The comments and discussion this video has generated has been truly surprising. Sorry not to be able to engage with more of them. But I have read them all and thank you for all the time and effort spent in working through the issues raised. Thanks all and let's keep talking.
This was an excellent video. Would love for you to flesh out more of your metaphysical idealist position. Including free will as you brought up. Are you familiar with Giovanni Gentile and his version of idealism called actualism?
@@AbsolutePhilosophy, imagine watching a comedy show and getting a laugh within the VERY FIRST SECOND. If only you could have heard how loudly I laughed when I heard you referring to Bernie as a "philosopher" (and later, when you identified yourself as an idealist). Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, to correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
15:51 -- Kastrup never adopts scientific realism. He talks about metaphysics, about the intrinsic being of nature. We can taboo these complicated words like “realism” or “antirealism” for simplicity, and just discuss what is being said. Kastrup merely claims that abstractions help us to describe the behavior of nature and to control the future, they are true and experimentally proven/reasonable. But science by itself is a tool which never assumes any ontology: not materialism, nor idealism, nor anything else. You seem to be confusing physics and metaphysics. Of course we can use science and talk about it without adopting a realist attitude, without going into metaphysics. In other words, Kastrup's position can be called “instrumentalism” -- that science and theoretical concepts have use in predicting observations, but we have no ontological commitments to them. Postulating a "literal physical being", which is unknowable even in principle, is a further, arguably unnecessary step. So Kastrup is an instrumentalist from the beginning to the end. The being of consiousness, on the other hand, is immediately known by the virtue of self-luminosity (svaprakasatva). 26:43 -- Consciousness and mind are different. The “empirical physical world” can be called Maya for simplicity, and it's an appearance which is not fundamentally real. Our bodies, our minds, any other object are a part of this appearance. But consciousness is not an object nor a process, so it can never be objectified and found *in* the empirical world (cf. Wittgenstein). Consciousness is just you, the "I", subjectivity or experiencing itself, the first-personal givenness of whatever is subjectively given, the empty principle of manifestation. It is maximally simple and has no characteristics or qualities, it never changes, it cannot be divided into parts and it is always the seer, never the seen. Naturally, it's the same in every human and every sentient being, because postulating different empty awarenesses solely by haecceity is incoherent (cf. Edralis: edralis.wordpress.com/2021/06/18/awareness-6-10/, cf. Daniel Kolak’s Open Individualism) There are even some reasons (that are too complicated for this youtube comment) to argue that consciousness is existence or actuality itself, so it can be identical to the Absolute. (And that's precisely what Kastrup does when he talks about consciousness being an ontological primitive in idealism; Atman = Brahman and so on.) Kastrup would probably say that evolution is literally what this continuous process of dissociation and complexification looks like from our point of view. But Kastrup uses terms that are not super precise for my taste, for example he calls the absolute "mind", instead of consciousness. (And well, given how much suffering we see in the world, this ontology is not much prettier than the default). I think it's obvious that an object cannot be an ontological primitive. Because any object needs space, time and causality to exist, while consciousness is a no-thing that doesn’t need these. So I think it’s not only that “we can’t ever get qualities out of quantities“ (as Kastrup often says) that is the argumentation for idealism, but, even more precisely, that consciousness is not an object among other physical objects! (cf. Sunyata in Buddhism). 29:54 -- I see no sense in saying that “meta-consciousness arises out of phenomenal consciousness”. Nothing arises out of phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness simply illumines everything, it's the existence of any thought, emotion or object of awareness. “Meta-consciousness” is just a fancy term for the higher function of the mind, it’s self-reflection or the self-identification with certain configurations of what one experiences. I don’t like using “consciousness“ word here at all. It muddles the already complicated topic. Intellect, personality, beauty, self-reflection, emotions, perceptions - all of these develop in conscious organisms with time and effort, while consciousness just passively illumines everything. The play works itself out. ( cf. Fasching here: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-008-9090-6 ) Here you are actually touching a deeper question of the mechanism of this play. For example, in Advaita Vedanta, there is vivartavāda, loosely speaking the "apparent transformation" of Brahman (consciousness / the absolute) into the world. It's enigmatic how and why it can be seemingly separated from itself in different finite objects (minds). And I’m no Vedanta scholar so I have no answer to this question, but maybe there is, so anyone can feel free to expand my description.
I suggest he interview Donald Hoffman because Bernardo accurately reiterates Hoffamn's research and arguments from evolutionary perceptual psychology. There is no error in Bernardo's argument from this stand point.
I think it is important to recognize that video format is almost necessarily less rigorous than academic papers, and Hawkins may benefit from steelmanning Bernado's argument's before moving on the criticising them.
@@xenograd4422 Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
I think what Kastrup meant by saying we would turn into an entropic soup if we would perceive reality as it is... imagine if you would feel every molecule of air touching your skin all the time and you would see the entire magnetic spectrum. You would turn into an entropic soup.
Fair critique, but I think you slightly miss his point about internal perceptions matching our internal brain states. Simply put, without our useful evolutionary illusions and spacetime headset, we would BE nature and have no autonomy. My biggest issue with his view-with which I’m sympathetic-is that he devalues the physical world as less than the ground of being, ie, mind, but why place the value on the thing that gives rise to the the ten thousand things. Your dashboard argument is closer to the problem that he and Hoffman run into, which is an issue of epistemology. If the spacetime headset is an illusion (even useful), what faculty or epistemically method assures us that it is an illusion. We can call it reason or science, which is fine, and likely the right answer, but what was reason trained on in the first place that allowed us to see and seek the truth rather than survival merely. It’s a problem I’ve not heard him talk about. Isn’t it all Nature, everywhere interconnected and real? Local realism is false, right? That’s kinda my metaphysical hang up with Idealism, though I think Schopenhauer is basically correct.
@@KevinsDisobedienceif the internal is the source of the external then, the external would be the "true mirror" in a manner of speaking. If our perception is sourced from the internal awareness of the mind projected outwards, while the external consciousness is projecting inwards, then, where the two minds meet could be the truth of the experience. It would still suggest that it's all mind.
Bernardo said that in 2024 he'll be doing much less public chats. That said, hope you can set something up. Maybe when he's getting ready to promote his book in the fall something can happen. It will be his most concise summary of his model, so would be fun to hear you two chat. I think he has addressed your first concerns. But god knows where. Donald Hoffman often faces that criticism. Have you heard his responses and do they hold water for you? For some reason, I don't find it hard to imagine how a process of consciousness could evolve in a way that causes it to suddently 'fold in' on itself and become meta within a narrow context.
26:58 He acknowledges that universal consciousness bears resemblance to the consciousness of earlier life forms, yet he does not claim that it is more akin to these early forms than to later ones. The absence of metacognition doesn't necessarily equate to greater similarity in every aspect. BK's argument is that universal consciousness constitutes a high-dimensional 'space' encompassing all conceivable experiences, inclusive of time. It is not constrained by space and time like our perception; its higher dimensionality allows it to encompass all characteristics of space and time, along with additional elements.
Thank you for this thoughtful critique. I confess to being a devoted fan of Katstrup's philosophy. I can't say how many videos I've watched of debates between his point of view and others and I always end up in his camp. In large, I feel most of your criticisms might be misunderstandings. But, the one at the heart of your critique is compelling. Is universal consciousness phenomenal or meta? What if it's neither? I don't think Katstrup is so dumb as to not see the flaw/question you put forward, or at least your perception of it. I take his use of terms for varying "levels" of consciousness to be entirely about the difficulty of putting all of this into words from the perspective of the type of observers we are. These are concepts that are nearly impossible for us to grasp fully because we are embedded in, and part of, what is and cannot perceive it from the outside. What convinces me of Katstrup's philosophy is that it ties in nicely with Stephen Wolfram's concept of the Ruliad, Michael Levin's work in developmental biology, and eastern philosophical views of reality - particularly Vedanta. Each of those views entails translation from their discipline's unique vocabulary and focus, but it feels to me that they are all saying the same thing. I pay attention when physics, math, biology, and metaphysics are all describing virtually the same thing (and in a way that makes sense to me) and try not to let specific terms and language get in the way of understanding what is being conveyed. I'm sorry Bernardo turned down your invite to debate because I would like to hear his answer to your point. What is his reasoning for the apparent distinction or is this, at core, a distinction without a difference? "
Great comment- I agree - wish Bernardo had more intelligent and thoughtful philosophic critiques like the meta conscious point - would love to see a debate around these ideas Also so many thinkers from Greeks , to sufis, Hindus, to Jung to Hegel have had similar conceptions of what reality ultimately is, in the past all describing this idea from their own perspectives but all similar
Are you saying physicalism or materialism is the same as realism? I think Kastrup uses the term materialism contrasted to idealism. The physical world comes into existence once it has been measured using the tools of science of the last 300 years. But since quantum physics in the 20th third century It has been shown that matter is mostly space. Imagination and consciousness.
@@DisturbsOthers Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
My own issue with Bernardo’s vision of idealism is as follows: if consciousness is the foundation of ultimate reality, I cannot buy into that idea of that form of consciousness being less sophisticated than that of a human being. I don’t believe that higher ideals such as morality, musical harmony, mathematical proofs and love are emergent, man-made inventions. I believe that they are fragmented reflections of an underlying, objective reality. Is Kastrup’s refusal to acknowledge this due to the fact that it resembles a more traditionally theistic view? I’m not sure. But I will never be able to reconcile the idea that bland, person-less consciousness is at the heart of ultimate reality, and the precise sophistication of physics, math, and the humanities are evolutionary accidents. If we as humans are the way that consciousness knows itself, there must be some forward thinking capacity built into that primordial consciousness. If that is true, then the bland, person-less consciousness that Kastrup identifies with idealism is not, in fact, bland, or person-less.
I have a problem with Kastrup's view of an afterlife. He jumps straight out of dissociation into universal consciousness. Why not still a different level of dissociation which would allow for continued individuality?
This is a good point. I agree with most of what Kastrup has to say, but it seems reasonable to think there could be different dimensions of dissociation
He argues for 2 levels. You argue for 3 levels. But if you can have more than one level, then N levels are possible. The question is: how many of the possible N levels have been actualized? 2,3,4,5?
That the view of Samkhya Philosophy by Sage Kapila, which Siddharth Gautama (Buddha) learnt from his first teacher. Samkhya proposed of individual consciousness after Moksha.
Mind-at-large "evolves" in the same way that a physical universe "selects" new, "optimal" states described by the laws of physics. If I hold up a ball and open my hand, the universe "evolves" to a state where that ball hits the ground. Mind-at-large is no different. If you can conceive of metaconsciousness evolving in a physical universe, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to conceive of it evolving in a mental universe.
I can't speak directly for Dr. Kastrup, but here's how I understood his arguments: 1. I think in his view evolutionary theory is primarily a mathematical theory, that doesn't necessarily need time and space the way we normally conceive of it. I also believe I somewhere heard him talk about the possibility that there exists something like "proto-time" in which consciousness can evolve. In any case, there seems to be a process happening in universal consciousness that, from our view, looks like evolution. 2. Meta-consciousness comes about when phenomenal consciousness folds in on itself to create something like a loop (not spatially of course) for the purpose of self-reflection. The underlying substance is still only phenomenal consciousness, only with a more complicated structure (a loop). For this to happen nature needs something that, from our view, looks like evolution. 3. I think the idea behind not giving meta-consciousness to universal consciousness is the question of what would then be the whole point of creation? Especially with all the suffering it entails. If universal consciousness already had meta-consciousness to begin with, then our existence would be completely pointless. From our perspective at least, we seem to be the only creatures capable of meta-consciousness. So it makes sense to assume, that meta-consciousness arose from an evolutionary process of which we are the endpoint. 4. The motivation behind this process is self-knowledge. Since universal consciousness is only phenomenal conscious, it can't reflect on itself. It therefor must create humans, which have meta-consciousness, in order to gain self-knowledge. This process is not premeditated, but follows a "blind will" like in Schopenhauer. That's why universal consciousness doesn't care about all the collateral damage (suffering) it entails.
18:09 Your argument suggests he seeks to undermine scientific realism by employing scientific evidence, inadvertently creating a paradox. Yet, I contend that your conclusion is flawed. His approach is more about integrating physical reality into a metaphysical framework. Admittedly, my grasp of scientific realism and anti-realism is limited, but I'm convinced that these concepts are not black and white. The assertion that empirical reality isn't the ultimate truth doesn't imply a complete disconnect or lack of insight into what might lie beyond it.
"Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it." Wittgenstein, TLP
Meta-Consciousness can only exist with Language. Also we experience a very small portion of the total scale of "Reality". We cannot see or experience a planck moment nor the span of a million years. We are very successful within the sphere of objects we can handle, and in building instruments to deal with objects out of that range (Cern, JWST, Microscopes etc.) The word reality is a place holder. For most of us that is enough.
I've listened to a lot of Kastrup and read many of his books and understand his "entropic soup" metaphor - imperfect as it is - alludes to the overwhelmingly large, possibly infinite, amount of information that our sensors would have to accurately receive, and our brains would have to coherently represent if perception was in fact a transparent window onto reality. He further argues, with evidence from evolutionary game theory that survival depends on selective attention to reality rather than comprehensive apprehension and veridical comprehension of reality. Kastrup is a very sincere and authentic philosopher who acknowledges that words are always imperfect and inaccurate descriptions of reality. From my direct experience, the best way to engage him in meaningful discussions is to invite him to a dialogue rather than a debate.
" and understand his "entropic soup" metaphor - imperfect as it is - " It's not really a metaphor and it's not his. He's talking about Karl Friston's free energy principle.
@@paulkeogh9604 Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
What different does it make that we don't perceive the totality of realty? That doesn't make what we do experience less real, it only makes it incomplete, and most of us are well aware of that.
Excellent analysis and my first intro to this channel. A few years ago, before Bernardo became famous, I had the chance to ask him some questions in his forum. One of my questions was about the relationship between between dissociated minds and what is there beyond their dashboards. Bernardo says that what we perceive is how thoughts in mind at large appear to us, and what are outer thoughts to us are inner thoughts to mind at large. I wanted to know if he thought our inner experiences were also on a screen of experience, and if so, what is our relationship to some "reality" behind this inner screen? And if. as dissociated alters of the one mind, we are fundamentally similar to it, would not its inner experiences also be on its own inner screen of experience? And finally, if everything is mental, then there would seem to be some kinds of mental "objects" somewhere behind all of our screens of inner experience, operating there in a subconscious world of causes and effects, as much unknown to mind at large as for its dissociated offspring. This all seems very complicated to me and not as parsimonious as Bernardo thinks it is.
You are absolutely spot on. That switch from SR to SA undermines his first argument; and then he goes on and undermines his evolutionary premise in his second argument by undermining the reality of the scientific paradigm.
You've misrepresented the his argument about perception. Perception of a thing in itself does not require replication of the perceived object inside the mind of the perceiver, since he's taking about the map not the terrain. Our map does not match the terrain out there. Also the interface theory, doesn't just say we perceive limited information that is useful, but false information that is useful.
There is still the issue of why is this the case. If we assume materialism, the answer is obvious, since mind and body are not equal (this does not lead to dualism, mind you, since mind is still derivative), so map cannot match terrain, if we are all consciousness this is more difficult.
I admire Kastrup's work and I think Idealism is closer to reality than materialism. However, my biggest problem with idealism is the relationship between Absolute/Universal Consciousness and individual minds such as my own. Bernardo talks about dissociation, but this is still a tentative explanation. Perhaps we can never really understand such a thing. I'm not afraid of the theistic implications of idealism at all, even though I used to be an atheist and a materialist. As I studied the mind-body problem and probed for solutions, I moved from materialism->panpsychism->idealism. Idealism makes it very likely that there is some kind of intelligence at the bottom of reality. If Idealism is true, it has implications for our daily lives. We are all part of one great whole, and we should treat all human beings and all life with compassion, loving kindness, and respect. I have been dismayed by some idealists (who shall not be named) who do not appear to have realized this.
The partitioning of God's mind into the individuated, coherent, and holistic selves we apparently experience, is indeed one of the greatest mysteries to contemplate. I think of the universal principle like a macro scale version of your mind-body. Your brain, and it's abstracted information processing, modeling yourself and your environment, is like the overarching will and telos of the universal consiousness. Your autonomic functions, are like the fabric of space-time, and the complex structures of material objects in the world, the baseline necessities for existence. Your willed functions, like your hands and feet, your mouth, your eyes, are the actualized interactions and relationships that occur within that world, like the movements of bodies in space, and the various exchanges of energy occuring in those bodies. There is so much more to unpack here, but the idea of "man made in God's image" rings true for me. Ultimately, in my personal synthesis of experience, it is doing all of this because it loves us. It wants us to love each other and the whole, with no expectations or demands to do so, or act in any way, as we are literally it. It revels in our independent existence, and freedom, and the fact that it has actualized an other, to which it can share its infinite eternal self. It is absolutely unselfish, and has given to us all of the properties that it has. An infinite, eternal existence, within an infinite eternal existence. This existence is inherently good, and meaningful, and it never ends. Everyone is it's favorite person, everyone is safe, we are all together forever, and we will all eventually experience being this thing, the most blissful experience imaginable. From nothing it came, and nothing it will always be, it cannot be erased, and you, cannot be erased.
I have a video on the relationship between absolute consciousness and individual minds where I give my own answer on this. It's called "Idealism and the Decombination Problem".
Thanks for speaking up! Bernardo falls short in what I’d call big picture metaphysics. I find it cold comfort, as well as un-parsimonious and downright materialistic, to hope that our combined suffering will help a schizophrenic universe become saner. The favored big freeze scenario for our expanding universe would, if correct, finally render it unable to support life; hence the consensus that the universe is as mortal as you or I, and its existence, along with everything in it, is meaningless per se. Idealism, in order to be consistent, must envision Mind as ultimately beyond time, space and causation-which Bernardo has at times admitted, but usually sets aside.
Precisely. As a matter of fact, I think Hegel’s insistence upon the “idleness” of Berkeley’s idealism is a criticism that can be leveled against Kastrup’s idealism with equal force: _”Without_ is _within,_ says Berkeley. Let it be so, says Hegel, and philosophy has still to _begin._ The same things that were called _without_ or _noumenal_ are now called _within_ or _phenomenal,_ but, call them as you may, it is their _systematic explanation_ that is wanted. Such systematic explanation, embracing man and the entire round of his experiences, sensuous, intellectual, moral, religious, aesthetic, political, etc., is alone philosophy, and to that no repetition of _without is within,_ or _matter is phenomenal,_ will ever prove adequate.” (J.H. Stirling, _Schwegler’s Handbook of the History of Philosophy,_ 18-19)
Your point about Kastrup's evolutionary argument being self-undermining is exactly spot on. I had the same reaction to Donald Hoffman's argument when I first encountered it.
I was never convinced by Kastrup's assertion that universal consciousness is phenomenal but couldn't put my finger on the reason why. This explanation goes a long way to convincing me that universal consciousness must be meta rather than phenomenal. Following on from that argument, I can't disagree with the suggestion that Kastrup seems reluctant to fully embrace the implications of analytic idealism.
Fantastic video! Thank you very much. I had a lot of similar issues with the analytical idealism of Kastrup myself. You helped connecting the dots and made the contradictions in his theory much clearer. No wonder he rejected to debate you. He couldn't possibly stand his ground. I am grateful to you. May God continue to bless you.
This is the right question to ask! This is what Kastrup is driving at, only with academic philosophical semantics. Why don’t we go to the Vedic scripts here… there is nothing new being added by Kastrup the Vedanta hasn’t already explored. Even Schopenhauer made explicit reference to the Veda’s and spoke of the correspondence of MAYA with what he called Representations. Schopenhauer was truly a great philosopher. He did not attempt to define the noumena, he only said it exists and is beyond any living person’s ability to know. We accept this then and live our best lives through ethics, compassion, and creative endeavor. Read Schopenhauer and you’ll have all this most exquisitely explained… you don’t need to be confused by Kastrup’s Berkeley-esque RADICAL idealism.
27:20 The reasoning flaw you've identified is indeed significant, so much so that it's surprising how BK or his immediate colleagues could have overlooked it. Alternatively, could it be possible that you have not fully comprehended the theory he proposes? Ask yourself this: Could you tonight dream of the complete evolutionary path from abiogenesis to who you are now ? If yes, then that's sort of what happened according to BK. A higher consciousness dreamed all of this up. each evolutionary stage in your dream would still feel like a lapse in time, but does time really exist in your dream? No because time can freeze go, go backwards, fast forward or anything in between. Time and evolution are just experiences in your dream made of mind stuff.
12:20 Kastrups argument like Kant's is self-defeating. If we can't now anything about the thing-in-itself, then we don't know that it isn't exactly like what we perceive.
Thanks. I was hesitant to watch this because I am a Kastrup fan-boy. But you make some excellent points, especially about universal consciousness. I don't see how we could have consciousness "superior" to the consciousness we came from.
Having a discussion with Kastrup live would certainly be more illuminating than his other hosts who, whilst well intentioned, are not challenging to the extent that you are. Keep knocking on his door then.
I'm watching this as a physicist (I did my research into string theory) interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics (and how it impacted our world view), and noticed how Kastrup uses quantum mechanics to defend his idealism. I haven't finished the video so maybe I'll come back with some actual comments about the content, but just replyed to let you know you misspelled his name in the video title: it's Bernardo (with an extra r) ;) I only recently discovered your channel, and as a physicist and philosopher-wannabe writing about physics and philosophy I like it a lot. If you ever want to use quantum mechanics in some sort in your video's and need some view from a physicist, I'd be happy to exchange thoughts!
