense, recognition, and maybe visual memory), zero dimensional, outside of spacetime, the R/W entity of consciousness (some kind of biological emination of sensory input that is read with awareness and accepts the input of signals of intent). The test of spirit is intent which is the only measurable thing that is not retrained by physical laws of cause+effect.
Brilliant and clear, full stop. Thank you! 🙏
So glad! Thank you! 🙏🙏🙏✨
@@adventuresinawareness I am curious how analytic idealism accounts for learning process (any hypothesis already?). Dissociated complex of mind at large is ‘certainly’ dynamic process, changing pattern (when we are forced to use language of time). When first formed it’s got certain pattern, innate predispositions, abilities, or talents if you will, which is then changing, e.g. thru learning process, while interacting with mind at large and other complexes ‘out there’ thru mitigation of dissociative boundary (environmental influence) as well as new associations between different thoughts within. It manifests physically as neural network re-configuration in the brain when observed from 3rd parson perspective. Free will of mind at large (consciousness) expresses itself by both, initial configuration and further complexification. What is really going on when we learn? Maybe Bernardo could address this topic during next lecture? I understand that this is an intrinsic drive, will of nature to do so; would be cool to entertain some hypothesis.
@@grzegorz4636 very interesting question! Will you be joining the series? You could submit this or similar if you do 🙏
Believing is the strongest function of human psyche
I find quite troubling the notion that materialists think all that actually exists are the descriptions of the material. I would claim that materialism is precisely the notion that all that exists is the material itself, and that our descriptions of that material are, a priori, a fantasy, and as such either simply do not exist, or whose existence cannot be discerned. Even the speed of light, to such a materialist, while of course scientifically falsifiable, (meaning, valid, true), is merely a description we use to refer to ultimately-unknowable material reality. I describe it like this; we will never discover in an onion, no matter how many layers we peel back, its onion-ness. Its onion-ness is merely, for the materialist, a projection of the self onto cold, unadorned material reality. The onion-ness, therefore, does not exist.
Nonetheless I do find the speaker and this video entangling, and thank you for your work!
Engaging, not ‘entangling’, LOL
@MrCouchbleh to claim to know that the world is unknowable is to affirm to know the nature of the world you claim that can not be know.
@@abraao2213 I agree with you, and if I understand your meaning, it is that to insist on the unknowability of something is to insist on having knowledge of the precise reasons it cannot be known. I know it did not come across clearly, or at all, but I think materialism is a position of philosophical faith, not in the least a precisely scientific position. I have no evidence whatsoever that material reality does not contain the onion-ness of an onion, as it were, but simply think it would be unbecomingly arrogant of us to assert that material reality does contain such a thing. I would even go so far as to say that such an assertion (meaning, that material reality does indeed contain the onion-ness of an onion) is unfalsifiable, and think we should therefore insist that it is something we at the very least don’t, and probably cannot, know. In this precise sense, we can see that both materialism itself and positions to the contrary (meaning, positions that assert there is more to reality than just the material) are both fundamentally positions of faith. To this it could easily be replied that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which, of course, is correct. But, it is precisely that; absence of evidence. Meaning, the absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence itself. All that is to say; oh, woe, how little we know…
It is so rich. But it will take me at least 2 more times listening to get it. 🤣🤣😅
But already - thank you very much.
Such a great service.
Good thinking! I've watched these multiple times and learn something each time, it's very rich and dense content, and very rewarding
I don’t have any hard metaphysical commitments, but I think the issue is that there are different ways of conceptualizing materialism. If you think that materialism means believing that all there is to existence can be captured in physical equations, then it’s an obvious absurdity (though there are many people who believe that like Tegmark).
But there are other conceptions of materialism, wherein the material substrate has qualitative properties as well as the structural properties studied by physics. It’s the recognition of the difference between physics (the discipline) and physical things. This is a perfectly reasonable view.
I find that approach much preferable to calling oneself an idealist. As far as Bernardo’s analytic idealism is inline with our observations, it’s compatible with the above view. In the ways where it is not (his murky speculations about a universal mind), it’s a strength to the above view as opposed to his.
I think there is still a major problem here and I think you missed it. The very notion you propose doesn't work in materialism, because materialism says that the physical things in question are all that really exists, therefore they can't have qualitative properties, because the qualitative and experiential things are not material, and so you end up with a contradiction. So materialism still doesn't work no matter how you slice it.
@@matthewoburke7202 to me that’s just arguing over semantics.
If your theory of the material is one where the same stuff that from one perspective moves around akin to descriptions from physics, but when “viewed from the inside” by actually *being* that system presents qualitative properties, I see no reason why it would be improper to call it material.
@@rysw19 No it isn't semantics, because the question remains, is the physical or the qualitative fundamental? Because materialism says that the qualitative is not fundamental, but is emerging out of complex physical processes. If you say that the qualitative is not emerging but is fundamental, what you are describing is Idealism, not materialism.
@@matthewoburke7202 What I was referring to about semantics was your objection to material things not being able to have qualitative properties. That depends on your definitions of material. You are correct the distinction is exactly surrounding what is fundamental.