Thank you! I'll change the spelling, and I just might take you up on it! I intend to read through Tim Maudlin's books to get a better grip, but I haven't done so yet.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Maudlin is indeed really good, both his books on spacetime and quantum mechanics. Another great book is Norsen's "Foundations of quantum mechanics", and a bit more on the popular side Adam Becker's "What is real?"
Does one become a philosopher by thinking philosophical thoughts? I think so but like me, not necessarily a good one. Since it is my self who is conscious it seems to me that what a self is has a bearing on the topic and especially on the meaning of the word 'conscious'. It seems to me to be quite obvious that my self is a thought. Being a thought would certainly account for my self's ability to have commerce with the myriad of other thoughts which represent the universe and everything within it. Now if a thought is simply a process of neurological activity that in coded form, represents my self and everything else then the physical is merely the substrate without which process cannot exist (making the physical absolutely necessary but details beyond chemistry not necessarily relevant).
You are right. There is a clip where Kastrup says UC is 'UNLIKELY to be metacognitive'. This is a mistake that only creates a new problem (even if not as hard a problem as materialism). BK shouldn't make assumptions about UC from observations of what he calls the dashboard (which entails space-time including Darwinian evolution). Also, the human mind is a part of UC, so it stands to reason that, if it's a localised, restricted perspective, it shouldn't be capable of much more than UC itself. Also, my experience contradicts what he said. When I experienced naked awareness divorced from conceptual reality, the awareness couldn't help but be aware of itself because it is in its nature to do so. This is metacognition! I think BK got it backwards. It is UC that is capable of all possible states of mind including metacognition. The human mind, on the other hand, can occasionally tap into them because it is mostly restricted to this space-time construct. I think that is BK's main mistake in his analytical idealism. Evolution doesn't explain metacognition if we say that only human minds can have cognition. His view almost mirrors materialism when it says we went from Homo sapiens to becoming Homo sapiens sapiens (man that knows he knows) without even explaining consciousness.
Yes analytic idealism says that consciousness is not metacognitive, it is instinctive. It’s rather obvious to me that nature/God is not metacognitive because if it is, it is amoral!
@@sxsmith44 Perhaps it is metacognitive of a sort, but so far above the struggles of an individual human living on Earth that it doesn't really mind? A billion years of suffering is like taking a child to the doctor to get an injection... It is already existing in the state where we are dead and at peace.
The irony here is Bernardo bemoans the lack of proper philosophy in the debate and here a proper philosopher picks some telling faults in Bernardo's system.
Ok, I've watched the whole thing - I would say this is the best critique of BK's work I've seen in 10 years. your distinction, that he mixes scientific explanations with explanations depending on mind (that is, mixes physicalist and idealist explanations) is one I posed to him many times back 9 and 10 years ago but he always dismissed it as irrelevant. You've brought it back brilliantly. Also, your idea of evolution as a means by which a collective consciousness evolves is common in some forms of Tantra and other schools of Indian philosophy. Notice I said collective, not universal consciousness. Sri Aurobindo speaks of "Group souls" - or the consciousness of a species. So the relatively non individuated cat has experiences that will contribute to the evolution of the species. There is, in his view, a transcendent non evolving Consciousness which expresses itself through involution and then evolution, which makes infinitely more sense to me than BK's view.
"but he always dismissed it as irrelevant." It's a weak point and obviously false. Akin to claiming that a desktop can't tell you anything about what's happening in the CPU, or that a dashboard can't tell anything about what's happening to the airplane.
@@Sam-hh3ry actually, in other contexts, one of BK’s major crtiiques is mixing physicalist and idealist ideas without distinguishing them. So Bk himself would disagree with you about it being a weak point!!
@@EffortlessSleepandLife I’m not sure you even understand the analogy. Idealism says that matter/perceptual objects are encoded representations of surrounding states (mental states of mind at large). Akin to the relationship between a desktop and a computer, or the dashboard of a vehicle. Obviously you can determine lots of things about surrounding states by using the interface meant to give you info about those states.
@@Sam-hh3ry I'm not sure you understand the critique. It's not a matter of whether or not the interface provide information. It's whether the entire analogy offers anything beyond materialism. It explains nothing. That's the point. The same as materialist/physicalist science, as admitted by Nobel Prize winning physicist Steve Weinberg, who in his New York Review of Books admitted that, according to the way the word "explain" has been used for several thousand years, science indeed does not explain, it only describes. This is the case with BK's view as well, as well elaborated by this video.
Listening to you I have the impression that you haven't really understood Bernardo. Much of your critique relates - as far as I can tell - to problems we inevitably face when we try to explain these topics in a language, that is 'by definition' (trying to define) dualistic. So one question for instance is how literal you take the image of the 'screen of perfection'. Here I think you haven't represented Bernardos point adequately. So with all respect: nice try, but not convincing (to me). If you're interested in answering the question how 'meta consciousness' could evolve from 'phenomenal consciousness', I'd recommend studying Ken Wilbers Integral Approach and engage in some spiritual practice to 'see' for yourself where language no longer works. That (plus the work of Iain McGilchrist) brings it perfectly together.
This is interesting. I read all of Wilber’s works up to 2006 and never found them compelling; to much basic misunderstanding of Sri Aurobindo and many others as well as basic mistakes about what developmental stages in psychology are actually about; very familiar with McGilchrist and agree he does excellent work, but i think much of it (particularly Part 3 of “The Matter of Things” is quite in conflict with Bernardo’s ideas. The mai problem is taking universal consciousness to be EITHER meta conscious in teh human sense or phenomenally conscious. Bernardo claims his major inspiration (or at least, started claiming it in the past year) is the Upanishads, but neither his writing, nor that of Wilber or McGilchrist is more than minimally related to that of the Upanishads, which take Chit (or hinted at in later Upanishads and openly embraced by the Tantras, “Chit Shakti”) as an infinite intelligence, infinitely beyond that of either phenomenal or human metacognition.
@@EffortlessSleepandLifeYes, this is interesting indeed. For me personally the main question is, whether a theory or approach _makes sense_ and relates in a meaningful way to my own insights I gather from enganging in deep spiritual practice and then see if both (ineffable insight and verbal interpretation based on the theories) integrate well with each other. That said, for me it's less a question of a theory 'being right' than being 'useful' as a framework and guidance on the (neccesary) path of practice and seeing for oneself what the 'real truth' is (which cannot be articulated in words). As Wilber puts it 'all is true - but partial'. So true. And partial. 😉
@@StefanSchoch Mm, but the point here being made is that they don't actually fit together, no? Besides, the problem of ineffable insight is that it cannot tell you anything external.
Don't you think it would be on his part to find a proper language to explain his stuff to us? His theory, as far as I understand it, is based on sheer fantasy with absolutely no tangible (empirical) evidence behind.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Shure it's on his part to 'prove' his points. And after reading most of his books and listening to many hours of his conversations, I must say that I don't know anyone else who does such a brillant and convincing job in making his argument based on evidence (where 'tangible evidence' is possible, which is often not the case in a philosophical debate about idealism) and / or consistent and logical lines of argument. I.e. see his arguments in 'why materialism is balooney'. What books have you read that give you the impression his stuff would be 'sheer fantasy'?
@@AbsolutePhilosophyif you take jnto account NDE testimony, when we d1e its just like waking up from a dream/amniotic state.. Within the "dream" the "matter" is actually just MIND..
In the framework of Analytic Idealism one might say that we, as dissociated alters within the construct of "Mind At Large" (MAL), embody the meta-cognitive facets of MAL on the perceptual dashboard. In a parallel vein, biological evolution serves as a dashboard representation, elucidating the intricate dynamics of MAL's relentless pursuit to comprehend itself. MAL might therefore be understood as fundamentally phenomenal-conscious, but in a process of becoming meta-conscious. To the extent that man's image of God is an intuitive peek behind the dashboard of perception, C.G. Jung espoused a parallel perspective. According to him, the transformative shifts in humanity's conceptualization of God throughout history mirror the evolution of its consciousness, and maybe also the evolution of God's consciousness.
That sounds like the kind of view I say in this video that Kastrup would need to adopt to maintain his account of mind arising from a dissociative process.
Very good of you to notice, respect👍 Ive created a theory, the narcisist, psychopath and empathy theory, the catperson and dogperson theory. The catperson or part is the self, the dogperson or part is the self in a group. 20-60-20, in de dogperson/group, 20% being pro the argument and willing to do something about it, 60% being neutral or going allong with which side wins, 20% being against and willing to do something about it. 20-60-20 in the catperson/the self/ personal, 20% pro or going along, 60% is you/how you see yourself and how you are today, 20% is against and not going along. Some people hate cats and or dogs but they cant or dare to out it in the open because of the consequentions it may have for them in their group... Catperson, female, emotional, introvert and live in the moment/the now. Dog person, male, rational, extrovert and lives for tomorrow. The dogperson uses physical violence where the catperson uses psychological violence. I also included some 2 hemisphere data and some historical proof in an email which Ive sent to a few scientists a few years ago. I also came up with KABE=W, knowledge aquired by experiance = wisdom. Let me know what you think about it👍
Almost forgot the most important part🙂 The catperson wants their animal to live free, to be selfreliant, in a way the catperson is there for the animal/other The dogperson wants their animal to be free but within the group accepted norm , they will adapt more easily to an inhume norm, the dog/person is more there for the dogperson. 60% being the norm people who like both cats and dogs, 20% dont like cats and 20% dont like dogs. Within each side there are extremes the narcisists and or psychopaths. The police dog trainer, the dog is only there for one purpose, if the value of the dog doesn't conform it will be replaced. The outer fringe of the catperson doesn't allow the cat to go outside, has their nails cut, if the so doesn't allow the cat to a cat and when the cat doesn't conform by their standarts the cat will be replaced.
This is all well above my pay grade but I still really like to think about these things. Having said that I'm still trying to wrap my head around the first section about Kastrups entropy argument. It reminds me of the idea that "the simulation is not the thing being simulated." For instance we can simulate something like different properties of food on a computer, like in a video game where the characters can eat and respond to it in similar ways that we do in the real world. But no matter how complex and accurate that simulation of food ever becomes it won't (presumably) ever turn into actual food that we can eat. Food is a substance that relies on interactions beyond the atomic level whereas computers rely on a structure that begins and ends with bits or tiny electrical gates as 0 and 1s. No matter how complex those bits of electricity in or out of gates are arranged on a computer chip we obviously won't be able to eat it. Another example and the one that actually reminded me of what Kastrup said is the idea of simulating a very complex thing like our climate as a whole on a computer to then make precise predictions about the weather far into the future. Very precise as in what days will it rain in a specific location in the year 2040 for example. But this is more than likely impossible with a computer simulation because that "simulation" is already running as the thing itself and its running at the fastest possible speed, which is itself the climate as it is. A computer replica of the earths climate that takes into account all of the essential physical interaction it needs to in order to make precise weather predictions far into the future would have to be far bigger than the earth itself and run at a much slower speed, as the lowest level it can go is a few nanometer sized bit gates running at a set clock speed. Whereas material reality presumably goes to levels far below the atom in size and interactions cap at the speed of light. Whatever the climate is doing right now can in that sense be seen as "the most efficient simulation of itself." All of this to say that it seems we couldn't therefore accurately represent or simulate the world around as long as whatever the thing we are simulating has more necessary information than what is possible to contain within a brain or whatever system or thing produces the representational output. That output has to be compressed in some way. I think you're right in that most people don't believe that we have actual bits of the world outside ourselves inside our heads, like if we perceive a bomb exploding there isn't an actual bomb exploding inside our brain. But on the other hand many people do believe that we can for instance actually produce consciousness by simulating it on a computer. Isn't this akin to people believing we can produce actual food, or fire, or storms on a computer or is akin to believing that when we perceive an apple there is ultimately an actual apple inside our heads. Because if that isn't the case saying that it is a direct perception instead of a replica or simulation or model just doesn't mean anything. Or at least anything that I can make sense of. What does direct perception even mean? If we intuitively believe we are "directly perceiving an apple" what are we claiming? Not that its your view of course but just the view in general.
14:58 Dashboard simile lacks a vital part: each of the indicators on the dashboard starts at a sensor. Info from the sensor is then passed to the indicator. The sensors are the missing link - there's nothing in the indicators that was not first in the sensors. In human organism, a sense organ makes contact with its object. This contact is what is indicated on the indicator as a movement of the needle, or some such change. But this is still meaningless "raw data": domething is sensed, but that's the extent of it. And btw, this is as close to reality as we can get. From here, everything that follows is interpretation. Note that already here Kastrup's version of Yogacara doctrine of the "mind only" argument breaks: while one of the many mental functions is being a sense organ tasked with sensing internal, mental "objects", the remaining 5 sense organs are all "external", material organs, tasked with sensing their objects in the "outside" world. What happens next after sensation, is a series of other mental processes, ending in Consciousness of the sensed and interpreted object. Long story short, this is how our world and our self is collected and made into a "thing" - sensation after sensation, interpretation, after interpretation, a "thing" at a time. What keeps it all together is craving for more and clinging to each ofthe "things" - people, things, feelings, views, beliefs, tastes.... There is no other Self outside of that ever-changing "collection" of not-self phenomena. Shunyata (Emptiness) is the true nature of everything.
Pretty sure the use of the term 'analytical' is a shout out to CG Jung's analytical psychology, and universal consciousness is basically synonymous with the collective unconscious and it's archetypes. That's clearly the framework behind his work and also adds context to his point on universal consciousness being only phenomenologically conscious - in an unconscious state. The way I see it we are it's meta conscious expression. Perhaps the representation of universal consciousness in a differentiated state - our isolated subjective ego's experience - is a form that gives rise to meta consciousness? I guess evolution applies to mind with regard to instincts and archetypes, being the means by which unconscious patterns of shared behavior fosters the emergence of culture, for example. It's when we encounter our instincts and their correlated archetypal images in our personal lives that we gain access to energy and motivation - libido - so we're psychologically wired for adaptation and survival and that seems to be the nature of universal consciousness.
Really glad you did a video on him. While I also disagree with him on several matters, I share a lot of his issues with materialism/reductionism, and I'm glad he's helping bring it back to public awareness. Aside from your points in this video, why do you think he has been mostly dismissed in academia? I know idealism in general has something of a cultural bias against it, but do you think there's anything unique to analytic idealism that puts it at a greater disadvantage?
Materialism vs idealism may matter to us but it’s a niche interest. Scientists don’t need to be metaphysically accurate to produce useful theories, while philosophers have debated this for millennia, so I don’t know if Kastrup’s work has been rejected as much as it’s stayed within its niche
@@olbluelips I don't understand how. For me, the idea that materialism might not be true is like a beam of hope appearing in absolute despair. I would have thought nothing would matter more than investigating it. Maybe we aren't all doomed to eternal oblivion? Isn't that huger and more important than anything else, on a personal level?
What's so bad about oblivion? Mark Twain famously said, "I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and it never caused me the slightest inconvenience."
Knowing about Active Inference myself (I've interviewed Friston about 8 times at this point!), you might have gotten the wrong read a tiny bit on the "naive realism" part - he's not arguing about perceptions, rather representations in the brains "generative model". However, this is often misunderstood i.e. the model is a fiction, the mechanics are actually diffused in a complex way, even outside of the body.
Great! In my view, you were too kind. For every issue you pointed out, I saw many more. His approach seems to be to make generalizations based on presumption over and over again. That is not, in my mind, any sort of philosophy.
Nice video and nice try, but I think you've missed what Kastrup was actually trying to do here. He is not using the entropy and evolutionary arguments to strawman or otherwise counter other philosophical positions per sé. Though I definitely think Kastrup would do well to tone down his antagonism at times (lest it makes him seem sloppy) here he is actually using these arguments to build up towards the point that we simply could not see the world as it is, even IF we were holding a physicalist or scientific materialist position, which he assumes (rightfully so) a lot of us sort of do, whether we know it or not. He then reasons a conscious ontology (the idealist position in which we ALSO do not see the world as it is) in which a Schopenhauerian dashboard "phenomenology" "represents" an underlying cosmic "will". I think it would be accurate to say that Kastrup simply chose to "start from somewhere" and that you overanalyzed this rather arbitrary decision.
You got it. The point is simply that we have strong reasons to think the world we perceive is unlike the world as it is in itself. This is a really obvious point that goes back at least to Kant. After this is established, he gives reasoning for why the world in itself is likely mental on the basis of parsimony, explanatory power, etc.
@@Sam-hh3ry Kastrup does deny the existence of matter, if he claims consciousness is all there is. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. Kant is an epistemic idealist, not an ontological one. Furthermore I don’t trust anyone who has a definite answer to everything. History tells us, that they are with no exception priests, guru’s or charlatans.
The problem with idealism as with sociobiology is that one takes a bird’s envy view of reality and the other takes a worm’s eye view of reality. The truth is we live in both worlds not just one or the other. We have to try to align ourselves with absolutes while applying them to what is relative. A war may be just in one case and unjust in another case. So it best not to take a permanent stance on one viewpoint or the other, instead use our conscience and reason as they apply to what is relative to a situation. Religion, philosophy, and psychology have given a guide for dealing with duality. It is The Middle Way which is negotiating a path between opposites rather being caught in the grip of either one. It is Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’. The question of to act or not to act is addressed in the Bhagavad Gita as to whether there is a choice in the matter.
Thanks for the discussion. I hadn't known your channel and I've only seen half an interview with Kastrup. I think your video citations helped me get his argument. Now as for your first counter-case, I think a good part of Kastrup's argument can be saved: To critique e.g. realism, then (as per the method of deconstruction), we may adopt the realist framework (e.g. evolution applying to everything, or talking about what happens when we follow what happens with entropy) to show the problems with it. I.e. it's not really necessary to restrict ourselves to the dashboard as long as we're not making positive claims but only show contradictions with others. As for the second half, does Kastrup postulate that the "actual outside beyond the dashboard" is indeed timeless? I don't know, it wasn't part of your video citations. Because what I'd get at here is that apriori we could have evolution both on the dashboard and beyond it. Making postulates about the world beyond the dashboard makes the theory unappealing, but at least we shouldn't say it's necessarily faulty reasoning to speak of evolution there.
Yes, this is the reason why I, too, am happy to allow Kastrup the use evolution theory: as a helpful tool for deconstruction. But then he seems to want to construct another view, and that could be a trap, in my view. Nagarjuna saw this trap; hence his insistence that emptiness (i.e. when all deconstruction is done) is also empty of independent existence. Then, no conceptual view can prevail, which is not nihilistic, but helps me to accept conventional reality with more lightness.
Hello great video! I would like to ask a question, does the objection you made to the fact that if absolute consciousness is phenomenal consciousness and not metaconsciousness not also apply to F H Bradley's idealism? Since Bradley held that the Absolute is immediate experience, is this not the same as phenomenal consciousness? So doesn't Bradley have the same problem as Kastrup of not being able to explain the emergence of the individual subject's metaconsciousness? Thankyou very Much!
Great question. I do think immediate experience is basically phenomenal experience, but Bradley does not think immediate experience is Reality as it is finite and limited. He think Reality is Absolute experience which includes and integrates relational experience (metaconsciousness) too. So he doesn't have that problem.
Excellent analysis and critique. Surely Kastrup would reframe his arguments if confronted by these observations, perhaps in a way which would refine and clarify his own ideas. I doubt he “thinks he’s wrong”, yet I can’t help but agree with your assessment.
Good job mate ... there are many holes in his "arguments", you point to some of them ! Nice to see people who can actually argue rigidly to point them out.
METAPHYSICAL IDEALISM IS AT BEST SPECULATIVE/PROBLEMATIC. Metaphysical idealism cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a posteriori: “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason” (Kant, Prolegomena); “Even if we could bring our intuition to the highest degree of clearness, we should not thereby come any nearer to the constitution of objects in themselves. We should still know only our mode of intuition, that is, our sensibility. We should, indeed, know it completely, but always only under the conditions of space and time - conditions which are originally inherent in the subject. What the objects may be in themselves would never become known to us even through the most enlightened knowledge of that which is alone given us, namely, their appearance” (Kant, KrV, A 43). Metaphysical idealism cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a priori: it is not logically necessary that all reality is entirely mental; it is logically possible that non-mental things-in-themselves have transcendental reality (not to be confused with empirical reality). RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL COUNTERARGUMENTS: 1. Concerning the potential counterargument that “while we can’t empirically verify metaphysical idealism, it provides a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for our experiences and the nature of consciousness”: we do not say that metaphysical idealism is parsimonious or not parsimonious, we say that it is at best speculative/problematic. Hence, the counterargument that “while we can’t empirically verify metaphysical idealism, it provides a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for our experiences and the nature of consciousness” constitutes ignoratio elenchi against our position laid out above (namely, our position that metaphysical idealism at best is problematic). 2. Concerning the potential counterargument that “the very concept of ‘non-mental reality’ is incoherent or meaningless, as reality is only conceivable in terms of experience or thought”: such a counterargument tactitly presupposes that if non-mental things-in-themselves do have transcendental reality they must be describable according to the categories of the understanding (which categories apply necessarily to phenomena/appearances, not necessarily to hypothetical non-mental things-in-themselves); such a counterargument, that is, is a petitio principii. 3. Concerning the potential counterargument that “certain forms of idealism (e.g., transcendental idealism) actually align with Kant’s philosophy in recognizing the mind-dependent nature of our experience while not necessarily denying the existence of things-in-themselves”: we say that metaphysical idealism is at best problematic/speculative; eo ipso it entails ignoratio elenchi to appeal to Kantian transcendental idealism in counterargument (since we say nothing at all about Kantian transcendental idealism). Obiter dictum: By saying that metaphysical idealism is at best problematic we mean to imply that metaphysical idealism (qua philosophical position) is neither assertoric nor apodeictic.
I would like to throw my hat in the ring. Kastrup takes a large portion of his thinking on meta consciousness and phenomenal consciousness from Jung. In Jungs Answer to Job Jung observes that God is only phenomenally conscious but not Meta conscious, this is why God is unconscious because He is unable to reflect and understand His actions and state. This is also why He is unable to use his Omnipotence, as he is not self reflective and thus not conscious. We developed meta cognition due to us being mortal, and thus needing it to grow and evolve, whereas God does not because he is perfect and complete. This I think is his view on this particular point. We are a dissociation of God that developed meta cognition due to our inherent smallness and mortality. We are, in a sense, bringing God to metacognition through us by existing and allowing God to incarnate in us. This is mainly taken from Jung and Kastrups book on Jung, so I am be wrong. But yeah, hope to hear from the creator!
Interesting. Perhaps he is taking this position following Jung. I know little about Jung's metaphysics. And maybe he has other theological motives for following Jung too (besides those I hinted at in this video). But the issues I raise remain. They come from the tension between the denial of metacognition to universal mind alongside the claim we are dissociated alters of that mind. If this is also akin to Jung's position, it is a problem for Jung too. And appeals to evolution won't cut it philosophically.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Thank you for the response! There really isn't a way to save it, unless you institute what you suggested. It needs to be noted this would even fit with the Jungian findings, as well as with logic if you do take it all the way. Thank you for the great video and I appreciate the response once again!
What a great channel! Thanks for all you're doing! I'm a fan of Bosanquet, Green, and Bradley; trying to study them with Sellars (and Brandom) in mind. I watched Kastrup's series a few weeks ago and am looking forward to your analysis.
You might like the membership programme then. I'm going through Bradley's A&R, reading it and commenting on it as I go. These videos are available to members, from the lowest tier. I'd appreciate your insights too.
I generally dislike idealists because they talk nonsense most of the time, but you are an exception, lol. I love the part about the self refuting character of his arguments. Hoffman makes the same mistake by appealing to evolution, science, and space-time just to deny them one moment later. Regarding the second part, the universal consciousness is supposed to be the mind of what we call the inanimate cosmos. I don't see how that mind can be metacognitive like we are. I think there is a pretty strong intuition here. There appears to be a correlation between the complexity of the minds and the complexity of structure, functions, behavior. Consider a human, a dog, and a beetle and compare them. Now consider the inanimate cosmos. It has less complex structure, functions, behaviors than a beetle, and therefore it must have a much less complex mind/consciousness and such a mind just doesn't seem to qualify as god in any sense. Just like the inanimate cosmos of the materialists, it does what it does, without deliberation or any sense of morality. Not an idealist, but I like flirting with the idea of a naturalistic idealism or a naturalistic panpyschism.
Thanks for the compliment. My idealism is very different to Kastrup's. I'll be doing videos that start to sketch out my views over the next few months. Let's see if I can make it plausible to you. I like a challenge :).
I see where your critique on universal consciousness and the notion of it being metacognitive is coming from, but I might submit that the obvious fine tuning of the universe lends towards precisely that outcome. If we were talking about a purely natural mind akin to that of an animal, completely oblivious to its own actions and how they impact others, we might reasonably expect a naturally chaotic universe to reflect that behavior. Is that what we see? Absolutely not. We see jaw-dropping levels of harmony, behaviors so spectacularly fine-tuned that the finest watchmaker would blush at their sheer inadequacy in comparison. This is not a universe bereft of intelligence acting like an impulsive animal. That aside, to play Devil's Advocate for Donald Hoffman for a minute he's addressed your exact criticism a number of times. What he would say is that evolution is merely a pointer to something outside of spacetime that is *not itself* what we could recognize as evolution. Since spacetime is emergent from something deeper in Reality, we've no good reason to think that whatever it is that evolution is representative of will, in any meaningful way, look like evolution itself - therefore your claim that he shot himself in the foot is invalid.
@@ryanashfyre464 Hoffman talks nonsense. He has never substantially addressed anything. He seems more like a con artist to me. You cannot appeal to scientific notions and be a scientific anti-realist because you are throwing your entire framework out of the window at the same time. It is a self refuting stance. Kastrup does the same thing. I think Tim Maudlin pointed that to him in a short clash they had. He was trying to misuse quantum mechanics as always, but a theory of physics (a theory that describes things in physical terms) cannot even conceivably refute physical realism. As for fine-tuning, it can either be a brute necessity or a brute contingency under a naturalistic view. Once you have fine-tuning/constants, evolution takes place. I am not quite sure your appeal to it affects my point. I was talking about the inanimate cosmos and if it happens to have some kind of mind/consciousness, I was deriving conclusions about that mind/consciousness. I was already operating under a naturalistic framework, and fine-tuning doesn't pose a problem for a naturalistic view to begin with. Actually the conclusions I derived about the mind/consciousness of the inanimate cosmos (assuming it has one) predict all the data of suffering and evil.
Complete misunderstanding of Hoffman's argument IMO. Suppose you have a measurement device that is spaced with 1cm precision, this unit cannot make accurate measurements of objects smaller than 1cm. Yet it is still fully functional for its own scale adjusted objects. From what I understand Hoffman is not stating that evolutionary biology is incorrect and therefore useless, rather he's saying evolutionary biology is incorrect and useless beyond its scope. People didn't stop using Newtonian physics to calculate object trajectory just because we have Einsteinian physics. It's still very functional within its framework.
24:35 I'm not sure it makes sense to see phenomenal consciousness as a "lower" form than meta consciousness; simpler, yes, but not necessarily lower. In that sense, Kastrup's Universal Consciousness is somewhat reminiscent of Plotinus' _The One,_ or the God of classical theism. In fact, in the latter (not sure about the former) simplicity is an essential aspect of what God is. Following that approach, it's not just that Kastrup's UC _happens to be_ phenomenally conscious (and not meta conscious), it is _necessarily_ so. But for me, what undermines that possible overlap between Kastrup on the one hand and Plotinus, Aquinas, and the like, on the other, is the apparent spontaneous coming-into-being of these ring-fenced additional personalities. That immediately raises the question as to how -- by what mechanism -- did that happen? Kastrup seems to be offering the UC as the unitary, primordial thing. But it can't be. In addition to the UC he also needs some mechanisms governed by some _"Laws of Personality Emergence"_ and if those exist, then the UC just isn't the bottom line he seems to think it is. It's similar to the kind of unitary, primordial no-thing your Lawrence Krauss types postulate. We know that whatever was _not_ there at "the beginning", the various mechanisms allowing for quantum fluctuations and so on certainly were. And in that case, Krauss's nothing just isn't the bottom line he seems to think it is.
Of course, the "quantum vacuum field" cannot be a bottom line in the way that Krause thinks. Bear in mind that Krause thinks that all philosophy is BS. Nevertheless, the stuff he says is a crude attempt at an ontology, and he doesn't even have the meta-consciousness to realize that. That makes him one of the worst philosophers in existence, rather than the "pure scientist" non-philosopher he claims to be. I have no use for any scientist who, far from having any coherent scientific epistemology, thinks that all epistemology is garbage.
Suggest exploring Riccardo Faggin's work and his discussions with Kastrup. While you have some interesting elements of argument, I am not sure you fully or properly apply them.
When I first heard Bernardo's argument from entropy, I was a little bit taken aback by this line of thought. I guess, if you're familiar with Bernardo's critiques on materialism, it makes sense that his critiques moved him in this direction, but as you say.. as a stand alone argument, this doesn't work. He needs to let this go. Then you're making a mistake @14:20 by saying that the idea of a cockpit is a 'simplified' view, while Kastrup is trying to make the argument that there is a distinct difference, not a simplification. The main problem with your critique is that the explanation of evolution is not making an ontological distinction, it's not giving you knowledge, nor does it pretend to, about something that is distinct from us in reality. It's merely a way to explain how reality works, even if just by analogy through 'the dashboard of perception'. It's not like Bernardo is pretending that he can somehow pierce through and show us the reality outside of perception. Your argument that 'evolution is also only about the dashboard', yeah, that is Bernardo's point. The distinction is complete and not a 'simplification'. Your critique on his method only works if evolution would be false when scientific realism is false, but of course, the theory of evolution is not at all phased by scientific realism being true or false. It works regardless.
@@MonisticIdealism Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.
It does not follow that because mis-perceptions of the world are possible, therefore, any and all perceptions of it -- correct or incorrect -- are indirect perceptions of it. This like arguing that because it is possible to give an incorrect answer on an exam, therefore, any and all answers -- even the correct one - must be indirect answers.
Great vid! Here are my 2 cents, apologies if I ramble a hit. I don't think Kastrup is actually doing what you say he is doing. His arguments, like the Evolutionary one or the one involving entropy, are arguments using scientific evidence to show that scientific realism is false. It sounds paradoxical but it's not. Science is agnostic (for lack of a better word) of metaphysics. It's just the study of behavior. I don't see any in principle reason why someone couldn't use scientific evidence to show that science is a method within the dashboard and then interpret that evidence in favor of Idealism. I've heard people make the same argument against Donald Hoffman ("you're arguing that everything is a desktop UI because of evolution, but then that means evolution, and the theory, is just part of the desktop... therefore it's false"), and his response is quite simple: every scientific theory is limited to the dashboard... that's the game were playing. It doesn't follow, therefore, that a "dashboard theory" can't point to something outside of the dashboard. For example: it's not hard to imagine that someone locked into some Virtual Reality game could find evidence WITHIN the VR game itself, and within its rule set, for the existence of something outside of the game. If you were playing a game and people were able to enter and exit at will, effectively turning their bodies off and on, then that would be evidence for the existence of Mind outside of the game itself... and in the same breath, someone could say "this physical world (the VR) is illusory". That's all that he is doing: using the best scientific evidence we have to show that the world itself is a dashboard representation of something deeper. So, all he is saying is that the evidence he is presenting isn't the final truth, but it's true at the dashboard level. This isn't direct evidence for Idealism, but it's much easier to interpret these findings under Idealism than Materialism. In addition to Evolution and Entropy, he presents evidence from neuroimaging studies, from foundations of physics, from NDE's, from logic and parsimony, and more. Cheers!
Great video!!! Have you checked out Bergson? Matter and Memory makes a great case for a kind of direct perception that can account for illusion and error. Also I just finished reading Fichte where the ‘thing in itself’ or ‘beyond the dashboard’ is quite compellingly revealed as pure dogmatic speculation. Like you, the problems around the dashboard and the nature of the absolute are one of my major issues with Kastrup. Thank you for making this video, it is a much needed counterpart to Kastrups dogmatism, which can sometimes be hard to recognize through his otherwise beautiful and eloquent thoughts.
I am a part of the world as it is in itself; therefore better understanding of my self gives me some access to it. That’s the Schopenhauer stance to the noumena, anyway.
Great video! You mention at 26:55 that 'human minds are meant to be beyond the dashboard.' Could you elaborate on how that's the case? I'm not able to follow. Thanks!
I may be misinterpreting Kastrup now I think about it, but since he talks about us being within a dissociative boundary inside universal consciousness I assumed we were in the 'real world' rather than the dashboard. But it could be that he sees us on the 'immediate side' of the dashboard rather than the 'beyond side' of it, which may make a difference to him, idk. But still, he needs to explain how/whether time applies to human minds when it is a feature of the 'paradigm of the dashboard', which ever side of it we are meant to be on.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Bernardo just concluded an event w/ the Essentia Foundation discussing Mind & Time and just had a second lively discussion w/ Michael Levin (just uploaded the other day, iirc) in which the issue of time came up. Tbh, Bernardo hasn't settled on any definitive belief on Time. To the best of my understanding (so take it w/ a grain of salt) he leans towards what we regard as the "past" and "future" as ontologically absolute states that never vanish and never go anywhere. They only seem to exist separately and seem to disappear because that's how our own cognitive apparatus is structured to filter and interpret them. So, yes, it seems like Kastrup's present leanings would conclude that our "dashboard" is creating an entropic arrow of time and that whatever Time itself ultimately is at base-level Reality does indeed exist, albeit in a very different way that we're struggling to wrap our heads around. Here's the Kastrup/Levin discussion: (ua-cam.com/video/RZFVroQOpAc/v-deo.html&ab_channel=AdventuresinAwareness). The relevant section starts at about the 12:00 mark. On a separate but still relevant note, I would submit that the notion of the past, present and future existing, in some sense, all at once coincides w/ reported near-death experiencers who consistently report exactly that. They'll say they can't explain how they came to that knowledge but somehow they just know it.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Imagine each individual one of our selfs exists within a sphere and the spheres of all of us are floating in a soup of universal consciousness. The inner surface of each sphere is our personal dashboard, the totality of all that we have evolved to see and feel and touch etc. The outer surface of one's sphere both translates our dashboard manipulations into terms the universal consciousness understands and in the opposite direction, transfers thoughts from universal consciousness into dashboard terms that we have evolved to understand. Of course the spheres and dashboard and universal consciousness are all entirely metaphorical. This is not entirely unexpected in light of the fact that the majority of our important thoughts are couched in language. Right?
Yes I understand the metaphor. The question is that if time is just a feature of the dashboard whether our minds are in time, especially if Universal consciousness is not. And then you have to somehow fit evolution into the picture and apply it to minds that are not temporal.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy I have come to understand that 'time' is a concept only (not an illusion, a concept), a kind of culturally evolved shorthand way to think about the movements of objects relative to each other, i.e. there is no such 'thing' as time. (Carlo Rovelli's videos are helpful to understanding this). Universal consciousness has no meaning for me. Being conscious is a process, not a 'something'. I am conscious of this and I am conscious of that in full realization that I am conscious only of my thoughts. But I have a clear understanding of what a thought is. It is what the discharge timing patterns of neurons represent. Patterns and processes and representations are all abstract entities but entirely dependent for their abstract existence on the existence of a physical substrate. To assert everything is thought is like defending faith as a path to truth when it is self evidently not. Oh oh, my thoughts have started wandering so, still interested in your thoughts, I'll stop.
Exceptions to direct realism do not disprove direct realism, as philosophers tend to believe. These exceptions could be caused by factors which simply interfere with our direct perceptions of the world, making our perceptions defective in some way. One does not need to adopt a mirror-theory of perception in order to explain these exceptions. I might now be directly seeing the room that I am current occupying, but if the curtains were closed and all the lights turned-off, then this would interfere with my direct perceptions of the room. Likewise, if the lights were such as to be so bright that they blinded me, this would interfere with my direct perceptions of the room. In neither case, would it be proven by these exceptions that I only had a mirror perception of the room.
Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Supernatural Conscious Mind (often, the Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.
@@FilipinaVegana Thank you for your insightful treatise on Idealism. Yes, I was already aware of its central position and varieties. I simply reject it. Suffice to say, like every realist, I do not find the arguments for it to be logically sound.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 monism: the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought that seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”. To put it simply, whilst materialists/physicalists/naturalists believe that the ground of being is some kind of tangible form of matter (or a field of some sort), and idealists/theists/panpsychists consider some kind of mind(s) or consciousness(es) to be most fundamental, MONISTS understand that Ultimate Reality is simultaneously both the Subject and any possible object, and thus one, undivided whole (even though it may seem that objects are, in fact, divisible from a certain standpoint). The descriptive term favoured in the metaphysical framework proposed in this Holy Scripture is “Brahman”, a Sanskrit word meaning “expansion”, although similes such as “Sacchidānanda” (Eternal-Conscious-Peace), “The Tao” and “The Monad” are also satisfactory. Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually-exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains, both of which are necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object. Therefore, it seems that the necessary-contingent dichotomy often discussed by philosophers in regards to ontology, is superfluous to the concept of monism, because on this view, BOTH the subjective and the objective realities are essentially one, necessary ontological Being(ness). In other words, because you are, fundamentally, Brahman, you are a necessary being and not contingent on any external force. This concept has been termed "necessitarianism" by contemporary philosophers, in contradistinction to contingentarianism - the view that at least some thing could have been different otherwise - and is intimately tied to the notions of causality and determinism in Chapters 08 and 11. Advaita Vedānta (that is, dual-aspect Monism) is the only metaphysical scheme that has complete explanatory power. Hypothetically, and somewhat tangentially, one might question thus: “If it is accurate to state that both the Subject of all subjects and all possible objects are equally ‘Brahman’ (that is, Ultimate Truth), then surely that implies that a rock is equally valuable as a human being?”. That is correct purely on the Absolute platform. Here, in the transactional world of relativity, there is no such thing as equality, except within the conceptual sphere (such as in mathematics), as already demonstrated in more than a couple of places in this Holiest of Holy Books, “F.I.S.H”, especially in the chapter regarding the spiteful, pernicious ideology of feminism (Chapter 26). Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, and “object”.
@13:30 the interface/dashboard analogy is childish idealism. One can accept the idea of the interface as a realist too, I do, even while some elements of extreme realism I would reject (I do a lot of mathematics, a lot, so cannot help thinking platonism, at least mathematically, is a bit of a thing, go on, say I'm biased, I won't deny it, not all biases are wrong). But there can still be an external spacetime just as my dashboard of a mind says, "There looks to be a spacetime out there buddy, between you and me, even though you don't have the rendering tools for me to draw it well. Stick figure Riemann manifold is all you get." "Yes, but is it locally Minkowski or gnarly Wheeler-foam topology?" I ask my dashboard. My dashboard says, "Need more data." Luckily my dashboard is sensible and does not ceaselessly gaslight me by printing out , "Haha, there is nothing out there, fooled ya. Become a Jungian idealist."
9:25 this is the crucial point. And what is so shocking is how easily we can see this error. I paused the video for a few seconds after you summarized Kastrup's argument and came to the same conclusion. He is simply confusing our perceptions with our brain's cognitive ability to maintain that screen of perceptions. They are two completely different things. It would be like saying a computer program that records brownian motion of water molecules, must itself be undergoing brownian motion of its circuitry, gradually growing more disordered to the point where nothing makes sense. Its false on a very elementary level. I don't think I am a genius here but I really expect better from a trained philosopher and I'm glad you pointed it out in such clear terms.
I don’t think he’s saying that at all. Not trying to be argumentative, can you elaborate? I understand your critique but not exactly where Kastrup makes the error
Doesn't seem like you actually understand Kastrup's position. Under his idealism, brain states are encoded representations of your personal mental states. All matter is an encoded representation of some mental states, either belonging to a living organism or mind at large. A functioning brain/body is itself a perceptual representation of an ongoing dissociative process within mind at large. This way, we can make sense of the apparent dual nature of mind and matter as well as correlations between minds and brains without having to appeal to anything non-mental.
So, if we have a 'higher' knowledge of our own thinking, we have a knowledge that is in a sense external to our thoughts. Yes, it is true that we call this 'reflection' and that it is a reflection on our thinking itself, and so we might simply say this is a higher level of thinking that exists dependently upon the lower level of thinking, however, the question that needs to be answered is, how this even possible in the first place ? It is not sufficient to simply say that it is an obvious fact -- few would deny that, I think. How is it possible that an awareness that depends upon thinking and its ideas able to 'take a step back' and reflect upon itself ? Could it be that knowledge or awareness is not as thought-dependent as the epistemologists have led us to believe ? Perhaps it is time for these theorists of knowledge to think outside the epistemological box.
Would it be accurate to say that the mind can reflect on itself or be meta cognitive because you are modeling cognitive states and then looking at it. How you look at it tho is an interesting question. what are your thoughts on how meta cognition is possible, are you thinking that thinking about your thoughts does not require memory kinda like how you could still maintain this function if you had anterograde amnesia and retrograde too, I like to think this is true. Yea maybe thinking about your thoughts relies more on your capacity to remember what is being thought and to then reproduce that and to represent the cognitive processes to get to that thought which would mean that you would need to adapt your view of reality very quickly and adopt a new grip on reality that you could look from in order to inspect the thing has been modeled to represent a prior representation of reality. IDK if this is really meaningfull tho because you are trying to know HOW this happens not WHAT is happening so IDK. The bare minimum two facets of cognition I think are needed are Cognitive flexibility and Attention Modulation
@@nicbarth3838 I am actually thinking more along the line of making a distinction between thought and awareness as distinct brain functions. Reflection, I would say begins with being self-aware of one's own thinking, so it must be different from the thinking itself to some extent.
I had always been effortlessly attracted to Kastrup's conception, and I find his presentation very engaging. But I must admit that somehow I'd never considered your argument, even though it should be very clear, almost intuitive. Thank you for a very engaging analysis.