But emergent materialism and idealism are not the only two options. There are panpsychist and neutral monist positions that both maintain material entities in their ontology but have fundamental ties between those entities and qualitative properties
@@rysw19 I'm certainly not saying that idealism and materialism are the only two options. However, under materialism (or physicalism) specifically, because of what it means, qualitative properties can't be in any way fundamental, no matter how you try and conceptualize it. That's because by definition physical things are fundamental and qualitative things are dependent or emerging from them. Idealism on the other hand means that qualitative properties are fundamental and physical ones are not, thus they lie on opposite sides of the spectrum so to speak. The other ideas you bring are more middle grounds between the two opposing viewpoints.
Even quantities are qualities as i see a wave from sensory experience. It is not only the map versus the territory, the territory ittself is a mapping.
Good upload, thanks. Bernardo argues on the one hand that Materialism makes a fundamental mistake by claiming that the World you see around you is all generated in your head and consciousness is therefore epiphenomenal and secondary, but also argues that what we actually see is just a dash board of a real world that exists out there, which we only have partial access to, and therefore is also only secondary (the dash board is also generated by your brain). Correct me if I am wrong, but both of these positions that we cannot know reality as it is in itself, or is this where he brings in Schopenhauer's idea of the Will into the picture?
The next video should answer this which we'll release in a few days 🙂🙏✨
Consciousness being epiphenomenal is a very unpopular opinion, but yes it is a sparse symbolic model of the self interacting with its environment. You understand how your senses work right?
Yes, I get that BK believes that all that exists is consciousness, and that our senses filter out from the vast complexity of all there is, a simplified model for our survival. When he says Dash board I always imagine an artificial mental construct that is different from the World out there,like in a planes cockpit in relation to outside the plane, whereas maybe he just means a limited window of conscious appearances, which mirrors some of what is real out there? I am new to BK and analytic idealism, so can you clarify that BK does believe that our senses are mirroring the World out there as it is in itself, rather than creating a model? thanks
@@Rhimeson He's just wrong. We know about em radiation and how retinas work. Colors are a symbol that represent an arbitrary segmentation of em radiation derived from evolutionary efficiency and usefulness. Those are facts, while as you point out Kastrup's claims are self contradictory.
@@jyjjy7 Okay,fair point. So do you think visible light exists in the same way as radio waves do, as just more invisible fields of energy? is everything just featureless perterbations of energy?
Absolutely amazing
While Castrop raises interesting points about materialism's limits, doesn't idealism simply shift the mystery without solving it? If consciousness is the fabric of reality, how do we explain the consistent laws of physics that operate regardless of our perceptions? If we all create reality through consciousness, why is there a shared, objective world instead of billions of subjective ones? Materialism, despite its flaws, has propelled us forward like a reliable engine, while idealism feels like admiring the horizon without offering a path to reach it.
Thanks for the great question. The 2nd video in the series addresses most, if not all of these important points 🙏
I just went back and watched the two brilliant discussions Bernardo had with Vervaeke this week. Been wanting another deep dive from BK, so this is perfect timing!
Great to hear!
The description is not the full explanation..?
Are qualities the same as qualia? Trying to understand the jargon.
Almost - qualities are the attributes of an object and can be objective or subjective
qualia specifically refer to subjective, conscious experiences, and cannot be directly observed by others.
@@adventuresinawareness Thank you. So qualia are qualities but all qualities are not qualia?
@@walterbenjamin1386 I believe that is right - all qualia have qualities.
I think whether or not all qualities are qualia depends on your metaphysics
A materialist would say no
I think an idealist would say all qualities are qualia, because all qualities exist in mind
But I'm not the expert. Come join the discussion with Bernardo if you want!
As usual, Bernardo's breakdown of materialism is fantastic, but I remain unconvinced of idealism. I look forward to part 2.
Part two now available here: ua-cam.com/video/Mar2X6bvid4/v-deo.html
The portion about panpaychism was self-contradictory. He makes two points about the combination problem and how two distinct conscious fields could never combine, and then the third point is about how the particles are not actually distinct entities.
Gee, you think the panpsychists might be aware of that final point which basically refutes the first two? 😅
Thanks for your comment, you have focused on something important 🙏
I think his point is that it seems panpsychists don't include the third point in their models, otherwise they would be Idealists, if I've understood
Cool information
The amount of ads in this video is so annoying 😩
Has anybody heard of Joseph Hilary Michael Whiteman (1906-2007) and his work???
Not me. Could you say more?
@@adventuresinawareness Yes, check him out. Nobody talks about him, While reading him I felt he understand stuff he is talking about his philosophical method is phenomenology along lines of Husserl. His biography is available on the internet he is relatively unknown.
I'm really enjoying this, but there are these oceassional really loud and high pitched clipping sounds now and then that really hurt the ears with headphones on. Bit of a shame, I think will stop listening to this one, at least with headphones.
In fact the scientific description of matter is also a map of the real world and its very well understood to be a map. Its just a more precise map as its based on measurements by objective instruments as opposed to the inprecise subjective map in our heads or the verbal discription we make of that. So no there is no fundamenteel thinking error there, just multiple ways to describe the same stuff around us.