Thanks for nice analysis. Your discussions was very thought provoking and your arguments sharp. I'm a big fan of Bernardo's work, but as all theories do, his one also has some weak points and it may be useful to examine those carefully to refine his case. To be honest some of your arguments looked like a hair splitting and not very substantial to me (probably more important from your perspective as a philosopher), and I think Bernardo would have been able to easily address most of them (for example about mirroring of perceptions and brain states, also about evolution not providing actual data). Where I complete agree with your point is about meta consciousness of Mind at Large. I think it `s much more logical to assume that the traits that we demonstrate would also be present in Universal intelligence and probably in much higher degrees. Also it's also possible that through this temporary dissociations, certain experiences can be achieved and certain qualities obtained that won't be quite possible without it. Hundreds of speculations can be made why this may happen. For example children naturally create "dissociated alters" to play engage in games with themselves. And again what we may call suffering, can very well be seen as something completely different in a larger context. From the perspective of timeless and boundaryless being. Like a scenes on a cinema screen cannot devastate us when we remember that it's just a movie. We even enjoy tragedy and violence. Now I'm not suggesting that larger consciousness is having fun with suffering of his dissociated states. I'm just saying that we are sometimes projecting our limited motives on a processes that probably my well be beyond our mundane logic.
It seems to me that, as Kant explained, we never be certain of what exists behind our "dashboards of perception', so I would agree with you that Dr. Kastrup's theory is conjecture...as is yours...as it seems that each are unfalsifiable. Am I missing something here? This is a sincere question.
No you aren't missing something, and are entirely correct. That's why the neo-Kantians rejected the idea of the 'thing-in-itself' entirely. However, I wasn't advocating Analytic Idealism with a revised kind of universal consciousness (although I can see why you might think so). I was only saying that _Kastrup's commitments_ mean he should, upon consideration, take universal consciousness as being meta-cognitive. My idealism does not have some speculative realm beyond the veil of perception, as I don't have an 'indirect' view of perception.
Paradoxically, if it's correct to understand universal consciousness (UC) as simultaneously 1) the shared context for all individuated/dissociated states of consciousness (alters), and 2) the dissociated consciousness or bounded awareness itself including meta-consciousness, which is the capacity to periodically reflect upon and critically assess the contents of experience or in other words, re-represent the contents of consciousness in which one interprets, describes or otherwise characterizes different states of one's own mind, it doesn't make sense that "universal consciousness must be at least meta-conscious" as the host suggests. Rather, UC must at least have the potential for meta-conscious experience. So, like all paradoxes, this one only exists in the minds of seemingly separate, meta-conscious entities.
Hi Nathan! Thanks so much for this fascinating video and critique of Bernardo Kastrup's idealism! I've been trying to understand his ideas (and learning philosophy in general) and have so many questions and no place to find answers. Medical science uses the dashboard to make all these amazing medications and surgeries that seem to function, so how does work on the dashboard affect "reality" i.e. mind, so well? Also, his critique of panpsychisme is the problem of the adding up of micro-consciousness of particles, but then he admits that when one dies, our conscious states are somehow added to mind at large Then there is the problem of evolution of mind, that you mentioned, that seems to be mirrored in the "dashboard" of the brain structure and DNA itself. How does mind relate to DNA and influence it's changes and evolution? Also, MAL doesn't seem to be made of the same "stuff" as my mind. Just a small point to say that cats and dogs, who have phenomenological minds, do seem to dream so probably are able to have "dream alters"! In any case, thanks so much for your thoughts and this debate! 🌿
Hi, I've been following BK's work for quite some time and I think I can help you with some of your questions. 1) The "dashboard" is just the interface between us and MAL. We can have effects on MAL and vice versa, not directly, but through the dashboard. In the end, there is just mental stuff affecting mental stuff, which is easier to explain than scenarios where non-mental stuff affects mental stuff, and so on. This is Bernardo's point here. 2) There is no problem here, instead of Combination, Bernardo's arguments rely on Dissociation. When the dissociation ends, the contents are "combined" with MAL by definition. The remaining challenge is to explain Dissociation in the first place, which, in his opinion, is an easier problem to have compared to the Combination Problem in Panpsychism or the Hard Problem of Consciousness in Physicalism. 3) Here, it gets tricky, and that is true for every theory that states time is emerging. However, this does not mean that any concept like evolution, where time is essential (in fact, all communication would be impossible when thinking 'outside' time), cannot be used to explain your argument. Time still tells something essential and true about reality, and whatever "that" is, though as a projection, is what we experience as time. 4) I mean, this is the whole point about Idealism. What other "stuff" does it seem like? 😉
Hey skaleru thanks for your replies! I do have problems formulating my questions as I am not sure of what Bernardo means thru my own ignorance of philosophy and bad thinking! haha! What I mean is that MAL does not seem to be like my mind and seems alien and very different! We are supposed to be like it as we are dissociated from it but it seems very different. My dream alters don't seem different from "me" in my dreams, they feel the same - when I wake up - whereas I don't feel like my subjectivity is the same as MAL's! There are so many questions and details one could go into on most of his ideas! Thanks for taking the time to answer, though! :)@@skaleru772
@@kgrandchamp You can feel like a different person in your dreams because sometimes you don't remember waking life or you can even experience false memory syndrome. I would also add that, from my own experience, I have taken psychedelics and I have felt like my mind was altered to the point where I wasn't even human anymore, and yet, in terms of consciousness, it was still me. But the most profound experience was when I was using mindfulness meditation in an attempt to induce a wake-initiated lucid dream. What I stumbled upon, however, wasn't what I expected. All qualia had disappeared save for the experience of awareness itself. To this day I feel like no words can do it justice. All thoughts and memories were gone, my earthly identity was gone, and I was in a state far divorced from conceptual reality. It was a blissful stillness, nothing weighed on me, like I was a luminous witness or a radiant emptiness. It was pure consciousness and it was clear. There was nothing to be aware of but itself (so definitely metacognitive) and something about it was both revelatory and unfathomable because there were no words to describe it and nothing to refer to it. I wasn't human, I wasn't anything but unperturbed consciousness. Even the concepts of time and space were gone. I could stay there forever! Then, as soon as the thoughts came, the stillness and bliss were gone. The first subsequent thoughts were along the lines of, 'What is this?', 'Where am I?', 'Who am I?' and they paved a way for a narrative that would attempt to formulate answers and describe what was experienced. I became human again as though I needed to do so in order to attempt to map out that state. I needed to become something else in order to do it. The narrative of that pristine cognition is what you get from me which somehow doesn't do it justice. But an insight remained. I know I didn't really become something else. At my core, I am precisely that formless, empty consciousness which transcends all conceptual reality. It's empty and yet capable of being filled with entire worlds. There was a radiant quality to it, like it had a creative principle. I speak about it as though it's separate from me but it is, in fact, the real me. I am just disassociated from such a pure state now because I identify as being this human being living this life. I don't know about MAL, perhaps we can only truly experience it once we have shuffled off our mortal coil, but what I experienced could definitely qualify as primordial consciousness or the ground of being. I hope this helps.
Wow Arlindo! What a beautiful, well written answer! Thanks so much! I have to reread your text to absorb it when I get back from my Sunday walk! haha! Your awareness and perceptions are way beyond my experience so I feel pretty humbled and thankful for your sharing your experiences with me! Have a great day! 🌿 @@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist
@@kgrandchamp You too. I'm only sorry that I can't quite capture it with words. I wasn't even looking for it. I stumbled upon it during meditation lying down. I've never experienced anything like it again and I'll never forget it. But, who knows, maybe one of these days when I do mind awake body asleep/rested exercise akin to mindfulness meditation.
13:50 Even if we can only study the relations of the dials, those dial are connected to aspects Mind-Independent reality (MIR), and those aspects must have the same relations as the dials, otherwise the dials would useless. I don't see any reason (metaphysically) to give up on a MIR in favor of calling the dials the physical world. In fact its a mistake. He is making the classical error of mistaking the representation for the thing represented.
@32:00 not sure about your take here, but it was good leading up. There is no "problem of evil" in any true religious conception that is sane (if there are any that are sane and true is another question). If all things were all hunky dory we'd have no spiritual growth. But then everyone's perception of evil is relative. It's a relation, A < B just means say, A is "less good" than B. But then you get people doing things that are way down the scale of good, so far down we call them all "evil" because we literally cannot distinguish their heinousness. But just being able to recognize those extremes of "less good" is a form of spiritual enlightenment. The light cannot exist without the dark (I do not mean to be facile about that, it's deep). Throughout the history of science and mathematics we discover periodically the same general pattern over and over, for many things of importance there is often a negation, without its negation the thing would lose meaning. Kastrup simply seems loath to ascribe meta-consciousness to the Er-Mind because it is a blemish. But it's not. It's worse to have no free will and life in a world free of suffering, than to live in a world with potential suffering and yet have free will to do something about it together, provided suffering has a divine purpose, which logically it must if there is a benevolent God. I mean to say, I've suffered a lot, more than I thought I could bear at times, but the worst of the pain fades, and I'm better for the experience not because of the pain of it but the way I overcame it. If you do not believe in a benevolent God then it's all rather banal, and the existence of minds who experience suffering is just a normal day at the office I suppose, with little purpose, how sad. I understand plenty accept this sad story. Which is doubly sad, but what more can I say?
Actually, I think you really nailed it well. The point you made about a putative Universal Mind also suffering the same as any other mind, was well made. It's not masochistic if there is a purpose to it, a good purpose. Without good purpose, yeah, I 'd say it was masochistic. But then the point is, who are way to say we know divine purpose? That'd be the ultimate hubris, worthy of a douche-bag of the century award (but I guess there's one born every century).
Congratulations. Great work. I was waiting a looong time for the content of this video. Kastrup is a brilliant and inspiring thinker, but sometimes seems too convinced of his own views (a common trace among brilliant people).
You offer a sensible critique of Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism, particularly the point about Universal Consciousness being less conscious than its own localized pockets (AKA humans). I do not know but I suspect that the primary motivation for this assertion by Bernardo is emotional in nature. It really boils down to the desire that God NEEDS humans to know Himself, which imbues human life with more meaning than any other paradigm possibly could. This meaning, I believe, is what Bernardo is trying to optimize for in his otherwise coherent theory. Furthermore, when operating within an Idealist framework, one can explain reality and all its contents, but he cannot comment on the nature of THAT which explains reality in the first place. There is a quote in the Vedantic tradition that summarizes what I'm trying to say above: "What you are looking for, is what is looking." We cannot comment on the nature/attributes of Universal Consciousness/Ground of Being/God because as dissociated minds, we can only speak of other dissociated aspects of that UC, never the UC itself. Let me know what you think and thanks for reading!
Very pleased to discover this channel! I agree some of Kastrup's arguments for idealism are indeed flawed, as you rightly pointed out. I am keen to hear better arguments for idealism from you. Can you give me some links to your work, please? This is the first video I watched on this channel.
I have, twice now. Most recently a few weeks ago when I received a request to review his forthcoming book. Hopefully I'll be able to discuss my thoughts with him, but I haven't heard back. So if I don't hear soon I'll just produce another video like this one, but updated a bit, which would be a shame.
As someone who is a big fan of Kastrup as well as a staunch anti-realist (in the vein of Bas van Fraassen), I’ve never heard someone explain the realist-antirealist problem so well in the context of Kastrups arguments so thank you for that. What I interpret Kastrup as saying is that if you adopt a realist understanding of Evolution (which I’m not entirely clear if he does), then it ultimately becomes self defeating bc evolution is not geared at truth. This is the same line of argument that Plantinga takes in his evolutionary argument against naturalism or Donald Hoffman’s more recent user interface arguments. In some recent interviews, Donald Hoffman says because of this argument he actually doesn’t believe evolutionary theory is true and I bet if you pressed Kastrup he might say something similar but I don’t know. I liken this kind of argument to arguments in foundations of physics where the Copenhagen interpretation of the measurement problem posed an anti realist problem for people working in quantum mechanics WITHIN the paradigm of realist physics. As David Albert notes, there had always been philosophical reasons and arguments to be an antirealist but this was the first time the antirealist arguments were arising from within physics itself. I take Kastrup and Hoffman and Plantinga to be saying the same thing about evolutionary theory.
Thanks for the comment. There was an interview where he was asked about the Plantinga criticism of evolution and Kastrup dismissed it. So that is definitely not an argument Kastrup is making or endorsing.
@@djazz393 Actually it was on Monistic Idealism's channel not long after my criticism video came out. Monistic put one of my objections to Kastrup in the interview but Kastrup misinterpreted it as recycling Plantinga's complaint and then dismissed it.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy awesome thanks! It’s been great going through your videos and finding more in depth discussion of idealism from someone very knowledgeable in the analytic tradition (I feel like you and Bernardo are some of the few). Was also wondering your thoughts about the realism-anti realism debates in the 80’s but specifically regarding laws of nature and causation (the Cartwright, van Fraassen, Lewis, Armstrong papers). In particular, I’m a van Frassen Stan but have hesitancy about his completely anti-metaphysical/Wittgensteinian approach to causation (contra Nancy Cartwright). I’ve been trying to reconcile a view about free will and agent causation with a form of idealism and scientific antirealism and was wondering what your thoughts are on causation and whether you think idealism is more amenable to either event or agent/substance causation (or is completely agnostic). I know Bernardo is a determinist and doesn’t believe in free will, but curious to hear your take.
Some interesting points. Here's two others from me: 1) If indeed brains are how metaconsciousnesses look like in Nature's dream, then if I have a dream and my dream avatar is undergoing brain surgery, let's say, it should always have a brain since that's how its avatar consciousness (my image in the dream) looks like in my dream. It should be impossible to have dreams where you open up your head and find nothing inside or something else than a brain. 2) What if we find out that disocciation (I mean the neurologic/psychiatric condition of humans) is actually false? Say, bad experiments, people lied, data was faked, whatever. Say we find out it's wrong and it's not actually true. Would the entire edifice upon which Analytic Idealism was constructed fall? Or would it somehow survive?
I have always wondered how a universal consciousness that is phenomenally conscious only can take advantage of the inputs of its dissociated alters that are metaconscious.
I agree that universal mind must be at least slightly metaconscious, since there’s nothing for it to know but itself. 26:30 onward was a really great line of critique especially I don’t think I agree with the criticism around 3:00-10:00. The entropy argument may not be the standard or even simplest critique of direct realism, but that view is so flimsy that even the fact that vision uses photons makes it fall apart, as photons arent like… little dots of colour whizzing around. Or like you said, the fact that it can’t explain illusions. Combining direct realism with pretty much any scientific fact is enough to send it spiraling into incoherency. Kastrup has simply combined direct realism with the fact that our mental states correlate with neural states. “Mirroring” is just the correlation that’s most “direct” As for that particular possible form of perfect indirect realism you mentioned, it seems magical to think that the apple is entropic, and that your perception of it is entropic, but that the middle layer (brain) is not. This wouldn’t be a good place to hide from the entropy critique. Now, I have actually talked to someone who took the view that our perceptual states were mirrors of the objective world. Like me, he was not a philosopher.
Regarding the nature of universal consciousness, I notice that Kastrup (in Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics, p.72) references Jung, in Answer to Job. Jung argues that God 'has no need of circumspection' as he does not face situations requiring him to reflect on himself, whereas humans undergo the travails of earthly existence and therefore develop circumspection. It seems as if Kastrup is keen to go along with Jung as far as he can. Having said that, as Nathan points out, Kastrup also believes that universal consciousness ultimately evolves along with all our experiences. I don't think Nathan and Bernardo are that far apart on this point. Anyway, great presentation Nathan, it was a pleasure to watch and listen.
5:30 argument from imperfection is without merit: we know of nothing in this universe that is perfect: no perfect mirrors, no perfectly straight lines, no infinitely elastic collisions etc. etc.
Thanks for the video! I’m not that familiar with Kastrup’s work, but I didn’t quite see the problem with the evolutionary argument as you present it. If scientific realism is self-undermining, that is, if, on the assumption of scientific realism, you can draw antirealism as a conclusion, maybe because of the evolutionary considerations Kastrup mentions, then scientific realism can’t be right. I interpreted what you describe as illicitly moving from scientific realism to antirealism as a normal feature of a reductio argument. Granted, I don’t think idealism immediately falls out of this kind of argument against scientific realism, I just didn’t quite feel the force of the objection.
Well, since our family had a ghostly encounter, the spirit parallel state of being is our Outlook ( ever since this happened ). Great channel and a very likeable presentation. Tom, Brussels, Belgium.
I really like a lot of Bernardo's insights but do take note of him making very broad assertions without proof or explanation by moves on to explain a part of the insight that is just a general definition. It works like a slight of hand to give weight to an argument without actually discussing the merits of such a broad assertion.~20:00 "Once upon a time ..everything was one universal mind..then draws a circle over a representation of the early universe. (slight of hand; that does not to support his statement) ...now this one mind went under disassociation... now what is disassociation? (slight of hand; goes on to explain disassociation) as much as I like BK, it's almost insulting. For example here is me using that slight of hand: I am the King of the world, this cannot be disputed and everyone agrees. Now what is a King, A King is traditionally a man that as absolute power over his suggest, then I draw a picture of someone that looks like me.
I enjoyed your critique and learning about Kastrup's idealism. I'm a bit baffled about why he decides to retain a sort of Kantian phenomena and noumena divide (represented by the dashboard and whatever lies outside of it, which "is nothing like the dashboard"). I would think the big benefit of idealism lies in dissolving that divide in various ways so you don't have to explain how to bridge the two, otherwise he'd have to explain how we can know that universal consciousness is what lies beyond the dashboard (just as scientific realists have to explain how we can know that the world in itself is what scientific theories describe). Also, what does the 'analytic' in 'analytic idealism' refer to? I tend to think of analytic philosophy's focus on language and logic.
Very astute comments and I have similar concerns. Besides the term "analytic idealism" was already taken in the work of A C Ewing. I assume he called it that as Kastrup considers himself an analytic philosopher.
"I'm a bit baffled about why he decides to retain a sort of Kantian phenomena and noumena divide" 1. Karl Friston's free energy principle 2. Donald Hoffman's fitness beats truth theorem 3. The general observation that there is an epistemic gap between minds and brains 4. The fact that your perception of the world is entirely dependent on your brain chemistry and anatomy. etc. etc.
@@christopherhamilton3621 lmao feel free to make an argument. Honestly it’s incredibly silly to defend naive realism in the first place and not even logically coherent if you are strict physicalist.
23:05...Kastrup thinks there's insight in the "fact" that we don't say "I am hunger". However, Southeast Asians actually do say things like "I am headache".
For a couple of years I have wondered whether Kastrup uses his occasional scientism-style reasoning for strategic appeasement to intellectual paradigms, or if he is intellectually committed here himself. I don't have an answer yet, and perhaps this is just the riddle Kastrup represents as a philosopher when seen from the outside. But it is good to watch someone discover similar issues!
The comments and discussion this video has generated has been truly surprising. Sorry not to be able to engage with more of them. But I have read them all and thank you for all the time and effort spent in working through the issues raised. Thanks all and let's keep talking.
Hi, what are your views of free will from the perspective of idealism? Is there room for it?
@@elliot7205 Yes, I think so. I'll actually be doing some videos on free will later this year.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy is it similar to Bernardo view about core subjectivities and what we identify ourselves with?
This was an excellent video. Would love for you to flesh out more of your metaphysical idealist position.
Including free will as you brought up.
Are you familiar with Giovanni Gentile and his version of idealism called actualism?
@@AbsolutePhilosophy, imagine watching a comedy show and getting a laugh within the VERY FIRST SECOND. If only you could have heard how loudly I laughed when I heard you referring to Bernie as a "philosopher" (and later, when you identified yourself as an idealist).
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, to correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
15:51 -- Kastrup never adopts scientific realism. He talks about metaphysics, about the intrinsic being of nature. We can taboo these complicated words like “realism” or “antirealism” for simplicity, and just discuss what is being said. Kastrup merely claims that abstractions help us to describe the behavior of nature and to control the future, they are true and experimentally proven/reasonable. But science by itself is a tool which never assumes any ontology: not materialism, nor idealism, nor anything else. You seem to be confusing physics and metaphysics. Of course we can use science and talk about it without adopting a realist attitude, without going into metaphysics.
In other words, Kastrup's position can be called “instrumentalism” -- that science and theoretical concepts have use in predicting observations, but we have no ontological commitments to them. Postulating a "literal physical being", which is unknowable even in principle, is a further, arguably unnecessary step. So Kastrup is an instrumentalist from the beginning to the end. The being of consiousness, on the other hand, is immediately known by the virtue of self-luminosity (svaprakasatva).
26:43 -- Consciousness and mind are different. The “empirical physical world” can be called Maya for simplicity, and it's an appearance which is not fundamentally real. Our bodies, our minds, any other object are a part of this appearance.
But consciousness is not an object nor a process, so it can never be objectified and found *in* the empirical world (cf. Wittgenstein). Consciousness is just you, the "I", subjectivity or experiencing itself, the first-personal givenness of whatever is subjectively given, the empty principle of manifestation. It is maximally simple and has no characteristics or qualities, it never changes, it cannot be divided into parts and it is always the seer, never the seen. Naturally, it's the same in every human and every sentient being, because postulating different empty awarenesses solely by haecceity is incoherent (cf. Edralis: edralis.wordpress.com/2021/06/18/awareness-6-10/, cf. Daniel Kolak’s Open Individualism)
There are even some reasons (that are too complicated for this youtube comment) to argue that consciousness is existence or actuality itself, so it can be identical to the Absolute. (And that's precisely what Kastrup does when he talks about consciousness being an ontological primitive in idealism; Atman = Brahman and so on.)