51:10 stringtheory Is kinda bad metaphysics sold as science.
8:55, does Coyne really think bacteria have subjective experience? This doesn't seem to make sense because it should be obvious that no living thing without a nervous system can have subjective experience. Perhaps his statement is hyperbole, or we're missing context around the quote?
Perhaps we will make AI that's not exactly living by our old definitions, but it could still have a mental landscape like a conscious being. Other than this AI exception, I'm not sure there is any other exception to my above statement: all living things must have a nervous system to have any kind of subjective experience (as far as we know).
And why exactly would consciousness necessarily require a nervous system in order to exist?
@@miragetv1718
An earnest answer: I've used inductive reasoning to make that statement. A simple description of "inductive reasoning" is that we take many examples from the real world and make a general statement from those many examples. In the case of conscious beings needing a nervous system: I and many people have looked at a lot of living organisms and found that the only ones conscious are those with a nervous system. Consciousness tends to require a fairly complex nervous system. This is just an observational fact.
Inductive reasoning isn't perfect. The famous example of inductive reasoning failing: "Swans are white." Yes, this generalized statement is largely agreed upon due to observational facts. Turns out, "Swans are almsost always white," might be a better general statement because we can, in fact, find black swans. They're just rare. Maybe AI consciousness can be a black swan of consciousness needing nervous systems. Maybe there are exceptions. Which ones interest you?
Yes, Jerry did say this. "Any sensation in animals, be they bacteria or humans, involves some sort of qualia. For example, what does it "feel like" to the crustacean Daphnia to detect a predatory fish in its pond?"
@@Paraselene_Tao And how exactly did you confirm of other entities' consciousness? Can you show me an example of their EXPERIENCE? Because that is what consciousness is.
@@miragetv1718
While that's interesting, I think there must be a pragmatic use of the terms conscious & consciousness because how do I know you're conscious? I don't experience your consciousness, do I? Likewise, you don't experience my consciousness. Nonetheless, we ought to treat each other as conscious beings because, primarily, we can say we are conscious, and secondarily, we behave as conscious beings. That secondary manner of recognizing others as conscious due to their behavior is how I treat lots of organisms that haven't or can't tell me they're conscious. Do they behave consciously? If so, then I pragmatically fall into treating them as conscious beings despite my never actually experiencing their consciousness firsthand.
Not every minds think alike.
I really wanted to get into this video, but the number of ads is simply making it unwatchable. I get that you have to make money, but placing ads every 3-5 min? As soon as i start to settle into Bernardo’s arguments, BAM there’s another ad for a product that i have zero interest in and will never buy.
Thanks for the feedback, and sorry to hear your experience is affected
If you join the course you can get access to ad free versions of these videos, and more. I think with UA-cam premium you can also avoid ads. I'm not sure there's a way I can reduce the number of ads and we do rely on that income to cover basic admin costs
Adblock is a necessity in 2024.
@@discordlexia2429 Its really helpful to let the ads happen, it raises money for the channel and supports future videos 🙏🙏
Say that to the people of Florida its all mental
Is there any way someone could contact Bernardo and ask him to present a refutation of non-reductive physicalism? I haven’t seen him address it before. Or perhaps he could do a walk through of his arguments against every variant of materialism from behaviorism to functionalism and such. Also, do these criticisms here hold up against naive and direct realism?
Great question! You could come join the discussion in November and ask this yourself 🙂
dandelion.events/e/y54ag
> non-reductive physicalism
You mean Dualism?
2:52 ... Ok, so why does Bernardo use science to argue for metaphysics. It is borderline crazy to make that statement, while he is at the same time doing exactly that. For further analysis, check out my deep dive into the plethora of problems in Bernardo's philosophy, in multiple videos of mine, not least this series, which includes a very long list of problems : ua-cam.com/video/f5oOivivswg/v-deo.html
Take that as a list of questions you could ask him, if you really want to dig deep
My understanding is that his view is that science can't and doesn't address metaphysics, but that good metaphysics can't contradict science - eg, our observations about how nature behaves...
@@Mandibil Metaphysics is about the framework from which one understands reality. Kastrup's ideas are glaringly obsolete in context of modern science but no, that is not one of its problems. You can't take the physics out of metaphysics, that's why someone sciency arguing (poorly) for idealism/religion like Kastrup is so popular; it helps the religious believe they aren't just delusional.
Bernardo does not use science to argue for metaphysics. As always, you got everything wrong when discussing this kind of stuff.
@@jyjjy7 What are some examples of his ideas being glaringly obsolete? You seem to be taking a quite confrontational attitude (and acting rather superior I might add) so I'm sure you have something damning.
@@jyjjy7 lmao science has literally nothing to say regarding the truth of physicalism, idealism, even solipsism. it takes very little reflection to realize that you can't use empirical data to refute descarte's demon. by it's very design, science has nothing to say about this class of claims.
Excellent! Materialism is doomed
No it's not.
@@kevconn441
I will interesting to hear your view. Why would you feel it so ?
It seems to be a really useful theory for physics and a pointless one for psychology. Kastrup is a dual aspect monist like Hegel, Spinoza and countless physicists and the interesting thing to me is that, if the physical is the mirror image of the mental, it has agency too. So, in a way, the agency of the physical is embedded in idealism.
@@bradmodd7856 the word Physical is very misleading. It’s surprising to see how much language shapes the way we perceive reality
8:45 Mr. Kastrup claims that sensory processing by single cell organisms that don't have a nervous system contradicts materialism . Why on Earth would this contradict materialism ??? Who said that biological computation and representation of information can only be performed by nervous systems ??? (This is apart from the fact that Coyne was referring to a crustacean which are not single -cell organisms and very much does have nervous systems). At 8:45 Kastrup then explains that the sensory representation by single cell organisms contradicts materialism because of the absence of a "complex material arrangement " in these life forms. Jesus - Mr. Kastrup needs to read an introductory to cell biology book.
Coyne references both bacteria and crustaceans. He says both have qualitative experience. This doesn't contradict all conceivable forms of materialism, but it's pretty widely believed that things like plants and single-celled organisms aren't conscious because they lack the complexity of a nervous system.
@@Sam-hh3ry Complexity is necessary but not sufficient. WHat's missing is realizing that a system's responding to a stimulus only becomes an "experience" if in addition to the properties of the stimulus the system also represents it's own process of reacting (analyzing, relating to) the stimulus. Doing this does not necessarily require a nervous system, any sufficiently, complex physical (chemical, biological) system capable of creating representations will do. But the real question is whether there is an explicit representation of the processing of the stimulus that accompanies the representation of the stimulus properties. If there isn't then asking whether the system has or has not an "experience" is like asking if the number 7 is married or not. The system needs to perceive (register, know...) its own processing and reactions in order for the term "experiencing" to have any meaning.
Even as early as 10:25 Bernardo is simply wrong, and that was just the timestamp I randomly forwarded to. According to quantum mechanics, there are indeed unmeasurable quantities in physics, but that does not mean they exist in some fantastical "conscious" or "soul" realm, they are simply strange properties of matter at the microscopic level in which there is a built-in uncertainty around determining the exact value of certain pairs of values, like position and momentum or time and energy (not as in measurement is not precise enough, but that the quantities themselves take on unpredictable values in a large range). This fact does not somehow deny the epiphenomenal nature of consciousness. So this is a huge misunderstanding on Bernardo's part.
As for the previous quote, he asserts that simply because an organism does not have a nervous system, therefore it is simple on the level of a bacteria or virus and therefore consciousness must be some sort of intrinsic property because there is not enough complex matter to generate such experience. First of all, this is factually wrong. Crustaceans DO have nervous systems - their brains connected to a ventral nerve cord of ganglia / nerve centers. And even if they didn't, they are obviously far more advanced in terms of development of other key biological components, most notably the brain, than a bacteria or virus is. We don't know what makes up consciousness or whether the nervous system is necessary or can be replaced by other systems. So this argument, Bernardo is not only wrong on the facts, but he is wrong logically as well.
If he is wrong so badly at just the start, what exactly is the point in continuing? Honestly I come away from this deeply unimpressed with Bernardo's intellectual acumen. This is a stunningly bad level of thought for someone who considers himself a philosopher. I doubt he has the formal academic training and qualifications to actually be considered one. And the fact you openly applaud him at the start, I would think, is slightly embarrassing for you as well
Bernardo has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on Scientific American, the Institute of Art and Ideas, the Blog of the American Philosophical Association and Big Think, among others
"According to quantum mechanics, there are indeed unmeasurable quantities in physics"
No, QM does not say there are "unmeasurable quantities." It just says that there are limits on what we can know about a quantum system. Which is perfectly consistent with idealism.
"but that does not mean they exist in some fantastical "conscious" or "soul" realm"
Idealism does not claim that quantum things exist in a "soul realm." It just denies the need to posit the existence of some separate category of being aside from what is immediately given, i.e mental stuff.
"This fact does not somehow deny the epiphenomenal nature of consciousness."
Almost no one takes the idea of epiphenomenalism seriously because it is so obviously wrong.
"So this is a huge misunderstanding on Bernardo's part."
Your entire post is made up of basic misunderstandings.
@@adventuresinawareness True but I think some random in the youtube comments definitely has a better understanding than a CERN researcher /s
Bernardo puts this too complexly for people who are wanting to get into the subject. the level hes speaking on is for someone like me whos already been into non-local consciousness & psi & quantum for years.
Thanks for sharing your perspective 🙏
I've come across lots of people including myself who got a lot out of his presentations without the experiences you've mentioned.
But like everything, it's not for everyone and I appreciate his language can be precise and technical
problem is, most materialists can not understand this.
most materialists has seen past this word salad.
Spot on. Materialism requires so many presuppositions that have been ingrained for so long that the sufferer can no longer see them.
@@travisbplank eh? what "presuppositions"?