Kastrup would probably say that evolution is literally what this continuous process of dissociation and complexification looks like from our point of view. But Kastrup uses terms that are not super precise for my taste, for example he calls the absolute "mind", instead of consciousness. (And well, given how much suffering we see in the world, this ontology is not much prettier than the default). I think it's obvious that an object cannot be an ontological primitive. Because any object needs space, time and causality to exist, while consciousness is a no-thing that doesn’t need these. So I think it’s not only that “we can’t ever get qualities out of quantities“ (as Kastrup often says) that is the argumentation for idealism, but, even more precisely, that consciousness is not an object among other physical objects! (cf. Sunyata in Buddhism).
29:54 -- I see no sense in saying that “meta-consciousness arises out of phenomenal consciousness”. Nothing arises out of phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness simply illumines everything, it's the existence of any thought, emotion or object of awareness. “Meta-consciousness” is just a fancy term for the higher function of the mind, it’s self-reflection or the self-identification with certain configurations of what one experiences. I don’t like using “consciousness“ word here at all. It muddles the already complicated topic. Intellect, personality, beauty, self-reflection, emotions, perceptions - all of these develop in conscious organisms with time and effort, while consciousness just passively illumines everything. The play works itself out.
( cf. Fasching here: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-008-9090-6 )
Here you are actually touching a deeper question of the mechanism of this play. For example, in Advaita Vedanta, there is vivartavāda, loosely speaking the "apparent transformation" of Brahman (consciousness / the absolute) into the world. It's enigmatic how and why it can be seemingly separated from itself in different finite objects (minds). And I’m no Vedanta scholar so I have no answer to this question, but maybe there is, so anyone can feel free to expand my description.
Really smart observations
Excellent rebuttals!
@kruasan1 I would recommend Dr. Edwin Bryant’s “Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy”
"consciousness is a no-thing that doesn’t need these" This seems pure speculation. What consciousness are you aware of that doesn't need these?
This is what , Advaita Vedanta declares. Excellent explanations.Thanks.
I suggest he interview Donald Hoffman because Bernardo accurately reiterates Hoffamn's research and arguments from evolutionary perceptual psychology. There is no error in Bernardo's argument from this stand point.
I think it is important to recognize that video format is almost necessarily less rigorous than academic papers, and Hawkins may benefit from steelmanning Bernado's argument's before moving on the criticising them.
@@xenograd4422
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
His argument on the entropic soup was ment by Bernardo as a critique against materialism. I think you missed his point.
I think what Kastrup meant by saying we would turn into an entropic soup if we would perceive reality as it is... imagine if you would feel every molecule of air touching your skin all the time and you would see the entire magnetic spectrum. You would turn into an entropic soup.
Fair critique, but I think you slightly miss his point about internal perceptions matching our internal brain states. Simply put, without our useful evolutionary illusions and spacetime headset, we would BE nature and have no autonomy. My biggest issue with his view-with which I’m sympathetic-is that he devalues the physical world as less than the ground of being, ie, mind, but why place the value on the thing that gives rise to the the ten thousand things. Your dashboard argument is closer to the problem that he and Hoffman run into, which is an issue of epistemology. If the spacetime headset is an illusion (even useful), what faculty or epistemically method assures us that it is an illusion. We can call it reason or science, which is fine, and likely the right answer, but what was reason trained on in the first place that allowed us to see and seek the truth rather than survival merely. It’s a problem I’ve not heard him talk about. Isn’t it all Nature, everywhere interconnected and real? Local realism is false, right? That’s kinda my metaphysical hang up with Idealism, though I think Schopenhauer is basically correct.
Yes.
@@KevinsDisobedienceif the internal is the source of the external then, the external would be the "true mirror" in a manner of speaking. If our perception is sourced from the internal awareness of the mind projected outwards, while the external consciousness is projecting inwards, then, where the two minds meet could be the truth of the experience. It would still suggest that it's all mind.
@@TheOakenwulf A very Kantian answer!
@nicoladisvevia ah, thank you for the feedback. Now, I can familiarize myself with Kant.
Bernardo said that in 2024 he'll be doing much less public chats. That said, hope you can set something up. Maybe when he's getting ready to promote his book in the fall something can happen. It will be his most concise summary of his model, so would be fun to hear you two chat.
I think he has addressed your first concerns. But god knows where. Donald Hoffman often faces that criticism. Have you heard his responses and do they hold water for you?
For some reason, I don't find it hard to imagine how a process of consciousness could evolve in a way that causes it to suddently 'fold in' on itself and become meta within a narrow context.
26:58 He acknowledges that universal consciousness bears resemblance to the consciousness of earlier life forms, yet he does not claim that it is more akin to these early forms than to later ones. The absence of metacognition doesn't necessarily equate to greater similarity in every aspect. BK's argument is that universal consciousness constitutes a high-dimensional 'space' encompassing all conceivable experiences, inclusive of time. It is not constrained by space and time like our perception; its higher dimensionality allows it to encompass all characteristics of space and time, along with additional elements.
Just tell me: what do you know about " the consciousness of earlier life forms" and how did you get this knowledge in the first place?
Thank you for this thoughtful critique. I confess to being a devoted fan of Katstrup's philosophy. I can't say how many videos I've watched of debates between his point of view and others and I always end up in his camp. In large, I feel most of your criticisms might be misunderstandings. But, the one at the heart of your critique is compelling. Is universal consciousness phenomenal or meta? What if it's neither? I don't think Katstrup is so dumb as to not see the flaw/question you put forward, or at least your perception of it. I take his use of terms for varying "levels" of consciousness to be entirely about the difficulty of putting all of this into words from the perspective of the type of observers we are. These are concepts that are nearly impossible for us to grasp fully because we are embedded in, and part of, what is and cannot perceive it from the outside. What convinces me of Katstrup's philosophy is that it ties in nicely with Stephen Wolfram's concept of the Ruliad, Michael Levin's work in developmental biology, and eastern philosophical views of reality - particularly Vedanta. Each of those views entails translation from their discipline's unique vocabulary and focus, but it feels to me that they are all saying the same thing. I pay attention when physics, math, biology, and metaphysics are all describing virtually the same thing (and in a way that makes sense to me) and try not to let specific terms and language get in the way of understanding what is being conveyed. I'm sorry Bernardo turned down your invite to debate because I would like to hear his answer to your point. What is his reasoning for the apparent distinction or is this, at core, a distinction without a difference? "
Great comment- I agree - wish Bernardo had more intelligent and thoughtful philosophic critiques like the meta conscious point - would love to see a debate around these ideas
Also so many thinkers from Greeks , to sufis, Hindus, to Jung to Hegel have had similar conceptions of what reality ultimately is, in the past all describing this idea from their own perspectives but all similar
At 12:20 he says representations and that we don’t know what they
“look “ like. They are just representations of energy being in time.
Are you saying physicalism or materialism is the same as realism? I think Kastrup uses the term materialism contrasted to idealism. The physical world comes into existence once it has been measured using the tools of science of the last 300 years. But since quantum physics in the 20th third century It has been shown that matter is mostly space. Imagination and consciousness.
@@DisturbsOthers
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
My own issue with Bernardo’s vision of idealism is as follows: if consciousness is the foundation of ultimate reality, I cannot buy into that idea of that form of consciousness being less sophisticated than that of a human being. I don’t believe that higher ideals such as morality, musical harmony, mathematical proofs and love are emergent, man-made inventions. I believe that they are fragmented reflections of an underlying, objective reality.
Is Kastrup’s refusal to acknowledge this due to the fact that it resembles a more traditionally theistic view? I’m not sure. But I will never be able to reconcile the idea that bland, person-less consciousness is at the heart of ultimate reality, and the precise sophistication of physics, math, and the humanities are evolutionary accidents. If we as humans are the way that consciousness knows itself, there must be some forward thinking capacity built into that primordial consciousness. If that is true, then the bland, person-less consciousness that Kastrup identifies with idealism is not, in fact, bland, or person-less.
I have a problem with Kastrup's view of an afterlife. He jumps straight out of dissociation into universal consciousness. Why not still a different level of dissociation which would allow for continued individuality?
Indeed. Kastrup is an ideologue? (irreconcilably jungian. Jung is his "god". Never a good thing for a thinker.) Seems like the best explanation, no?
This is a good point. I agree with most of what Kastrup has to say, but it seems reasonable to think there could be different dimensions of dissociation
He argues for 2 levels. You argue for 3 levels. But if you can have more than one level, then N levels are possible. The question is: how many of the possible N levels have been actualized? 2,3,4,5?
That the view of Samkhya Philosophy by Sage Kapila, which Siddharth Gautama (Buddha) learnt from his first teacher.
Samkhya proposed of individual consciousness after Moksha.
@@lau-guerreiro yes
Mind-at-large "evolves" in the same way that a physical universe "selects" new, "optimal" states described by the laws of physics. If I hold up a ball and open my hand, the universe "evolves" to a state where that ball hits the ground. Mind-at-large is no different. If you can conceive of metaconsciousness evolving in a physical universe, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to conceive of it evolving in a mental universe.
I can't speak directly for Dr. Kastrup, but here's how I understood his arguments:
1. I think in his view evolutionary theory is primarily a mathematical theory, that doesn't necessarily need time and space the way we normally conceive of it. I also believe I somewhere heard him talk about the possibility that there exists something like "proto-time" in which consciousness can evolve. In any case, there seems to be a process happening in universal consciousness that, from our view, looks like evolution.
2. Meta-consciousness comes about when phenomenal consciousness folds in on itself to create something like a loop (not spatially of course) for the purpose of self-reflection. The underlying substance is still only phenomenal consciousness, only with a more complicated structure (a loop). For this to happen nature needs something that, from our view, looks like evolution.
3. I think the idea behind not giving meta-consciousness to universal consciousness is the question of what would then be the whole point of creation? Especially with all the suffering it entails. If universal consciousness already had meta-consciousness to begin with, then our existence would be completely pointless. From our perspective at least, we seem to be the only creatures capable of meta-consciousness. So it makes sense to assume, that meta-consciousness arose from an evolutionary process of which we are the endpoint.
4. The motivation behind this process is self-knowledge. Since universal consciousness is only phenomenal conscious, it can't reflect on itself. It therefor must create humans, which have meta-consciousness, in order to gain self-knowledge. This process is not premeditated, but follows a "blind will" like in Schopenhauer. That's why universal consciousness doesn't care about all the collateral damage (suffering) it entails.
18:09 Your argument suggests he seeks to undermine scientific realism by employing scientific evidence, inadvertently creating a paradox. Yet, I contend that your conclusion is flawed. His approach is more about integrating physical reality into a metaphysical framework. Admittedly, my grasp of scientific realism and anti-realism is limited, but I'm convinced that these concepts are not black and white. The assertion that empirical reality isn't the ultimate truth doesn't imply a complete disconnect or lack of insight into what might lie beyond it.
That might be true, but it must certainly then entail we can't use these arguments in order to prove anything with certainty.
“Into the man’s head the whole world goes, including the head itself.”
(James Ward, “Psychological Principles,” pg. 103)
"Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it."
Wittgenstein, TLP
That seems rather, um.... PESSIMISTIC.
See "headless way" with douglas harding
@@Dystisisthanks for that. I was thinking, I know porn when I see it, but you corrected me. I know solipsism when I see it.
Meta-Consciousness can only exist with Language. Also we experience a very small portion of the total scale of "Reality". We cannot see or experience a planck moment nor the span of a million years. We are very successful within the sphere of objects we can handle, and in building instruments to deal with objects out of that range (Cern, JWST, Microscopes etc.) The word reality is a place holder. For most of us that is enough.
I've listened to a lot of Kastrup and read many of his books and understand his "entropic soup" metaphor - imperfect as it is - alludes to the overwhelmingly large, possibly infinite, amount of information that our sensors would have to accurately receive, and our brains would have to coherently represent if perception was in fact a transparent window onto reality. He further argues, with evidence from evolutionary game theory that survival depends on selective attention to reality rather than comprehensive apprehension and veridical comprehension of reality. Kastrup is a very sincere and authentic philosopher who acknowledges that words are always imperfect and inaccurate descriptions of reality. From my direct experience, the best way to engage him in meaningful discussions is to invite him to a dialogue rather than a debate.
" and understand his "entropic soup" metaphor - imperfect as it is - " It's not really a metaphor and it's not his. He's talking about Karl Friston's free energy principle.
@@paulkeogh9604
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my UA-cam homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my UA-cam accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
@TheVeganVicar An obvious question: How do you know any of it is true?
@@fellinuxvi3541
In your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️
What different does it make that we don't perceive the totality of realty? That doesn't make what we do experience less real, it only makes it incomplete, and most of us are well aware of that.
Excellent analysis and my first intro to this channel.
A few years ago, before Bernardo became famous, I had the chance to ask him some questions in his forum. One of my questions was about the relationship between between dissociated minds and what is there beyond their dashboards.
Bernardo says that what we perceive is how thoughts in mind at large appear to us, and what are outer thoughts to us are inner thoughts to mind at large. I wanted to know if he thought our inner experiences were also on a screen of experience, and if so, what is our relationship to some "reality" behind this inner screen? And if. as dissociated alters of the one mind, we are fundamentally similar to it, would not its inner experiences also be on its own inner screen of experience?
And finally, if everything is mental, then there would seem to be some kinds of mental "objects" somewhere behind all of our screens of inner experience, operating there in a subconscious world of causes and effects, as much unknown to mind at large as for its dissociated offspring. This all seems very complicated to me and not as parsimonious as Bernardo thinks it is.
Kastrup made a complete answer to all this ; my opinion : his answer is far,far above the level of the present critics !!!
You are absolutely spot on. That switch from SR to SA undermines his first argument; and then he goes on and undermines his evolutionary premise in his second argument by undermining the reality of the scientific paradigm.
You've misrepresented the his argument about perception. Perception of a thing in itself does not require replication of the perceived object inside the mind of the perceiver, since he's taking about the map not the terrain. Our map does not match the terrain out there. Also the interface theory, doesn't just say we perceive limited information that is useful, but false information that is useful.
He constructed a strawman
There is still the issue of why is this the case. If we assume materialism, the answer is obvious, since mind and body are not equal (this does not lead to dualism, mind you, since mind is still derivative), so map cannot match terrain, if we are all consciousness this is more difficult.
Another problem is that false information per Se cannot be useful. Only limited information can be useful, but part of it must still be real.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Color is an example of false information that is useful.
I admire Kastrup's work and I think Idealism is closer to reality than materialism. However, my biggest problem with idealism is the relationship between Absolute/Universal Consciousness and individual minds such as my own. Bernardo talks about dissociation, but this is still a tentative explanation. Perhaps we can never really understand such a thing.
I'm not afraid of the theistic implications of idealism at all, even though I used to be an atheist and a materialist. As I studied the mind-body problem and probed for solutions, I moved from materialism->panpsychism->idealism. Idealism makes it very likely that there is some kind of intelligence at the bottom of reality.
If Idealism is true, it has implications for our daily lives. We are all part of one great whole, and we should treat all human beings and all life with compassion, loving kindness, and respect. I have been dismayed by some idealists (who shall not be named) who do not appear to have realized this.
The partitioning of God's mind into the individuated, coherent, and holistic selves we apparently experience, is indeed one of the greatest mysteries to contemplate. I think of the universal principle like a macro scale version of your mind-body. Your brain, and it's abstracted information processing, modeling yourself and your environment, is like the overarching will and telos of the universal consiousness. Your autonomic functions, are like the fabric of space-time, and the complex structures of material objects in the world, the baseline necessities for existence. Your willed functions, like your hands and feet, your mouth, your eyes, are the actualized interactions and relationships that occur within that world, like the movements of bodies in space, and the various exchanges of energy occuring in those bodies. There is so much more to unpack here, but the idea of "man made in God's image" rings true for me. Ultimately, in my personal synthesis of experience, it is doing all of this because it loves us. It wants us to love each other and the whole, with no expectations or demands to do so, or act in any way, as we are literally it. It revels in our independent existence, and freedom, and the fact that it has actualized an other, to which it can share its infinite eternal self. It is absolutely unselfish, and has given to us all of the properties that it has. An infinite, eternal existence, within an infinite eternal existence. This existence is inherently good, and meaningful, and it never ends. Everyone is it's favorite person, everyone is safe, we are all together forever, and we will all eventually experience being this thing, the most blissful experience imaginable. From nothing it came, and nothing it will always be, it cannot be erased, and you, cannot be erased.
I have a video on the relationship between absolute consciousness and individual minds where I give my own answer on this. It's called "Idealism and the Decombination Problem".
Thanks for speaking up! Bernardo falls short in what I’d call big picture metaphysics. I find it cold comfort, as well as un-parsimonious and downright materialistic, to hope that our combined suffering will help a schizophrenic universe become saner. The favored big freeze scenario for our expanding universe would, if correct, finally render it unable to support life; hence the consensus that the universe is as mortal as you or I, and its existence, along with everything in it, is meaningless per se. Idealism, in order to be consistent, must envision Mind as ultimately beyond time, space and causation-which Bernardo has at times admitted, but usually sets aside.
Precisely. As a matter of fact, I think Hegel’s insistence upon the “idleness” of Berkeley’s idealism is a criticism that can be leveled against Kastrup’s idealism with equal force:
_”Without_ is _within,_ says Berkeley. Let it be so, says Hegel, and philosophy has still to _begin._ The same things that were called _without_ or _noumenal_ are now called _within_ or _phenomenal,_ but, call them as you may, it is their _systematic explanation_ that is wanted. Such systematic explanation, embracing man and the entire round of his experiences, sensuous, intellectual, moral, religious, aesthetic, political, etc., is alone philosophy, and to that no repetition of _without is within,_ or _matter is phenomenal,_ will ever prove adequate.”
(J.H. Stirling, _Schwegler’s Handbook of the History of Philosophy,_ 18-19)
Your point about Kastrup's evolutionary argument being self-undermining is exactly spot on. I had the same reaction to Donald Hoffman's argument when I first encountered it.
Great. Was waiting for this since the announcement. Thank you.
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)
Incidentally, are you VEGA?
I was never convinced by Kastrup's assertion that universal consciousness is phenomenal but couldn't put my finger on the reason why. This explanation goes a long way to convincing me that universal consciousness must be meta rather than phenomenal. Following on from that argument, I can't disagree with the suggestion that Kastrup seems reluctant to fully embrace the implications of analytic idealism.
Fantastic video! Thank you very much. I had a lot of similar issues with the analytical idealism of Kastrup myself. You helped connecting the dots and made the contradictions in his theory much clearer. No wonder he rejected to debate you. He couldn't possibly stand his ground. I am grateful to you. May God continue to bless you.
What is your views on Advaita Vedanta worldview (Non Duality) philosophy.
This is the right question to ask! This is what Kastrup is driving at, only with academic philosophical semantics.
Why don’t we go to the Vedic scripts here… there is nothing new being added by Kastrup the Vedanta hasn’t already explored. Even Schopenhauer made explicit reference to the Veda’s and spoke of the correspondence of MAYA with what he called Representations.
Schopenhauer was truly a great philosopher. He did not attempt to define the noumena, he only said it exists and is beyond any living person’s ability to know. We accept this then and live our best lives through ethics, compassion, and creative endeavor.
Read Schopenhauer and you’ll have all this most exquisitely explained… you don’t need to be confused by Kastrup’s Berkeley-esque RADICAL idealism.
@@Pumpychan Kastrup and Swami Sarvapriyananda have a conversation on youtube
27:20 The reasoning flaw you've identified is indeed significant, so much so that it's surprising how BK or his immediate colleagues could have overlooked it. Alternatively, could it be possible that you have not fully comprehended the theory he proposes?
Ask yourself this: Could you tonight dream of the complete evolutionary path from abiogenesis to who you are now ? If yes, then that's sort of what happened according to BK. A higher consciousness dreamed all of this up. each evolutionary stage in your dream would still feel like a lapse in time, but does time really exist in your dream? No because time can freeze go, go backwards, fast forward or anything in between. Time and evolution are just experiences in your dream made of mind stuff.
12:20 Kastrups argument like Kant's is self-defeating. If we can't now anything about the thing-in-itself, then we don't know that it isn't exactly like what we perceive.
Thanks. I was hesitant to watch this because I am a Kastrup fan-boy. But you make some excellent points, especially about universal consciousness. I don't see how we could have consciousness "superior" to the consciousness we came from.
Having a discussion with Kastrup live would certainly be more illuminating than his other hosts who, whilst well intentioned, are not challenging to the extent that you are. Keep knocking on his door then.
I'm watching this as a physicist (I did my research into string theory) interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics (and how it impacted our world view), and noticed how Kastrup uses quantum mechanics to defend his idealism. I haven't finished the video so maybe I'll come back with some actual comments about the content, but just replyed to let you know you misspelled his name in the video title: it's Bernardo (with an extra r) ;)
I only recently discovered your channel, and as a physicist and philosopher-wannabe writing about physics and philosophy I like it a lot. If you ever want to use quantum mechanics in some sort in your video's and need some view from a physicist, I'd be happy to exchange thoughts!
Thank you! I'll change the spelling, and I just might take you up on it! I intend to read through Tim Maudlin's books to get a better grip, but I haven't done so yet.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Maudlin is indeed really good, both his books on spacetime and quantum mechanics. Another great book is Norsen's "Foundations of quantum mechanics", and a bit more on the popular side Adam Becker's "What is real?"