@matswessling6600 1. It's a monist ontology, so it presupposes that everything that exists can be reduced to one type of stuff: material.
2. It presupposes that everything within the strictly material world can be exhaustively described through quantitative measures.
3. Consciousness and qualia either don't exist, or we will somehow find a way to quantify subjective first-person experience.
There are plenty more, but I think this is enough, considering most of them are covered in this video. I think the biggest issue is that people think they're materialists when they believe that consciousness is generated by brains of sufficient complexity (emergentism) or when they think there's a tiny unit of material thing and consciousness is a property of it and human qualia/experience builds from there (pansychism). Emergentism and panpsychism are both dualist ontologies. They posit a material thing which then generates a non-physical thing, consciousness. This is called property dualism. You are probably a property dualist, which has some problems, but so does every other attempt to tackle the hard problem of consciousness.
@@travisbplank there are no materialists. There are empirists. People that require actual evidence.
The mountain is measured through the map and the map is measured in my brain, both the measurement and the thing exist.
To say only one does, is either a strawman or you encounter very weird materialists.
When you say "a blind person can not imagine red even if we describe it" thats an argument for materialism, without the material tools in the eyes, the person does not see red. Just because it is very difficult to recreate a brain, you say "its impossible"
Where was idealism when experience did not exist in the universe? Experience evolved out of quantities.
There is clearly inherent experience in the universe, our experience is made of electromagnetic comparisons and measurements, but these things are too material. Even if experience is inherent to matter, there has to exist that which has no experience, if everything was experience, then there would be nothing to experience.
A painting exists only with a brush, canvas, paint and object to be painted, our thought exists only with the material conditions for it to exist. We are not only what we experience, we are also what we don't experience, if I never see my face, of course I have a face and it is made of cells and matter.
Science is part of philosophy, it is called the philosophy of science, this is why science is created by philosophers.
Explanatorily powerful is something I have never heard before, but the way you explained it "it has to be important and useful" seems to apply to science more than philosophy.
53:00 First you claimed materialism believes only experience of a thing exists, now you claim materialism believes only a thing in and of itself exists. Materialism says both exist.
How does superposition prove the world is not physical? Superposition stops eventually.
Superposition does not show that things dont have a defined position, it can't have infinite positions, its either up or down or inbetween and sometimes it stays as one, would you at least admit that it becomes material then?
observation and measurement in quantum science, are not the same as what we call "observation" and "act of measuring" it does not require consciousness, it just means an interaction.
A 55:42, you were saying "materialists think there exists only the map" you said now "everything arises from experience" so now you believe that "map is inherent and it creates the universe" you have used a strawman .
I will repeat one more time: Materialism says, matter is inherent, thought is also matter and matter creates thought, without material tools there is no thought.
Science is part of philosophy, experience is part of matter, qualities make quantities and quantities make qualities, these are the two things we disagree on I guess.
The green of the forest is not created in your head, its is the photons that are not part of an object, light that is not part of the object, the light we see is reflected, the light we don't see is whats absorbed or non existant.
I have experience, you have experience, there are two experiences, so a quantity of qualities. Sight is a quality gained by a quantity of cells.
More parsimonious explanations are always the truer ones, because as evidence grows, your explanation expands, but only relative to the evidence.
Idealism does not explain experience better than materialism, how do you explain experience?
You claim all particles are conscious, but you cant have a thought that is miniscule, thought has to include at least two things, in reality each thought includes thousands of ion exchanges, not just one of them.
I agree that matter has inherent experience, but experience is only the measurement of difference between matter and lack there of, experience is therefore material and non matter is also physical, because matter exists, but if only matter existed there would be nothing to compare it to.
There are conjoined twins and craniopagus twins, its not hard to imagine two people having the same thought at once, or one person hearing the thoughts of the other.
Your experience feels unitary, but it is clear that what you see is what the countless tiny cells in your eye see, in other words we know that it is many singular ion exchanges at the same time.
The lake does exist and it does change shape, the quantum fields do exist and they do have excitations.
There is nothing in and of itself.
Things don't have to be seperate to interact with each other, the difference between less excitation and more excitation of quantum fields is reality. And quantum fields are multiple. A quantity of quantum fields.
Your thoughts arent only yours, your thoughts are what you share with the universe, there is no universe without a contradiction, contradiction has to exist for anything to exist.
There is no fundametal mass and speed, but there are fundamental laws of the universe. Its not the physical that is conscious but conscious that is physical. There is no unity of the quantum fields.
Your conclusion is that matter exists in consciousness, but there is no reason to claim that, matter can exist without experience, experience can only exist with matter.
The purpose and meaning of human life is to enjoy it and the best way to enjoy it is through taking care of each other, those are our material needs. It is in fact in idealism that meaningful action is not taken, it is materialism that saves us from commodification of life, it is capitalism that rejects measurable human needs and affection that is heartfelt is a human need, so is food, so is water and housing, these are the material things we should be giving each other through labor and study.
It sounds like you're describing idealism and using the word materialism for it.
@@discordlexia2429 Just to be coherent, my conclusion is that, experience is a type of internal contradiction of matter through time.
Am I using any useless terms? Does my conclusion contradict something I said? and if this conclusion is fine, does it describe idealism?
An interesting expansion of your red/blind story: I read that if you take a blind person and put three different colored balls in front of them, and ask them to choose a certain color, they do it successfully a statistically significant number of times.
I think this suggests that color has qualities that humans can recognize beyond visual cues.
@@heatherpoco very interesting! Do you remember the source?
@@adventuresinawareness It was something from Rupert Sheldrake, I'll try to find the link.
Love this.
But it is always a bit weird for me when Bernardo rails against the fact that materialism denies our intuition that the qualities we experience are actually out there, and yet Bernardo's view is the each of us creates our own physical world around us as a perception. In other words, Bernardo's view is that the mountain I'm staring at in the distance (all of its visual qualities) is only in my mind. Yes, he certainly believes that it can be reduced to universial consciousness, but that is NOT the image I'm seeing.
So, in this case, Bernardo himself is making a similar claim that the colors that seem to be of the objects around us are really only in our personal alter.
I've had the same thought!
The difference I guess is in one case all the colours are inside a skull, and in the other, part of a particular perspective of the whole on itself....
@@adventuresinawareness
Yeah, there is an important difference that has to do with the fundamental problem with materialism.
I guess where I get hung up is that Bernardo stresses so strongly that materialism steals away our shared intuitiosn that the mountain actually has all of those colors we see on it. He says that materialims is so absurd that it claims they aren't actually part of the mountain but are just in our skull.
Yet, Bernardo says that those colors only exist inside my individual alter. And, even more, he says the mountain itself doesn't exist, that my alter produces it as an image based on natural selection, that there really is no object out there that is a mountain. In that sense, his claim is even more radical (I agree with him) than materialism. Materialism would at least honor our sense that we are all staring at a structure in the shape of a mountain that is out there.
This point is only relevant to me in how often Bernardo stresses it and with such force. I worry that people new to his work will be really confused when they, a few minutes later, hear Bernardo stress that the colors only exist in individual alters and there really are no mountains and streams and vallys outside of our individual alters.
That said, i appreciate how you framed the difference as being how BK's view does state that the image of the colors and mountains is a particular perspective of the whole on itself. Well, THAT said, most of my materialist friends do have an experience of awe that they translate as "We are the universe exploring itself," so I know that this sense of the whole learning how to observe and study itself can fairly easily be had by materialists. They can argue for it philosophically very well, but thankfully they can have the same basic experience of awe in realizing that they are the vehicle through which the entire universe can observe itself.
11:45
BK: "Emir, can you see my laser pointer ?"
Emir: "Yes we can" !
Do you have DID Emir ??
How many personalities are you, when you say "we" ?
Haha yes maybe I do!
Probably I was speaking on behalf of all the participants : there were 50 people on the call 🙂
That is certainly the most controversial section of this 2-hours presentation, well done for such a sharp and acute comment!
Materialist light
What you've described is a form of dualism called property dualism. It's the idea that a non-physical thing (qualia, consciosuness) can be generated by certain configurations of matter. You have redefined materialism to be a circular reasoning fallacy. "Materialism means anything observable, including non-material things, are material. Everything is either material or non-material, therefore everything is material."
Some things we observe but cannot measure.
@@travisbplank yes, I think these things can be further reduced to complex emf interactions in a dynamic process that increases the speed of entropy within a open system that is receiving energy faster than it can disperse that energy.
This I believe at all levels. The Sun is the source of life on Earth.
@@travisbplank I do admit that the defining of all things that interact with the physical as being physical has circular reasoning. If not for that as a presupposition and definition then I would not hold this stance. By looping the definition back on itself I ensure clear boundaries of meaning that can't have moving goalposts.
I consider this type of thinking about things as more honest and consistent. It represents a truth that doesn't care about opinions and feelings.
@elinope4745 Yeah. It's unfalsifiable and logically incoherent, but it IS a succinct way to establish a metaphysic and move on.
to refute materialism, same as to refute "holographic universe"
This guy doesn't even understand materialism. He is either being disingenuous or isn't particularly bright. Is he just offering confirmation for the spiritual? I don't understand why he is so popular otherwise.
Anyway to counter this confused hit piece on materialism, the brain is categorically a computer, consciousness is part of the software it is running (most of what the brain is doing is subconscious). This conception has literally none of the problems he is ascribing to "materialism".
And yeah our experiences are generated by the brain, they are symbols abstractions. We literally know how our sense organs work. Color does not exist, only a continuous spectrum of EM radiation. the experience is a symbol in a model designed to help you easily differentiate objects reflecting the light given off by our local star.
Why be insulting when you could make a genuine and polite approach to criticise the viewpoint? If everything what you say is established and irrefutable then why not make a bulletproof case against analytical idealism and in that deal with it once and for all? Write a paper on it and deconstruct analytical idealism for good.
No offence but What you wrote comes across as a little infantile and triggered instead of profound.