Does one become a philosopher by thinking philosophical thoughts?
I think so but like me, not necessarily a good one.
Since it is my self who is conscious
it seems to me that what a self is has a bearing on the topic and
especially on the meaning of the word 'conscious'.
It seems to me to be quite obvious that my self is a thought.
Being a thought would certainly account for my self's ability
to have commerce with the myriad of other thoughts which represent
the universe and everything within it.
Now if a thought is simply a process of neurological activity that
in coded form, represents my self and everything else then
the physical is merely the substrate without which
process cannot exist (making the physical absolutely necessary but
details beyond chemistry not necessarily relevant).
You are right. There is a clip where Kastrup says UC is 'UNLIKELY to be metacognitive'. This is a mistake that only creates a new problem (even if not as hard a problem as materialism).
BK shouldn't make assumptions about UC from observations of what he calls the dashboard (which entails space-time including Darwinian evolution).
Also, the human mind is a part of UC, so it stands to reason that, if it's a localised, restricted perspective, it shouldn't be capable of much more than UC itself.
Also, my experience contradicts what he said. When I experienced naked awareness divorced from conceptual reality, the awareness couldn't help but be aware of itself because it is in its nature to do so. This is metacognition!
I think BK got it backwards. It is UC that is capable of all possible states of mind including metacognition. The human mind, on the other hand, can occasionally tap into them because it is mostly restricted to this space-time construct.
I think that is BK's main mistake in his analytical idealism. Evolution doesn't explain metacognition if we say that only human minds can have cognition.
His view almost mirrors materialism when it says we went from Homo sapiens to becoming Homo sapiens sapiens (man that knows he knows) without even explaining consciousness.
Agreed. He repeats the idea that UC is not metaconscious in other places too. It's clearly his considered view.
Yes analytic idealism says that consciousness is not metacognitive, it is instinctive.
It’s rather obvious to me that nature/God is not metacognitive because if it is, it is amoral!
@@sxsmith44 Perhaps it is metacognitive of a sort, but so far above the struggles of an individual human living on Earth that it doesn't really mind? A billion years of suffering is like taking a child to the doctor to get an injection... It is already existing in the state where we are dead and at peace.
The irony here is Bernardo bemoans the lack of proper philosophy in the debate and here a proper philosopher picks some telling faults in Bernardo's system.
Quite an impressive critique. Well done. Have you analyzed the current theories of Tim Freke?
Ok, I've watched the whole thing - I would say this is the best critique of BK's work I've seen in 10 years. your distinction, that he mixes scientific explanations with explanations depending on mind (that is, mixes physicalist and idealist explanations) is one I posed to him many times back 9 and 10 years ago but he always dismissed it as irrelevant.
You've brought it back brilliantly. Also, your idea of evolution as a means by which a collective consciousness evolves is common in some forms of Tantra and other schools of Indian philosophy. Notice I said collective, not universal consciousness. Sri Aurobindo speaks of "Group souls" - or the consciousness of a species. So the relatively non individuated cat has experiences that will contribute to the evolution of the species. There is, in his view, a transcendent non evolving Consciousness which expresses itself through involution and then evolution, which makes infinitely more sense to me than BK's view.
"but he always dismissed it as irrelevant." It's a weak point and obviously false. Akin to claiming that a desktop can't tell you anything about what's happening in the CPU, or that a dashboard can't tell anything about what's happening to the airplane.
@@Sam-hh3ry actually, in other contexts, one of BK’s major crtiiques is mixing physicalist and idealist ideas without distinguishing them. So Bk himself would disagree with you about it being a weak point!!
On the other hand, your analogy is entirely dealing with empirical phenomena, thus not even relevant!
@@EffortlessSleepandLife I’m not sure you even understand the analogy. Idealism says that matter/perceptual objects are encoded representations of surrounding states (mental states of mind at large). Akin to the relationship between a desktop and a computer, or the dashboard of a vehicle. Obviously you can determine lots of things about surrounding states by using the interface meant to give you info about those states.
@@Sam-hh3ry I'm not sure you understand the critique. It's not a matter of whether or not the interface provide information. It's whether the entire analogy offers anything beyond materialism. It explains nothing. That's the point. The same as materialist/physicalist science, as admitted by Nobel Prize winning physicist Steve Weinberg, who in his New York Review of Books admitted that, according to the way the word "explain" has been used for several thousand years, science indeed does not explain, it only describes. This is the case with BK's view as well, as well elaborated by this video.
Listening to you I have the impression that you haven't really understood Bernardo. Much of your critique relates - as far as I can tell - to problems we inevitably face when we try to explain these topics in a language, that is 'by definition' (trying to define) dualistic. So one question for instance is how literal you take the image of the 'screen of perfection'. Here I think you haven't represented Bernardos point adequately.
So with all respect: nice try, but not convincing (to me).
If you're interested in answering the question how 'meta consciousness' could evolve from 'phenomenal consciousness', I'd recommend studying Ken Wilbers Integral Approach and engage in some spiritual practice to 'see' for yourself where language no longer works. That (plus the work of Iain McGilchrist) brings it perfectly together.
This is interesting. I read all of Wilber’s works up to 2006 and never found them compelling; to much basic misunderstanding of Sri Aurobindo and many others as well as basic mistakes about what developmental stages in psychology are actually about; very familiar with McGilchrist and agree he does excellent work, but i think much of it (particularly Part 3 of “The Matter of Things” is quite in conflict with Bernardo’s ideas. The mai problem is taking universal consciousness to be EITHER meta conscious in teh human sense or phenomenally conscious. Bernardo claims his major inspiration (or at least, started claiming it in the past year) is the Upanishads, but neither his writing, nor that of Wilber or McGilchrist is more than minimally related to that of the Upanishads, which take Chit (or hinted at in later Upanishads and openly embraced by the Tantras, “Chit Shakti”) as an infinite intelligence, infinitely beyond that of either phenomenal or human metacognition.
@@EffortlessSleepandLifeYes, this is interesting indeed. For me personally the main question is, whether a theory or approach _makes sense_ and relates in a meaningful way to my own insights I gather from enganging in deep spiritual practice and then see if both (ineffable insight and verbal interpretation based on the theories) integrate well with each other. That said, for me it's less a question of a theory 'being right' than being 'useful' as a framework and guidance on the (neccesary) path of practice and seeing for oneself what the 'real truth' is (which cannot be articulated in words).
As Wilber puts it 'all is true - but partial'. So true. And partial. 😉
@@StefanSchoch Mm, but the point here being made is that they don't actually fit together, no?
Besides, the problem of ineffable insight is that it cannot tell you anything external.
Don't you think it would be on his part to find a proper language to explain his stuff to us? His theory, as far as I understand it, is based on sheer fantasy with absolutely no tangible (empirical) evidence behind.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Shure it's on his part to 'prove' his points. And after reading most of his books and listening to many hours of his conversations, I must say that I don't know anyone else who does such a brillant and convincing job in making his argument based on evidence (where 'tangible evidence' is possible, which is often not the case in a philosophical debate about idealism) and / or consistent and logical lines of argument. I.e. see his arguments in 'why materialism is balooney'.
What books have you read that give you the impression his stuff would be 'sheer fantasy'?
even though I disagree with some points in this video I have to say that generally it's a good critique
Thanks!
This video must of taken a lot of effort - and it's a joy to watch, thanks for making it
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@AbsolutePhilosophyif you take jnto account NDE testimony, when we d1e its just like waking up from a dream/amniotic state..
Within the "dream" the "matter" is actually just MIND..
In the framework of Analytic Idealism one might say that we, as dissociated alters within the construct of "Mind At Large" (MAL), embody the meta-cognitive facets of MAL on the perceptual dashboard. In a parallel vein, biological evolution serves as a dashboard representation, elucidating the intricate dynamics of MAL's relentless pursuit to comprehend itself. MAL might therefore be understood as fundamentally phenomenal-conscious, but in a process of becoming meta-conscious.
To the extent that man's image of God is an intuitive peek behind the dashboard of perception, C.G. Jung espoused a parallel perspective. According to him, the transformative shifts in humanity's conceptualization of God throughout history mirror the evolution of its consciousness, and maybe also the evolution of God's consciousness.
That sounds like the kind of view I say in this video that Kastrup would need to adopt to maintain his account of mind arising from a dissociative process.
Very good of you to notice, respect👍
Ive created a theory, the narcisist, psychopath and empathy theory, the catperson and dogperson theory.
The catperson or part is the self, the dogperson or part is the self in a group.
20-60-20, in de dogperson/group, 20% being pro the argument and willing to do something about it, 60% being neutral or going allong with which side wins, 20% being against and willing to do something about it.
20-60-20 in the catperson/the self/ personal, 20% pro or going along, 60% is you/how you see yourself and how you are today, 20% is against and not going along.
Some people hate cats and or dogs but they cant or dare to out it in the open because of the consequentions it may have for them in their group...
Catperson, female, emotional, introvert and live in the moment/the now.
Dog person, male, rational, extrovert and lives for tomorrow.
The dogperson uses physical violence where the catperson uses psychological violence.
I also included some 2 hemisphere data and some historical proof in an email which Ive sent to a few scientists a few years ago.
I also came up with KABE=W, knowledge aquired by experiance = wisdom.
Let me know what you think about it👍
That’s literally Bernado position though? Have you read his books?
Almost forgot the most important part🙂
The catperson wants their animal to live free, to be selfreliant, in a way the catperson is there for the animal/other
The dogperson wants their animal to be free but within the group accepted norm , they will adapt more easily to an inhume norm, the dog/person is more there for the dogperson.
60% being the norm people who like both cats and dogs, 20% dont like cats and 20% dont like dogs.
Within each side there are extremes the narcisists and or psychopaths.
The police dog trainer, the dog is only there for one purpose, if the value of the dog doesn't conform it will be replaced.
The outer fringe of the catperson doesn't allow the cat to go outside, has their nails cut, if the so doesn't allow the cat to a cat and when the cat doesn't conform by their standarts the cat will be replaced.
Oke its here👍
This is all well above my pay grade but I still really like to think about these things. Having said that I'm still trying to wrap my head around the first section about Kastrups entropy argument. It reminds me of the idea that "the simulation is not the thing being simulated." For instance we can simulate something like different properties of food on a computer, like in a video game where the characters can eat and respond to it in similar ways that we do in the real world. But no matter how complex and accurate that simulation of food ever becomes it won't (presumably) ever turn into actual food that we can eat. Food is a substance that relies on interactions beyond the atomic level whereas computers rely on a structure that begins and ends with bits or tiny electrical gates as 0 and 1s. No matter how complex those bits of electricity in or out of gates are arranged on a computer chip we obviously won't be able to eat it.
Another example and the one that actually reminded me of what Kastrup said is the idea of simulating a very complex thing like our climate as a whole on a computer to then make precise predictions about the weather far into the future. Very precise as in what days will it rain in a specific location in the year 2040 for example. But this is more than likely impossible with a computer simulation because that "simulation" is already running as the thing itself and its running at the fastest possible speed, which is itself the climate as it is. A computer replica of the earths climate that takes into account all of the essential physical interaction it needs to in order to make precise weather predictions far into the future would have to be far bigger than the earth itself and run at a much slower speed, as the lowest level it can go is a few nanometer sized bit gates running at a set clock speed. Whereas material reality presumably goes to levels far below the atom in size and interactions cap at the speed of light. Whatever the climate is doing right now can in that sense be seen as "the most efficient simulation of itself."
All of this to say that it seems we couldn't therefore accurately represent or simulate the world around as long as whatever the thing we are simulating has more necessary information than what is possible to contain within a brain or whatever system or thing produces the representational output. That output has to be compressed in some way. I think you're right in that most people don't believe that we have actual bits of the world outside ourselves inside our heads, like if we perceive a bomb exploding there isn't an actual bomb exploding inside our brain. But on the other hand many people do believe that we can for instance actually produce consciousness by simulating it on a computer. Isn't this akin to people believing we can produce actual food, or fire, or storms on a computer or is akin to believing that when we perceive an apple there is ultimately an actual apple inside our heads. Because if that isn't the case saying that it is a direct perception instead of a replica or simulation or model just doesn't mean anything. Or at least anything that I can make sense of. What does direct perception even mean? If we intuitively believe we are "directly perceiving an apple" what are we claiming? Not that its your view of course but just the view in general.
The film, "The Matrix" explores this idea.
Have you seen it?
14:58
Dashboard simile lacks a vital part: each of the indicators on the dashboard starts at a sensor. Info from the sensor is then passed to the indicator. The sensors are the missing link - there's nothing in the indicators that was not first in the sensors.
In human organism, a sense organ makes contact with its object. This contact is what is indicated on the indicator as a movement of the needle, or some such change. But this is still meaningless "raw data": domething is sensed, but that's the extent of it. And btw, this is as close to reality as we can get. From here, everything that follows is interpretation.
Note that already here Kastrup's version of Yogacara doctrine of the "mind only" argument breaks: while one of the many mental functions is being a sense organ tasked with sensing internal, mental "objects", the remaining 5 sense organs are all "external", material organs, tasked with sensing their objects in the "outside" world.
What happens next after sensation, is a series of other mental processes, ending in Consciousness of the sensed and interpreted object.
Long story short, this is how our world and our self is collected and made into a "thing" - sensation after sensation, interpretation, after interpretation, a "thing" at a time. What keeps it all together is craving for more and clinging to each ofthe "things" - people, things, feelings, views, beliefs, tastes....
There is no other Self outside of that ever-changing "collection" of not-self phenomena.
Shunyata (Emptiness) is the true nature of everything.
Pretty sure the use of the term 'analytical' is a shout out to CG Jung's analytical psychology, and universal consciousness is basically synonymous with the collective unconscious and it's archetypes. That's clearly the framework behind his work and also adds context to his point on universal consciousness being only phenomenologically conscious - in an unconscious state. The way I see it we are it's meta conscious expression. Perhaps the representation of universal consciousness in a differentiated state - our isolated subjective ego's experience - is a form that gives rise to meta consciousness?
I guess evolution applies to mind with regard to instincts and archetypes, being the means by which unconscious patterns of shared behavior fosters the emergence of culture, for example. It's when we encounter our instincts and their correlated archetypal images in our personal lives that we gain access to energy and motivation - libido - so we're psychologically wired for adaptation and survival and that seems to be the nature of universal consciousness.
Really glad you did a video on him. While I also disagree with him on several matters, I share a lot of his issues with materialism/reductionism, and I'm glad he's helping bring it back to public awareness.
Aside from your points in this video, why do you think he has been mostly dismissed in academia? I know idealism in general has something of a cultural bias against it, but do you think there's anything unique to analytic idealism that puts it at a greater disadvantage?
Materialism vs idealism may matter to us but it’s a niche interest. Scientists don’t need to be metaphysically accurate to produce useful theories, while philosophers have debated this for millennia, so I don’t know if Kastrup’s work has been rejected as much as it’s stayed within its niche
@@olbluelips I don't understand how. For me, the idea that materialism might not be true is like a beam of hope appearing in absolute despair. I would have thought nothing would matter more than investigating it. Maybe we aren't all doomed to eternal oblivion? Isn't that huger and more important than anything else, on a personal level?
What's so bad about oblivion? Mark Twain famously said, "I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and it never caused me the slightest inconvenience."
Knowing about Active Inference myself (I've interviewed Friston about 8 times at this point!), you might have gotten the wrong read a tiny bit on the "naive realism" part - he's not arguing about perceptions, rather representations in the brains "generative model". However, this is often misunderstood i.e. the model is a fiction, the mechanics are actually diffused in a complex way, even outside of the body.
Can you elaborate please? Just a little deeper than the higher level mentionings.
Great! In my view, you were too kind. For every issue you pointed out, I saw many more. His approach seems to be to make generalizations based on presumption over and over again. That is not, in my mind, any sort of philosophy.
Very good analysis and critique.
Nice video and nice try, but I think you've missed what Kastrup was actually trying to do here. He is not using the entropy and evolutionary arguments to strawman or otherwise counter other philosophical positions per sé. Though I definitely think Kastrup would do well to tone down his antagonism at times (lest it makes him seem sloppy) here he is actually using these arguments to build up towards the point that we simply could not see the world as it is, even IF we were holding a physicalist or scientific materialist position, which he assumes (rightfully so) a lot of us sort of do, whether we know it or not. He then reasons a conscious ontology (the idealist position in which we ALSO do not see the world as it is) in which a Schopenhauerian dashboard "phenomenology" "represents" an underlying cosmic "will". I think it would be accurate to say that Kastrup simply chose to "start from somewhere" and that you overanalyzed this rather arbitrary decision.
You got it. The point is simply that we have strong reasons to think the world we perceive is unlike the world as it is in itself. This is a really obvious point that goes back at least to Kant. After this is established, he gives reasoning for why the world in itself is likely mental on the basis of parsimony, explanatory power, etc.
@@Sam-hh3ryKant never denied the existence of matter
@@zeven341 neither does bernardo. also no one suggested that kant and bernardo have the same ontology.
@@Sam-hh3ry Kastrup does deny the existence of matter, if he claims consciousness is all there is. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. Kant is an epistemic idealist, not an ontological one. Furthermore I don’t trust anyone who has a definite answer to everything. History tells us, that they are with no exception priests, guru’s or charlatans.
That's fair, but in the clip we very clearly see he meant it as some sort of concrete refutation of a belief materialists don't hold
The problem with idealism as with sociobiology is that one takes a bird’s envy view of reality and the other takes a worm’s eye view of reality. The truth is we live in both worlds not just one or the other. We have to try to align ourselves with absolutes while applying them to what is relative. A war may be just in one case and unjust in another case.
So it best not to take a permanent stance on one viewpoint or the other, instead use our conscience and reason as they apply to what is relative to a situation. Religion, philosophy, and psychology have given a guide for dealing with duality. It is The Middle Way which is negotiating a path between opposites rather being caught in the grip of either one. It is Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’. The question of to act or not to act is addressed in the Bhagavad Gita as to whether there is a choice in the matter.
Yes I can't help but to think there is a lot of dichotomous thinking that reality doesn't abide by.
Thanks for the discussion. I hadn't known your channel and I've only seen half an interview with Kastrup. I think your video citations helped me get his argument.
Now as for your first counter-case, I think a good part of Kastrup's argument can be saved: To critique e.g. realism, then (as per the method of deconstruction), we may adopt the realist framework (e.g. evolution applying to everything, or talking about what happens when we follow what happens with entropy) to show the problems with it. I.e. it's not really necessary to restrict ourselves to the dashboard as long as we're not making positive claims but only show contradictions with others.
As for the second half, does Kastrup postulate that the "actual outside beyond the dashboard" is indeed timeless? I don't know, it wasn't part of your video citations. Because what I'd get at here is that apriori we could have evolution both on the dashboard and beyond it. Making postulates about the world beyond the dashboard makes the theory unappealing, but at least we shouldn't say it's necessarily faulty reasoning to speak of evolution there.
Yes, this is the reason why I, too, am happy to allow Kastrup the use evolution theory: as a helpful tool for deconstruction.
But then he seems to want to construct another view, and that could be a trap, in my view.
Nagarjuna saw this trap; hence his insistence that emptiness (i.e. when all deconstruction is done) is also empty of independent existence. Then, no conceptual view can prevail, which is not nihilistic, but helps me to accept conventional reality with more lightness.
Hello great video! I would like to ask a question, does the objection you made to the fact that if absolute consciousness is phenomenal consciousness and not metaconsciousness not also apply to F H Bradley's idealism? Since Bradley held that the Absolute is immediate experience, is this not the same as phenomenal consciousness? So doesn't Bradley have the same problem as Kastrup of not being able to explain the emergence of the individual subject's metaconsciousness?
Thankyou very Much!
Great question. I do think immediate experience is basically phenomenal experience, but Bradley does not think immediate experience is Reality as it is finite and limited. He think Reality is Absolute experience which includes and integrates relational experience (metaconsciousness) too. So he doesn't have that problem.
Thank you very much for the clarification!
Excellent analysis and critique. Surely Kastrup would reframe his arguments if confronted by these observations, perhaps in a way which would refine and clarify his own ideas. I doubt he “thinks he’s wrong”, yet I can’t help but agree with your assessment.
Good job mate ... there are many holes in his "arguments", you point to some of them ! Nice to see people who can actually argue rigidly to point them out.
METAPHYSICAL IDEALISM IS AT BEST SPECULATIVE/PROBLEMATIC.
Metaphysical idealism cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a posteriori: “as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, viz., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure Understanding and pure Reason” (Kant, Prolegomena); “Even if we could bring our intuition to the highest degree of clearness, we should not thereby come any nearer to the constitution of objects in themselves. We should still know only our mode of intuition, that is, our sensibility. We should, indeed, know it completely, but always only under the conditions of space and time - conditions which are originally inherent in the subject. What the objects may be in themselves would never become known to us even through the most enlightened knowledge of that which is alone given us, namely, their appearance” (Kant, KrV, A 43).
Metaphysical idealism cannot possibly be sufficiently substantiated a priori: it is not logically necessary that all reality is entirely mental; it is logically possible that non-mental things-in-themselves have transcendental reality (not to be confused with empirical reality).
RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL COUNTERARGUMENTS:
1. Concerning the potential counterargument that “while we can’t empirically verify metaphysical idealism, it provides a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for our experiences and the nature of consciousness”: we do not say that metaphysical idealism is parsimonious or not parsimonious, we say that it is at best speculative/problematic. Hence, the counterargument that “while we can’t empirically verify metaphysical idealism, it provides a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for our experiences and the nature of consciousness” constitutes ignoratio elenchi against our position laid out above (namely, our position that metaphysical idealism at best is problematic).
2. Concerning the potential counterargument that “the very concept of ‘non-mental reality’ is incoherent or meaningless, as reality is only conceivable in terms of experience or thought”: such a counterargument tactitly presupposes that if non-mental things-in-themselves do have transcendental reality they must be describable according to the categories of the understanding (which categories apply necessarily to phenomena/appearances, not necessarily to hypothetical non-mental things-in-themselves); such a counterargument, that is, is a petitio principii.
3. Concerning the potential counterargument that “certain forms of idealism (e.g., transcendental idealism) actually align with Kant’s philosophy in recognizing the mind-dependent nature of our experience while not necessarily denying the existence of things-in-themselves”: we say that metaphysical idealism is at best problematic/speculative; eo ipso it entails ignoratio elenchi to appeal to Kantian transcendental idealism in counterargument (since we say nothing at all about Kantian transcendental idealism).
Obiter dictum: By saying that metaphysical idealism is at best problematic we mean to imply that metaphysical idealism (qua philosophical position) is neither assertoric nor apodeictic.
I would like to throw my hat in the ring.
Kastrup takes a large portion of his thinking on meta consciousness and phenomenal consciousness from Jung. In Jungs Answer to Job Jung observes that God is only phenomenally conscious but not Meta conscious, this is why God is unconscious because He is unable to reflect and understand His actions and state. This is also why He is unable to use his Omnipotence, as he is not self reflective and thus not conscious. We developed meta cognition due to us being mortal, and thus needing it to grow and evolve, whereas God does not because he is perfect and complete.
This I think is his view on this particular point. We are a dissociation of God that developed meta cognition due to our inherent smallness and mortality. We are, in a sense, bringing God to metacognition through us by existing and allowing God to incarnate in us.
This is mainly taken from Jung and Kastrups book on Jung, so I am be wrong. But yeah, hope to hear from the creator!
Interesting. Perhaps he is taking this position following Jung. I know little about Jung's metaphysics. And maybe he has other theological motives for following Jung too (besides those I hinted at in this video). But the issues I raise remain. They come from the tension between the denial of metacognition to universal mind alongside the claim we are dissociated alters of that mind. If this is also akin to Jung's position, it is a problem for Jung too. And appeals to evolution won't cut it philosophically.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Thank you for the response! There really isn't a way to save it, unless you institute what you suggested. It needs to be noted this would even fit with the Jungian findings, as well as with logic if you do take it all the way.
Thank you for the great video and I appreciate the response once again!
What a great channel! Thanks for all you're doing! I'm a fan of Bosanquet, Green, and Bradley; trying to study them with Sellars (and Brandom) in mind. I watched Kastrup's series a few weeks ago and am looking forward to your analysis.
You might like the membership programme then. I'm going through Bradley's A&R, reading it and commenting on it as I go. These videos are available to members, from the lowest tier. I'd appreciate your insights too.
I generally dislike idealists because they talk nonsense most of the time, but you are an exception, lol.
I love the part about the self refuting character of his arguments.
Hoffman makes the same mistake by appealing to evolution, science, and space-time just to deny them one moment later.
Regarding the second part, the universal consciousness is supposed to be the mind of what we call the inanimate cosmos.
I don't see how that mind can be metacognitive like we are. I think there is a pretty strong intuition here. There appears to be a correlation between the complexity of the minds and the complexity of structure, functions, behavior.
Consider a human, a dog, and a beetle and compare them. Now consider the inanimate cosmos. It has less complex structure, functions, behaviors than a beetle, and therefore it must have a much less complex mind/consciousness and such a mind just doesn't seem to qualify as god in any sense.
Just like the inanimate cosmos of the materialists, it does what it does, without deliberation or any sense of morality.
Not an idealist, but I like flirting with the idea of a naturalistic idealism or a naturalistic panpyschism.
Thanks for the compliment. My idealism is very different to Kastrup's. I'll be doing videos that start to sketch out my views over the next few months. Let's see if I can make it plausible to you. I like a challenge :).
I see where your critique on universal consciousness and the notion of it being metacognitive is coming from, but I might submit that the obvious fine tuning of the universe lends towards precisely that outcome. If we were talking about a purely natural mind akin to that of an animal, completely oblivious to its own actions and how they impact others, we might reasonably expect a naturally chaotic universe to reflect that behavior.
Is that what we see? Absolutely not. We see jaw-dropping levels of harmony, behaviors so spectacularly fine-tuned that the finest watchmaker would blush at their sheer inadequacy in comparison. This is not a universe bereft of intelligence acting like an impulsive animal.
That aside, to play Devil's Advocate for Donald Hoffman for a minute he's addressed your exact criticism a number of times. What he would say is that evolution is merely a pointer to something outside of spacetime that is *not itself* what we could recognize as evolution. Since spacetime is emergent from something deeper in Reality, we've no good reason to think that whatever it is that evolution is representative of will, in any meaningful way, look like evolution itself - therefore your claim that he shot himself in the foot is invalid.
@@ryanashfyre464 Hoffman talks nonsense. He has never substantially addressed anything. He seems more like a con artist to me.
You cannot appeal to scientific notions and be a scientific anti-realist because you are throwing your entire framework out of the window at the same time. It is a self refuting stance.
Kastrup does the same thing. I think Tim Maudlin pointed that to him in a short clash they had. He was trying to misuse quantum mechanics as always, but a theory of physics (a theory that describes things in physical terms) cannot even conceivably refute physical realism.
As for fine-tuning, it can either be a brute necessity or a brute contingency under a naturalistic view. Once you have fine-tuning/constants, evolution takes place. I am not quite sure your appeal to it affects my point. I was talking about the inanimate cosmos and if it happens to have some kind of mind/consciousness, I was deriving conclusions about that mind/consciousness. I was already operating under a naturalistic framework, and fine-tuning doesn't pose a problem for a naturalistic view to begin with.
Actually the conclusions I derived about the mind/consciousness of the inanimate cosmos (assuming it has one) predict all the data of suffering and evil.
Complete misunderstanding of Hoffman's argument IMO.
Suppose you have a measurement device that is spaced with 1cm precision, this unit cannot make accurate measurements of objects smaller than 1cm. Yet it is still fully functional for its own scale adjusted objects.
From what I understand Hoffman is not stating that evolutionary biology is incorrect and therefore useless, rather he's saying evolutionary biology is incorrect and useless beyond its scope.
People didn't stop using Newtonian physics to calculate object trajectory just because we have Einsteinian physics. It's still very functional within its framework.
@@CeroAshura Scientific theories being at least approximately true (like Newtonian physics) is what scientific realists argue for. Hoffman ain't one.
24:35 I'm not sure it makes sense to see phenomenal consciousness as a "lower" form than meta consciousness; simpler, yes, but not necessarily lower. In that sense, Kastrup's Universal Consciousness is somewhat reminiscent of Plotinus' _The One,_ or the God of classical theism. In fact, in the latter (not sure about the former) simplicity is an essential aspect of what God is. Following that approach, it's not just that Kastrup's UC _happens to be_ phenomenally conscious (and not meta conscious), it is _necessarily_ so.
But for me, what undermines that possible overlap between Kastrup on the one hand and Plotinus, Aquinas, and the like, on the other, is the apparent spontaneous coming-into-being of these ring-fenced additional personalities. That immediately raises the question as to how -- by what mechanism -- did that happen? Kastrup seems to be offering the UC as the unitary, primordial thing. But it can't be. In addition to the UC he also needs some mechanisms governed by some _"Laws of Personality Emergence"_ and if those exist, then the UC just isn't the bottom line he seems to think it is. It's similar to the kind of unitary, primordial no-thing your Lawrence Krauss types postulate. We know that whatever was _not_ there at "the beginning", the various mechanisms allowing for quantum fluctuations and so on certainly were. And in that case, Krauss's nothing just isn't the bottom line he seems to think it is.
Of course, the "quantum vacuum field" cannot be a bottom line in the way that Krause thinks. Bear in mind that Krause thinks that all philosophy is BS. Nevertheless, the stuff he says is a crude attempt at an ontology, and he doesn't even have the meta-consciousness to realize that. That makes him one of the worst philosophers in existence, rather than the "pure scientist" non-philosopher he claims to be. I have no use for any scientist who, far from having any coherent scientific epistemology, thinks that all epistemology is garbage.
The entropic soup idea in regard to perception comes from Carl Friston's free energy principle.
Suggest exploring Riccardo Faggin's work and his discussions with Kastrup. While you have some interesting elements of argument, I am not sure you fully or properly apply them.
Alfred Korzybski elegantly stated that no model whether map or dashboard should be taken for the reality itself.
When I first heard Bernardo's argument from entropy, I was a little bit taken aback by this line of thought. I guess, if you're familiar with Bernardo's critiques on materialism, it makes sense that his critiques moved him in this direction, but as you say.. as a stand alone argument, this doesn't work. He needs to let this go.
Then you're making a mistake @14:20 by saying that the idea of a cockpit is a 'simplified' view, while Kastrup is trying to make the argument that there is a distinct difference, not a simplification. The main problem with your critique is that the explanation of evolution is not making an ontological distinction, it's not giving you knowledge, nor does it pretend to, about something that is distinct from us in reality. It's merely a way to explain how reality works, even if just by analogy through 'the dashboard of perception'. It's not like Bernardo is pretending that he can somehow pierce through and show us the reality outside of perception. Your argument that 'evolution is also only about the dashboard', yeah, that is Bernardo's point. The distinction is complete and not a 'simplification'.
Your critique on his method only works if evolution would be false when scientific realism is false, but of course, the theory of evolution is not at all phased by scientific realism being true or false. It works regardless.
Bernardo is awesome, but I agree with these critiques.
I've been making these exact same constructive criticisms against analytic idealism for years.
What is the antithesis of "ANALYTIC" Idealism?
"NON-ANALYTIC"?
No one has thought about these issue more than you Monistic ;). I'm a few steps behind.
Did you criticise them in your recent interview of him ?
@@Mandibil No, I brought these criticisms up in my first interview with him.
@@MonisticIdealism
Idealism:
Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism.
The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”.
Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism).
Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”.
This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality).
At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita.
Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”.
N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”).
Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.
It does not follow that because mis-perceptions of the world are possible, therefore, any and all perceptions of it -- correct or incorrect -- are indirect perceptions of it. This like arguing that because it is possible to give an incorrect answer on an exam, therefore, any and all answers -- even the correct one - must be indirect answers.
Great vid!
Here are my 2 cents, apologies if I ramble a hit.
I don't think Kastrup is actually doing what you say he is doing. His arguments, like the Evolutionary one or the one involving entropy, are arguments using scientific evidence to show that scientific realism is false. It sounds paradoxical but it's not. Science is agnostic (for lack of a better word) of metaphysics. It's just the study of behavior. I don't see any in principle reason why someone couldn't use scientific evidence to show that science is a method within the dashboard and then interpret that evidence in favor of Idealism. I've heard people make the same argument against Donald Hoffman ("you're arguing that everything is a desktop UI because of evolution, but then that means evolution, and the theory, is just part of the desktop... therefore it's false"), and his response is quite simple: every scientific theory is limited to the dashboard... that's the game were playing. It doesn't follow, therefore, that a "dashboard theory" can't point to something outside of the dashboard.
For example: it's not hard to imagine that someone locked into some Virtual Reality game could find evidence WITHIN the VR game itself, and within its rule set, for the existence of something outside of the game. If you were playing a game and people were able to enter and exit at will, effectively turning their bodies off and on, then that would be evidence for the existence of Mind outside of the game itself... and in the same breath, someone could say "this physical world (the VR) is illusory". That's all that he is doing: using the best scientific evidence we have to show that the world itself is a dashboard representation of something deeper. So, all he is saying is that the evidence he is presenting isn't the final truth, but it's true at the dashboard level. This isn't direct evidence for Idealism, but it's much easier to interpret these findings under Idealism than Materialism. In addition to Evolution and Entropy, he presents evidence from neuroimaging studies, from foundations of physics, from NDE's, from logic and parsimony, and more.
Cheers!
Great video!!! Have you checked out Bergson? Matter and Memory makes a great case for a kind of direct perception that can account for illusion and error. Also I just finished reading Fichte where the ‘thing in itself’ or ‘beyond the dashboard’ is quite compellingly revealed as pure dogmatic speculation. Like you, the problems around the dashboard and the nature of the absolute are one of my major issues with Kastrup. Thank you for making this video, it is a much needed counterpart to Kastrups dogmatism, which can sometimes be hard to recognize through his otherwise beautiful and eloquent thoughts.
I am a part of the world as it is in itself; therefore better understanding of my self gives me some access to it. That’s the Schopenhauer stance to the noumena, anyway.
Great video!
You mention at 26:55 that 'human minds are meant to be beyond the dashboard.' Could you elaborate on how that's the case? I'm not able to follow.
Thanks!
I may be misinterpreting Kastrup now I think about it, but since he talks about us being within a dissociative boundary inside universal consciousness I assumed we were in the 'real world' rather than the dashboard. But it could be that he sees us on the 'immediate side' of the dashboard rather than the 'beyond side' of it, which may make a difference to him, idk. But still, he needs to explain how/whether time applies to human minds when it is a feature of the 'paradigm of the dashboard', which ever side of it we are meant to be on.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Bernardo just concluded an event w/ the Essentia Foundation discussing Mind & Time and just had a second lively discussion w/ Michael Levin (just uploaded the other day, iirc) in which the issue of time came up.
Tbh, Bernardo hasn't settled on any definitive belief on Time. To the best of my understanding (so take it w/ a grain of salt) he leans towards what we regard as the "past" and "future" as ontologically absolute states that never vanish and never go anywhere. They only seem to exist separately and seem to disappear because that's how our own cognitive apparatus is structured to filter and interpret them.
So, yes, it seems like Kastrup's present leanings would conclude that our "dashboard" is creating an entropic arrow of time and that whatever Time itself ultimately is at base-level Reality does indeed exist, albeit in a very different way that we're struggling to wrap our heads around.
Here's the Kastrup/Levin discussion: (ua-cam.com/video/RZFVroQOpAc/v-deo.html&ab_channel=AdventuresinAwareness). The relevant section starts at about the 12:00 mark.
On a separate but still relevant note, I would submit that the notion of the past, present and future existing, in some sense, all at once coincides w/ reported near-death experiencers who consistently report exactly that. They'll say they can't explain how they came to that knowledge but somehow they just know it.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy
Imagine each individual one of our selfs exists within a sphere and
the spheres of all of us are floating in a soup of universal consciousness.
The inner surface of each sphere is our personal dashboard,
the totality of all that we have evolved to see and feel and touch etc.
The outer surface of one's sphere both
translates our dashboard manipulations into terms the universal consciousness understands and
in the opposite direction,
transfers thoughts from universal consciousness into dashboard terms that
we have evolved to understand.
Of course the spheres and dashboard and universal consciousness are
all entirely metaphorical.
This is not entirely unexpected in light of the fact that
the majority of our important thoughts are couched in language.
Right?
Yes I understand the metaphor. The question is that if time is just a feature of the dashboard whether our minds are in time, especially if Universal consciousness is not. And then you have to somehow fit evolution into the picture and apply it to minds that are not temporal.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy
I have come to understand that 'time' is a concept only (not an illusion, a concept), a kind of culturally evolved shorthand way to think about the movements of objects relative to each other, i.e. there is no such 'thing' as time.
(Carlo Rovelli's videos are helpful to understanding this).
Universal consciousness has no meaning for me. Being conscious is a process, not a 'something'. I am conscious of this and I am conscious of that in full realization that I am conscious only of my thoughts. But I have a clear understanding of what a thought is. It is what the discharge timing patterns of neurons represent. Patterns and processes and representations are all abstract entities but entirely dependent for their abstract existence on the existence of a physical substrate. To assert everything is thought is like defending faith as a path to truth when it is self evidently not.
Oh oh, my thoughts have started wandering so, still interested in your thoughts, I'll stop.
Exceptions to direct realism do not disprove direct realism, as philosophers tend to believe. These exceptions could be caused by factors which simply interfere with our direct perceptions of the world, making our perceptions defective in some way. One does not need to adopt a mirror-theory of perception in order to explain these exceptions. I might now be directly seeing the room that I am current occupying, but if the curtains were closed and all the lights turned-off, then this would interfere with my direct perceptions of the room. Likewise, if the lights were such as to be so bright that they blinded me, this would interfere with my direct perceptions of the room. In neither case, would it be proven by these exceptions that I only had a mirror perception of the room.
Idealism:
Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Supernatural Conscious Mind (often, the Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism.
The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”.
Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism).
Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”.
This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality).
At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita.
Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”.
N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”).
Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.
@@FilipinaVegana Thank you for your insightful treatise on Idealism. Yes, I was already aware of its central position and varieties. I simply reject it. Suffice to say, like every realist, I do not find the arguments for it to be logically sound.
@@alwaysgreatusa223
monism:
the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought that seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”.
To put it simply, whilst materialists/physicalists/naturalists believe that the ground of being is some kind of tangible form of matter (or a field of some sort), and idealists/theists/panpsychists consider some kind of mind(s) or consciousness(es) to be most fundamental, MONISTS understand that Ultimate Reality is simultaneously both the Subject and any possible object, and thus one, undivided whole (even though it may seem that objects are, in fact, divisible from a certain standpoint).
The descriptive term favoured in the metaphysical framework proposed in this Holy Scripture is “Brahman”, a Sanskrit word meaning “expansion”, although similes such as “Sacchidānanda” (Eternal-Conscious-Peace), “The Tao” and “The Monad” are also satisfactory.
Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually-exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains, both of which are necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object. Therefore, it seems that the necessary-contingent dichotomy often discussed by philosophers in regards to ontology, is superfluous to the concept of monism, because on this view, BOTH the subjective and the objective realities are essentially one, necessary ontological Being(ness). In other words, because you are, fundamentally, Brahman, you are a necessary being and not contingent on any external force. This concept has been termed "necessitarianism" by contemporary philosophers, in contradistinction to contingentarianism - the view that at least some thing could have been different otherwise - and is intimately tied to the notions of causality and determinism in Chapters 08 and 11. Advaita Vedānta (that is, dual-aspect Monism) is the only metaphysical scheme that has complete explanatory power.
Hypothetically, and somewhat tangentially, one might question thus: “If it is accurate to state that both the Subject of all subjects and all possible objects are equally ‘Brahman’ (that is, Ultimate Truth), then surely that implies that a rock is equally valuable as a human being?”. That is correct purely on the Absolute platform. Here, in the transactional world of relativity, there is no such thing as equality, except within the conceptual sphere (such as in mathematics), as already demonstrated in more than a couple of places in this Holiest of Holy Books, “F.I.S.H”, especially in the chapter regarding the spiteful, pernicious ideology of feminism (Chapter 26).
Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, and “object”.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 Do you prefer physicalism, materialism, naturalism, etc as alternatives to idealism?
@@EffortlessSleepandLife Why does it matter, when what I am arguing for here is direct realism ?
@13:30 the interface/dashboard analogy is childish idealism. One can accept the idea of the interface as a realist too, I do, even while some elements of extreme realism I would reject (I do a lot of mathematics, a lot, so cannot help thinking platonism, at least mathematically, is a bit of a thing, go on, say I'm biased, I won't deny it, not all biases are wrong). But there can still be an external spacetime just as my dashboard of a mind says, "There looks to be a spacetime out there buddy, between you and me, even though you don't have the rendering tools for me to draw it well. Stick figure Riemann manifold is all you get." "Yes, but is it locally Minkowski or gnarly Wheeler-foam topology?" I ask my dashboard. My dashboard says, "Need more data." Luckily my dashboard is sensible and does not ceaselessly gaslight me by printing out , "Haha, there is nothing out there, fooled ya. Become a Jungian idealist."
9:25 this is the crucial point. And what is so shocking is how easily we can see this error. I paused the video for a few seconds after you summarized Kastrup's argument and came to the same conclusion. He is simply confusing our perceptions with our brain's cognitive ability to maintain that screen of perceptions. They are two completely different things. It would be like saying a computer program that records brownian motion of water molecules, must itself be undergoing brownian motion of its circuitry, gradually growing more disordered to the point where nothing makes sense. Its false on a very elementary level. I don't think I am a genius here but I really expect better from a trained philosopher and I'm glad you pointed it out in such clear terms.
I don’t think he’s saying that at all. Not trying to be argumentative, can you elaborate? I understand your critique but not exactly where Kastrup makes the error
Doesn't seem like you actually understand Kastrup's position. Under his idealism, brain states are encoded representations of your personal mental states. All matter is an encoded representation of some mental states, either belonging to a living organism or mind at large. A functioning brain/body is itself a perceptual representation of an ongoing dissociative process within mind at large.
This way, we can make sense of the apparent dual nature of mind and matter as well as correlations between minds and brains without having to appeal to anything non-mental.
So, if we have a 'higher' knowledge of our own thinking, we have a knowledge that is in a sense external to our thoughts. Yes, it is true that we call this 'reflection' and that it is a reflection on our thinking itself, and so we might simply say this is a higher level of thinking that exists dependently upon the lower level of thinking, however, the question that needs to be answered is, how this even possible in the first place ? It is not sufficient to simply say that it is an obvious fact -- few would deny that, I think. How is it possible that an awareness that depends upon thinking and its ideas able to 'take a step back' and reflect upon itself ? Could it be that knowledge or awareness is not as thought-dependent as the epistemologists have led us to believe ? Perhaps it is time for these theorists of knowledge to think outside the epistemological box.
Would it be accurate to say that the mind can reflect on itself or be meta cognitive because you are modeling cognitive states and then looking at it. How you look at it tho is an interesting question. what are your thoughts on how meta cognition is possible, are you thinking that thinking about your thoughts does not require memory kinda like how you could still maintain this function if you had anterograde amnesia and retrograde too, I like to think this is true. Yea maybe thinking about your thoughts relies more on your capacity to remember what is being thought and to then reproduce that and to represent the cognitive processes to get to that thought which would mean that you would need to adapt your view of reality very quickly and adopt a new grip on reality that you could look from in order to inspect the thing has been modeled to represent a prior representation of reality. IDK if this is really meaningfull tho because you are trying to know HOW this happens not WHAT is happening so IDK. The bare minimum two facets of cognition I think are needed are Cognitive flexibility and Attention Modulation
@@nicbarth3838 I am actually thinking more along the line of making a distinction between thought and awareness as distinct brain functions. Reflection, I would say begins with being self-aware of one's own thinking, so it must be different from the thinking itself to some extent.
I had always been effortlessly attracted to Kastrup's conception, and I find his presentation very engaging. But I must admit that somehow I'd never considered your argument, even though it should be very clear, almost intuitive. Thank you for a very engaging analysis.
if kastrup is right how come robots also "perceive" the dashboard?
Why does a rock perceive the dashboard for that matter.
Thanks for nice analysis. Your discussions was very thought provoking and your arguments sharp. I'm a big fan of Bernardo's work, but as all theories do, his one also has some weak points and it may be useful to examine those carefully to refine his case. To be honest some of your arguments looked like a hair splitting and not very substantial to me (probably more important from your perspective as a philosopher), and I think Bernardo would have been able to easily address most of them (for example about mirroring of perceptions and brain states, also about evolution not providing actual data). Where I complete agree with your point is about meta consciousness of Mind at Large. I think it `s much more logical to assume that the traits that we demonstrate would also be present in Universal intelligence and probably in much higher degrees. Also it's also possible that through this temporary dissociations, certain experiences can be achieved and certain qualities obtained that won't be quite possible without it. Hundreds of speculations can be made why this may happen. For example children naturally create "dissociated alters" to play engage in games with themselves. And again what we may call suffering, can very well be seen as something completely different in a larger context. From the perspective of timeless and boundaryless being. Like a scenes on a cinema screen cannot devastate us when we remember that it's just a movie. We even enjoy tragedy and violence. Now I'm not suggesting that larger consciousness is having fun with suffering of his dissociated states. I'm just saying that we are sometimes projecting our limited motives on a processes that probably my well be beyond our mundane logic.
It seems to me that, as Kant explained, we never be certain of what exists behind our "dashboards of perception', so I would agree with you that Dr. Kastrup's theory is conjecture...as is yours...as it seems that each are unfalsifiable. Am I missing something here? This is a sincere question.
No you aren't missing something, and are entirely correct. That's why the neo-Kantians rejected the idea of the 'thing-in-itself' entirely. However, I wasn't advocating Analytic Idealism with a revised kind of universal consciousness (although I can see why you might think so). I was only saying that _Kastrup's commitments_ mean he should, upon consideration, take universal consciousness as being meta-cognitive. My idealism does not have some speculative realm beyond the veil of perception, as I don't have an 'indirect' view of perception.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Ahh...that make sense. I appreciate the clarification sir.
Paradoxically, if it's correct to understand universal consciousness (UC) as simultaneously 1) the shared context for all individuated/dissociated states of consciousness (alters), and 2) the dissociated consciousness or bounded awareness itself including meta-consciousness, which is the capacity to periodically reflect upon and critically assess the contents of experience or in other words, re-represent the contents of consciousness in which one interprets, describes or otherwise characterizes different states of one's own mind, it doesn't make sense that "universal consciousness must be at least meta-conscious" as the host suggests. Rather, UC must at least have the potential for meta-conscious experience. So, like all paradoxes, this one only exists in the minds of seemingly separate, meta-conscious entities.
4:39 That's not what realism is. Realism means that object's qualities we perceive are there even when there's no one looking.
Hi Nathan! Thanks so much for this fascinating video and critique of Bernardo Kastrup's idealism! I've been trying to understand his ideas (and learning philosophy in general) and have so many questions and no place to find answers. Medical science uses the dashboard to make all these amazing medications and surgeries that seem to function, so how does work on the dashboard affect "reality" i.e. mind, so well? Also, his critique of panpsychisme is the problem of the adding up of micro-consciousness of particles, but then he admits that when one dies, our conscious states are somehow added to mind at large Then there is the problem of evolution of mind, that you mentioned, that seems to be mirrored in the "dashboard" of the brain structure and DNA itself. How does mind relate to DNA and influence it's changes and evolution? Also, MAL doesn't seem to be made of the same "stuff" as my mind. Just a small point to say that cats and dogs, who have phenomenological minds, do seem to dream so probably are able to have "dream alters"! In any case, thanks so much for your thoughts and this debate! 🌿
Hi, I've been following BK's work for quite some time and I think I can help you with some of your questions.
1) The "dashboard" is just the interface between us and MAL. We can have effects on MAL and vice versa, not directly, but through the dashboard. In the end, there is just mental stuff affecting mental stuff, which is easier to explain than scenarios where non-mental stuff affects mental stuff, and so on. This is Bernardo's point here.
2) There is no problem here, instead of Combination, Bernardo's arguments rely on Dissociation. When the dissociation ends, the contents are "combined" with MAL by definition. The remaining challenge is to explain Dissociation in the first place, which, in his opinion, is an easier problem to have compared to the Combination Problem in Panpsychism or the Hard Problem of Consciousness in Physicalism.
3) Here, it gets tricky, and that is true for every theory that states time is emerging. However, this does not mean that any concept like evolution, where time is essential (in fact, all communication would be impossible when thinking 'outside' time), cannot be used to explain your argument. Time still tells something essential and true about reality, and whatever "that" is, though as a projection, is what we experience as time.
4) I mean, this is the whole point about Idealism. What other "stuff" does it seem like? 😉
Hey skaleru thanks for your replies! I do have problems formulating my questions as I am not sure of what Bernardo means thru my own ignorance of philosophy and bad thinking! haha! What I mean is that MAL does not seem to be like my mind and seems alien and very different! We are supposed to be like it as we are dissociated from it but it seems very different. My dream alters don't seem different from "me" in my dreams, they feel the same - when I wake up - whereas I don't feel like my subjectivity is the same as MAL's! There are so many questions and details one could go into on most of his ideas! Thanks for taking the time to answer, though! :)@@skaleru772
@@kgrandchamp You can feel like a different person in your dreams because sometimes you don't remember waking life or you can even experience false memory syndrome.
I would also add that, from my own experience, I have taken psychedelics and I have felt like my mind was altered to the point where I wasn't even human anymore, and yet, in terms of consciousness, it was still me.
But the most profound experience was when I was using mindfulness meditation in an attempt to induce a wake-initiated lucid dream. What I stumbled upon, however, wasn't what I expected. All qualia had disappeared save for the experience of awareness itself. To this day I feel like no words can do it justice.
All thoughts and memories were gone, my earthly identity was gone, and I was in a state far divorced from conceptual reality. It was a blissful stillness, nothing weighed on me, like I was a luminous witness or a radiant emptiness. It was pure consciousness and it was clear. There was nothing to be aware of but itself (so definitely metacognitive) and something about it was both revelatory and unfathomable because there were no words to describe it and nothing to refer to it. I wasn't human, I wasn't anything but unperturbed consciousness. Even the concepts of time and space were gone. I could stay there forever!
Then, as soon as the thoughts came, the stillness and bliss were gone. The first subsequent thoughts were along the lines of, 'What is this?', 'Where am I?', 'Who am I?' and they paved a way for a narrative that would attempt to formulate answers and describe what was experienced. I became human again as though I needed to do so in order to attempt to map out that state. I needed to become something else in order to do it. The narrative of that pristine cognition is what you get from me which somehow doesn't do it justice.
But an insight remained. I know I didn't really become something else. At my core, I am precisely that formless, empty consciousness which transcends all conceptual reality. It's empty and yet capable of being filled with entire worlds. There was a radiant quality to it, like it had a creative principle. I speak about it as though it's separate from me but it is, in fact, the real me. I am just disassociated from such a pure state now because I identify as being this human being living this life.
I don't know about MAL, perhaps we can only truly experience it once we have shuffled off our mortal coil, but what I experienced could definitely qualify as primordial consciousness or the ground of being.
I hope this helps.
Wow Arlindo! What a beautiful, well written answer! Thanks so much! I have to reread your text to absorb it when I get back from my Sunday walk! haha! Your awareness and perceptions are way beyond my experience so I feel pretty humbled and thankful for your sharing your experiences with me! Have a great day! 🌿 @@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist
@@kgrandchamp You too. I'm only sorry that I can't quite capture it with words. I wasn't even looking for it. I stumbled upon it during meditation lying down. I've never experienced anything like it again and I'll never forget it. But, who knows, maybe one of these days when I do mind awake body asleep/rested exercise akin to mindfulness meditation.
13:50 Even if we can only study the relations of the dials, those dial are connected to aspects Mind-Independent reality (MIR), and those aspects must have the same relations as the dials, otherwise the dials would useless.
I don't see any reason (metaphysically) to give up on a MIR in favor of calling the
dials the physical world. In fact its a mistake. He is making the classical error of mistaking the representation for the thing represented.
Fantastic analysis and critique! Subscribing now
@32:00 not sure about your take here, but it was good leading up. There is no "problem of evil" in any true religious conception that is sane (if there are any that are sane and true is another question). If all things were all hunky dory we'd have no spiritual growth. But then everyone's perception of evil is relative. It's a relation, A < B just means say, A is "less good" than B. But then you get people doing things that are way down the scale of good, so far down we call them all "evil" because we literally cannot distinguish their heinousness. But just being able to recognize those extremes of "less good" is a form of spiritual enlightenment. The light cannot exist without the dark (I do not mean to be facile about that, it's deep). Throughout the history of science and mathematics we discover periodically the same general pattern over and over, for many things of importance there is often a negation, without its negation the thing would lose meaning.
Kastrup simply seems loath to ascribe meta-consciousness to the Er-Mind because it is a blemish. But it's not. It's worse to have no free will and life in a world free of suffering, than to live in a world with potential suffering and yet have free will to do something about it together, provided suffering has a divine purpose, which logically it must if there is a benevolent God. I mean to say, I've suffered a lot, more than I thought I could bear at times, but the worst of the pain fades, and I'm better for the experience not because of the pain of it but the way I overcame it. If you do not believe in a benevolent God then it's all rather banal, and the existence of minds who experience suffering is just a normal day at the office I suppose, with little purpose, how sad. I understand plenty accept this sad story. Which is doubly sad, but what more can I say?
Actually, I think you really nailed it well. The point you made about a putative Universal Mind also suffering the same as any other mind, was well made. It's not masochistic if there is a purpose to it, a good purpose. Without good purpose, yeah, I 'd say it was masochistic. But then the point is, who are way to say we know divine purpose? That'd be the ultimate hubris, worthy of a douche-bag of the century award (but I guess there's one born every century).
Congratulations. Great work.
I was waiting a looong time for the content of this video.
Kastrup is a brilliant and inspiring thinker, but sometimes seems too convinced of his own views (a common trace among brilliant people).
You offer a sensible critique of Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism, particularly the point about Universal Consciousness being less conscious than its own localized pockets (AKA humans). I do not know but I suspect that the primary motivation for this assertion by Bernardo is emotional in nature. It really boils down to the desire that God NEEDS humans to know Himself, which imbues human life with more meaning than any other paradigm possibly could. This meaning, I believe, is what Bernardo is trying to optimize for in his otherwise coherent theory. Furthermore, when operating within an Idealist framework, one can explain reality and all its contents, but he cannot comment on the nature of THAT which explains reality in the first place.
There is a quote in the Vedantic tradition that summarizes what I'm trying to say above: "What you are looking for, is what is looking."
We cannot comment on the nature/attributes of Universal Consciousness/Ground of Being/God because as dissociated minds, we can only speak of other dissociated aspects of that UC, never the UC itself.
Let me know what you think and thanks for reading!
Very pleased to discover this channel! I agree some of Kastrup's arguments for idealism are indeed flawed, as you rightly pointed out. I am keen to hear better arguments for idealism from you. Can you give me some links to your work, please? This is the first video I watched on this channel.
Thank you for the observations. Have you tried inviting Kastrup for an interview ?
That would be highly educationally valuable ?
Thanks 🙏
I have, twice now. Most recently a few weeks ago when I received a request to review his forthcoming book. Hopefully I'll be able to discuss my thoughts with him, but I haven't heard back. So if I don't hear soon I'll just produce another video like this one, but updated a bit, which would be a shame.
As someone who is a big fan of Kastrup as well as a staunch anti-realist (in the vein of Bas van Fraassen), I’ve never heard someone explain the realist-antirealist problem so well in the context of Kastrups arguments so thank you for that. What I interpret Kastrup as saying is that if you adopt a realist understanding of Evolution (which I’m not entirely clear if he does), then it ultimately becomes self defeating bc evolution is not geared at truth. This is the same line of argument that Plantinga takes in his evolutionary argument against naturalism or Donald Hoffman’s more recent user interface arguments. In some recent interviews, Donald Hoffman says because of this argument he actually doesn’t believe evolutionary theory is true and I bet if you pressed Kastrup he might say something similar but I don’t know. I liken this kind of argument to arguments in foundations of physics where the Copenhagen interpretation of the measurement problem posed an anti realist problem for people working in quantum mechanics WITHIN the paradigm of realist physics. As David Albert notes, there had always been philosophical reasons and arguments to be an antirealist but this was the first time the antirealist arguments were arising from within physics itself. I take Kastrup and Hoffman and Plantinga to be saying the same thing about evolutionary theory.
Thanks for the comment. There was an interview where he was asked about the Plantinga criticism of evolution and Kastrup dismissed it. So that is definitely not an argument Kastrup is making or endorsing.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy would love to see that interview if you knew which one
@@djazz393 Actually it was on Monistic Idealism's channel not long after my criticism video came out. Monistic put one of my objections to Kastrup in the interview but Kastrup misinterpreted it as recycling Plantinga's complaint and then dismissed it.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy awesome thanks! It’s been great going through your videos and finding more in depth discussion of idealism from someone very knowledgeable in the analytic tradition (I feel like you and Bernardo are some of the few). Was also wondering your thoughts about the realism-anti realism debates in the 80’s but specifically regarding laws of nature and causation (the Cartwright, van Fraassen, Lewis, Armstrong papers). In particular, I’m a van Frassen Stan but have hesitancy about his completely anti-metaphysical/Wittgensteinian approach to causation (contra Nancy Cartwright). I’ve been trying to reconcile a view about free will and agent causation with a form of idealism and scientific antirealism and was wondering what your thoughts are on causation and whether you think idealism is more amenable to either event or agent/substance causation (or is completely agnostic). I know Bernardo is a determinist and doesn’t believe in free will, but curious to hear your take.
@@djazz393 I believe in free will. Video on that coming soon.
Some interesting points. Here's two others from me:
1) If indeed brains are how metaconsciousnesses look like in Nature's dream, then if I have a dream and my dream avatar is undergoing brain surgery, let's say, it should always have a brain since that's how its avatar consciousness (my image in the dream) looks like in my dream. It should be impossible to have dreams where you open up your head and find nothing inside or something else than a brain.
2) What if we find out that disocciation (I mean the neurologic/psychiatric condition of humans) is actually false? Say, bad experiments, people lied, data was faked, whatever. Say we find out it's wrong and it's not actually true. Would the entire edifice upon which Analytic Idealism was constructed fall? Or would it somehow survive?
I have always wondered how a universal consciousness that is phenomenally conscious only can take advantage of the inputs of its dissociated alters that are metaconscious.
I agree that universal mind must be at least slightly metaconscious, since there’s nothing for it to know but itself.
26:30 onward was a really great line of critique especially
I don’t think I agree with the criticism around 3:00-10:00.
The entropy argument may not be the standard or even simplest critique of direct realism, but that view is so flimsy that even the fact that vision uses photons makes it fall apart, as photons arent like… little dots of colour whizzing around. Or like you said, the fact that it can’t explain illusions. Combining direct realism with pretty much any scientific fact is enough to send it spiraling into incoherency. Kastrup has simply combined direct realism with the fact that our mental states correlate with neural states. “Mirroring” is just the correlation that’s most “direct”
As for that particular possible form of perfect indirect realism you mentioned, it seems magical to think that the apple is entropic, and that your perception of it is entropic, but that the middle layer (brain) is not. This wouldn’t be a good place to hide from the entropy critique.
Now, I have actually talked to someone who took the view that our perceptual states were mirrors of the objective world. Like me, he was not a philosopher.
Regarding the nature of universal consciousness, I notice that Kastrup (in Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics, p.72) references Jung, in Answer to Job. Jung argues that God 'has no need of circumspection' as he does not face situations requiring him to reflect on himself, whereas humans undergo the travails of earthly existence and therefore develop circumspection. It seems as if Kastrup is keen to go along with Jung as far as he can. Having said that, as Nathan points out, Kastrup also believes that universal consciousness ultimately evolves along with all our experiences. I don't think Nathan and Bernardo are that far apart on this point.
Anyway, great presentation Nathan, it was a pleasure to watch and listen.
5:30 argument from imperfection is without merit: we know of nothing in this universe that is perfect: no perfect mirrors, no perfectly straight lines, no infinitely elastic collisions etc. etc.
Thanks for the video! I’m not that familiar with Kastrup’s work, but I didn’t quite see the problem with the evolutionary argument as you present it. If scientific realism is self-undermining, that is, if, on the assumption of scientific realism, you can draw antirealism as a conclusion, maybe because of the evolutionary considerations Kastrup mentions, then scientific realism can’t be right. I interpreted what you describe as illicitly moving from scientific realism to antirealism as a normal feature of a reductio argument. Granted, I don’t think idealism immediately falls out of this kind of argument against scientific realism, I just didn’t quite feel the force of the objection.
This video really completely destroys Kastrups philosophy as circular reasoning. Bernardo should find a new hobby.
Well, since our family had a ghostly encounter, the spirit parallel state of being is our Outlook ( ever since this happened ). Great channel and a very likeable presentation.
Tom, Brussels, Belgium.
I really like a lot of Bernardo's insights but do take note of him making very broad assertions without proof or explanation by moves on to explain a part of the insight that is just a general definition. It works like a slight of hand to give weight to an argument without actually discussing the merits of such a broad assertion.~20:00 "Once upon a time ..everything was one universal mind..then draws a circle over a representation of the early universe. (slight of hand; that does not to support his statement) ...now this one mind went under disassociation... now what is disassociation? (slight of hand; goes on to explain disassociation) as much as I like BK, it's almost insulting. For example here is me using that slight of hand: I am the King of the world, this cannot be disputed and everyone agrees. Now what is a King, A King is traditionally a man that as absolute power over his suggest, then I draw a picture of someone that looks like me.
I enjoyed your critique and learning about Kastrup's idealism. I'm a bit baffled about why he decides to retain a sort of Kantian phenomena and noumena divide (represented by the dashboard and whatever lies outside of it, which "is nothing like the dashboard"). I would think the big benefit of idealism lies in dissolving that divide in various ways so you don't have to explain how to bridge the two, otherwise he'd have to explain how we can know that universal consciousness is what lies beyond the dashboard (just as scientific realists have to explain how we can know that the world in itself is what scientific theories describe). Also, what does the 'analytic' in 'analytic idealism' refer to? I tend to think of analytic philosophy's focus on language and logic.
Very astute comments and I have similar concerns. Besides the term "analytic idealism" was already taken in the work of A C Ewing. I assume he called it that as Kastrup considers himself an analytic philosopher.
Thanks!@@AbsolutePhilosophy
"I'm a bit baffled about why he decides to retain a sort of Kantian phenomena and noumena divide"
1. Karl Friston's free energy principle
2. Donald Hoffman's fitness beats truth theorem
3. The general observation that there is an epistemic gap between minds and brains
4. The fact that your perception of the world is entirely dependent on your brain chemistry and anatomy.
etc. etc.
@@Sam-hh3ryNot the coherent narrative you want it to be, but ok…
@@christopherhamilton3621 lmao feel free to make an argument. Honestly it’s incredibly silly to defend naive realism in the first place and not even logically coherent if you are strict physicalist.
How do you know it's an apple? What things make it an apple? What collection of things do you filter to make it an apple?
23:05...Kastrup thinks there's insight in the "fact" that we don't say "I am hunger". However, Southeast Asians actually do say things like "I am headache".
I can see why Kastrop declined an interview :/
For a couple of years I have wondered whether Kastrup uses his occasional scientism-style reasoning for strategic appeasement to intellectual paradigms, or if he is intellectually committed here himself. I don't have an answer yet, and perhaps this is just the riddle Kastrup represents as a philosopher when seen from the outside. But it is good to watch someone discover similar issues!