@@gameaudioshaman You are kidding right? Do you NOT know how retinas work? It's not infantile to point out scientific fact and how it is incompatible with Kastrup's barely coherent claims. No I'm not going to write a paper on basic scientific fact and how it invalidates the claims of this preacher pretending to be a scientist.
Why are you defending him? You don't seemingly have an argument against what I'm saying, you just claim it's infantile for me to point out that this guy is preying on the confirmation bias of religious philosophy majors.
Do explain why you find his ideas attractive despite the basic facts I point out that contradict them or you are the one being insulting in an unfounded manner, not the person trying to help you not fall for sketchy mysticism adjacent ancient philosophy cloaked poorly in psuedoscience.
Judging from this answer, I doubt you have any grip on what is being talked about. Especially on the claims of materialism.
@@namero999 lol, am I speaking over you head so you think I don't understand the subject, while wisely not making any specific criticism?
You clearly do not understand the debate here and are approaching it with this extremely vulgar depiction of functionalism.
I am a spiritual atheist. I asked the God that has all power to punish the God that's doing me wrong.
Reducing one thing to another is fine Bernardo says. The boeddhists think differently. They also see consiousness not as fundamental. If Bernardo really wants to make a case out of idealism he will have to show why boeddhist views are wrong. Until then he is assuming just as much as materialists. Yogacara for example also see mind as fundamental, but consiousness not. For them emptiness is fundamental and natural laws are illusory and build on collective karma. When there is enlightenment according to this views natural laws stop working as karma also has stopped. They try to explain how a common world arises from consiousness from shared karma. But if this view is problematic how then can it be explained. And why consiousness and not emptiness, and how can a world arise from it. He has still much work to do.
I'm a physicalist that has protection from the Oneness that has all power. I argue consciousness came from biological evolution.
Almost nobody thinks that the world is exhaustively described in terms of quantities. He tries to put realism into a tiny tiny box of his own making. Maybe there are a few out there who have a strictly realist view of mathematical models, but most scientists believe that science is only creating models of the world using mathematics. So if he is wrong on this really basic starting point, why continue on with his more complex arguments about mentation. He also ignores process with his simplistic depiction about what realists think. Any modern realist philosopher/scientist will think of the experience as being generated by complex processes in which the body interacts with the world. He depicts with his drawings that for realists, the brain sits passively in a box, cut off from the world except for some inputs through sensory organs, and then it somehow generates experience in isolation from the world. That's a ridiculous portrayal of how a good realist would view perception. The inclusion of process now brings in other contemporary ideas related to complex systems and emergent properties, which for good realists are sufficient to give a very full account of how our own conscious perception, that we know and love, arises out of a simply physical brain interacting with the physical world, while also reflecting on its own representations thereof.
Beardo's problem is that he lacks imagination and mental discipline, and gets carried away by his ego. It's one thing to say that everything May be non-material, but he has absolutely no reason to be certain of that fact. He is being a lazy scientist to just assume, because the problem is very complex and he has lots of lofty, philosophical opinions and analogies, that he has the answer. That's just giving up and taking the easy way out.
Thanks for sharing your perspective Ray 🙏
Our preference on the channel is to address the views presented, rather than offer judgements on the characters of the people presenting them. Perhaps you could point out specific objections to the reasoning? thanks for engaging 🙏
@@adventuresinawareness Sure. His entire argument seems to boil down to 2 points (1) consciousness can't be a product of something non-conscious, and (2) Consciousness can't be a product of complexity. The problem is, he cannot back-up these assertions with facts, only opinion. Someone needs to tell him that there is no such thing as proof-by-analogy.
@@RayG817 Thanks for clarifying. 🙏
Point one is widely recognised as a major problem for materialism, 'the hard problem of consciousness' etc, which I'm sure you've heard of... its not very unique to Bernardo - its just that he shines a light on how hard the problem really is, and how it was created by the strange definition of physicalism which he goes into in the video.
Also in the video he explains that one can't prove a metaphysics, - it is a different category from science. What you can do is come up with the best metaphysics possible based on criteria like parsimony, logic and not contradicting science etc
If we are going to demand proof, however, I would say the burden of proof is on physicalists who infer a 2nd category of reality that no one has ever experienced...
Thanks again for engaging 🙏🙏
@@adventuresinawareness I disagree. he does more than shed light on how hard the "hard problem" of consciousness is. He says we don't have an answer, then strongly (arrogantly) implies that he knows the answer, and often laughs at people who bring up opposing arguments. He claims to examine the problem as a scientist, but he does not. All of his "arguments" are philosophical, not factual. He has decided, and that's that.
@@RayG817 Sounds like you just don't understand the hard problem.
Kastrup's understanding of materialism as presented here is naive at best, but may well be interpreted as a straw-man. I expected more depth.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
As you may know, Bernardo worked at CERN, famous for its groundbreaking work in particle physics. He also completed a PhD in which he had to defend his understanding amongst academic peers.
So its easy to think he has the credentials to claim a robust understanding of materialism.
Of course, he could be wrong, and no one has to agree with him.
Can you offer a more robust understanding of materialism, or a link to a source you appreciate?
@@adventuresinawareness It's nice of you to respond.
If Bernardo's understanding of materialism is robust, as you propose, then his account must be what I propose -- more of a deliberate misrepresentation ;-) Indeed, he says in various places in the video that "according to materialism" the stars, a mountain, the room where I am only exist inside of my head. But any materialism that I know of postulates the existence of objective reality.
There are plenty of holes in Bernardo's critique of materialism and in his own philosophy, but that's not your question. You ask me for "a more robust" understanding of materialism. Sure.
The main question of philosophy is of the First Cause. Idealist accounts claim that the Ideal is primary, and materialists claim that Matter is primary. It's a question of causality, not exclusivity. A non-naive understanding of materialism does not exclude the ideal as a fundamental part of our reality, only posits that matter came first.
There is an objective world in the Universe where we are, which does not depend for its existence on our perception. We perceive the world through sensations, which evolved to represent the reality in a way that is useful for our agency within our ecology. With encephalization and increased sophistication of animal material brains we've transcended the purely material: with abstract thought we developed notions and ideas that are not purely material, such as our form of society.
Society has material properties, but is not only irreducible to neurons and atoms, it's not even reducible to an individual organism. It's not quantifiable through low-level processes. Our society exists through subscribing to certain ideas, e.g. laws, which are in themselves immaterial, but are expressed in matter in our heads and can cause tangible material effects on our lives.
What do you think about that?
@@montycobra Thanks for your reply and engaging.
Here's my best shot at a response:
When Bernardo says that "according to materialism" the stars, a mountain, the room where I am only exist inside of my head" I don't understand him to deny that materialists posit an objective reality. He is just reminding us that according to materialism, the mountain emits electromagnetic rays called light that hit the retina of your eye, convert to electrochemical signal in the brain, make their way to the back and get interpreted into a picture of a mountain. That mountain which we experience is not "out there" - what is really out there, what "matter" is in and of itself, is not something materialists have been able to define. All that we have are theoretical phenomena like quarks or a quantum field which help explain patterns in what we perceive. Certainly atoms out there would not look anything like a mountain, table or chairs etc. That is what I think Bernardo means when he says a materialist says all those things are in your head according to materialism.
Regarding the 2nd part of your response, I liked how you demonstrate that not all ideas are reducible to neurons and atoms etc. You also clarify that you don't deny consciousness (although some materialists do.)
I understand that most materialists say that matter is primary and consciousness emerges from matter. I'm certain that Bernardo understands this too and I think his presentation makes this clear. What your answer hasn't done is demonstrate what matter is, (other than to say it isn't conscious.) It also doesn't explain how consciousness could emerge from matter.
There is a major advantage to Bernardo's model - consciousness is all that we can be certain of. To take it as the primary, and create a model that would explain the appearance of matter, means that everything is explained based on the one phenomena of which we can be certain.
Anyway, I'm not a professional philosopher, I may have misunderstood both you and Bernardo, but I find it useful to discuss as it improves my understanding. Many thanks
@@adventuresinawareness A word of caution: what Bernardo says and what you think he says are very different things.
In any case, thanks for this tactful exchange.
As far of my limited reading of philosophy goes, Bernardo creates a scarecrow he calls materialism in order to make his argument look stronger and his course more relevant. Lay people who watch this course are just invited to believe "oh my, how scientists are so stupid to believe such and such things". But that is because their arguments and methods are misrepresented here.
@@Paratecnica you are welcome to rebut his arguments. In fact, why haven’t you done so?
The hard problems shows that reductive physicalism is a dead end. And non-reductive physicalism is not much different than dualism, imo.
@@Sam-hh3ry Someone else recognizes this? My man.
Idealism is a busted flush. When the fist hits the jaw we can all shrug and say, 'Material fists don't exist, jaws can't break'. Materialism is the simplest explanation of all epistemological and ontological theories.
Materialism doesn't even have a conceptual idea of how to explain the only thing we know for sure exists; consciousness. Read about neuroscience theories and you'll see that it is basically toy theories.
@@gustav4539Neuro-science has made great strides in the last 50 years and can point to and explain many aspects of the functioning of consciousness. It is early days. Idealists have no explanation. They see no connections between brain and body activity and consciousness. None. You then get charlatans like Chambers waffling on about simulations where he never defines what a simulation is.
Fist hits jaw. Law suit initiates. Man found guilty. Man goes to jail. Do men, prisons, courts of law, cartilage and blood exist. Does pain exist? Do bruised knuckles exist?
Materialism provides the only conceptual framework to describe this entities and events.
Descartes Berkeley, Kant, Hemel, Russell and all of the post moderns have taken us through the looking glass. See John Searle.
Hegel/Hemel
Do you think that the experience of a fist hitting your jaw is somehow not mental? Do you think that the sensation of pain is somehow not mental?
You acknowledge the existence of fists. And Jaws. Pain is now understood in neurological terms and the effects it can have on the brain and hence perception by the sufferer. If you languish in the discredited world of dualism then you should get out more and read a few books. Read medical research and sensible philosophers who haven't drunk the Kool Aid.