I’m really glad you brought up the issue of psychedelics producing a similar state of consciousness to NDEs. I feel like this is an under appreciated issue. It further highlights that the only thing that truly evidences the reality of NDEs as more than brain chemistry is Veridical perception.

Fascinating 🧐

Kastrup concedes that the material is a view of the mental, effectively dual aspect monism where mind and matter are the same thing and neither can affect the other. If we accept that there is no need to apply the word mind or matter to the universe as fundamental, since they are just views and to destroy the distinction to make mind pre-eminent (or matter, for that matter) is kind of tripping over our own 2 feet.

We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur? Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one. Billions showed up after this one. None of them seem to have created my existence. This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others All bodies are made of the same elements. All brains have the same basic anatomy. If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously. A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once. I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different. Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs? When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question. If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in Antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room? According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence. Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject. As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual. One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case. In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.

Wonderful video, thank you very much I read those things very well defended in a recent book “the direct experience the way of non duality”; I am sure you would like it

It is really real, because reality is just another word for certain known physical systems.

Personally, I don't like the word "divine." It's divisive. The word "divine" conjures an impenetrable wall between God and Humankind as a result of Humankind believing it is somehow inferior and undeserving of ever achieving the level of being considered to be Divine. The Divine is unachievable, which inevitably fosters an underlying tension and frustration which ultimately must lead to a fundamental sense of unworthiness. We're part of God, a part without which God is incomplete, which is impossible. It's why we have that sense of value, that somehow we have an importance. With regard to whether God (Primary Consciousness) is meta conscious, the idea that we - the acknowledged Lessor of God - have meta consciousness while God does not seems nothing more than a continuation of the historically typical human hubris of somehow being the pinnacle of something. It seems logically much more plausible that our meta consciousness is but a nascent reflection of the essence we think of as God, and that essence is meta conscious beyond our wildest imaginings at our lessor station. Shalom 🙏

Great content😊

There is no god. Stop imagining things that dont exist.

I totally disagree with bernardo when he keeps referring to us as monkeys, we are unique species on this planet

I know how this is going to come across but I'm going to lay it all out anyway. I understand why all 220+ theories that Kuhn has listed, are incomplete. There is a "Kobayashi Maru" condition at the fundamental layer of language itself that is prohibiting the advancement of human consciousness into a higher level of Self-Awareness. This is different and compact, but if you are able to get it, well that's "omniscience" (you will know the singular Truth). you tu.be/KjM1B0rHT4k? si=jzHRuCfR_V-6pv0b This is a quote from my paper to cambridge university: "‘Nothing’ is a lag between the evolution itself (the intuition that Self is not the body) and the language used to express this new level of Self-Awareness." www.nonconceptuality .org/post/my-submission-to-a-cambribge-university -contest-it-didn-t-make-the-final-round-imagine-that I'm not a crackpot. All of this follows basic simple reasoning that everyone can understand. If you start coming to see what is actually being presented, we should talk. 🙏

Glad you made raum for Lebens, for a more expansive discussion

Enjoyed that. 👍

That was super interesting.

Thanks for sharing such valuable information! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?

8:51 Scientific research of Dr. Nima Arkani Hamed (mathematical physicist) reveals that geometry can exist independently or without relying directly on "space" and/or "time" coordinates. Thus, "space" and "time" are not ontologically fundamental, and information (creation) can thereby exist independent of "space" and "time". Accordingly, the "past' and "future" are concepts/ideas that are not real, but rather "human illusions" that emerge as a function of human inability to perceive information without its distortion and bifurcation by human physiology. This aligns with ancient spiritual wisdom realizing that there is no "past" or "future", and that all of reality is in "the present moment"..

Hmm.. it is possible..

Being your own reality seems an absurdity when reality is all there is. Thoughts of god are not god, that which can be percieved is not the perciever, the seeker is the sought.

Links to video sources in the description.

Host…….YOU talk too much! Please listen and check just how long YOU go on!

From the perspective of rapt contemplative engagement I think homo absconditus, deus absconditus sums it up quite well.

Being is the fundamental unchanging Universal structure and foundation of existence, Being. Thing's like energy and light, geometry, maths, aware intelligence and consciousness, the realm of perfect forms. The physical world is an extension and reflection of the unchanging perfect forms and is always changing, becoming. This is Platonic Idealism if you've read Plato's works. Realm of ideal forms, the spiritual realm, Being would translate to objective Universal constant unchanging Truth. Becoming in the physical realm would translate to constant change, subjective truth. Plato and Socrates believed we can come to knowing in few ways, first through mind, imagination, contemplation, logic and reason, and through observations and thought and questioning, evaluation, scientific studys and tests etc etc. Socrates says mystics come to know through a kind of genius, but they don't know how they know what they know, this is where propper Science comes in. Its why the old Philosophers were the pioneer's of Science. They laid the ground work for propper Scientific enquiry and Socratic method of questioning everything, as Socrates says, the unexamined life is not worth living. The Universal Logos is the aware intelligence in our cells, its same in everything at the base, i can get by consciousness but not by energy and light and an aware intelligence. The aware intelligence and Universal Mind in Nature is the base and foundation of consciousness, its the different physical forms and biology of everything which determines the different structured layers of consciousness.

🙏🙏🙏💚💚💚 The total number of minds in the Universe is one . In fact , Consciousness is a singularity phasing within all beings . This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of the entire existence , but is in a certain sense the whole . ~ Erwin Schrödinger

Awesome ❤

Although I appreciate a good debate, this was not that. Mr. Hart makes quite a few assumptions and generally untrue statements about Jung. Whether intentional or not, it's my opinion that Mr. Hart approached this topic with his inevitable deeply religious bias. His(Mr. Hart) clear bias and dogmatic perspective of Jung, God and the Bible raise all kinds of red flags for me; and honestly make it hard to watch, let alone take seriously as a good argument. As many of the other comments state, a one on one debate with Kastrup would be preferable...and here comes my bias...I also think it be very evident that Mr. Harts dogmatic house of cards would be on display.

Mankind needs a belief system. He needs to search his entire Life something he will never be sure about…to often admit there is nothing to look for when its narcissist défense system goes down at the end of his life. For me it is simpler to live my life knowing this. At least it is a belief system I can be sure about ;) Once you admit that….every theory is more or less the same…. We live in an illusion.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGa7pHp7ZZikhpYsi=HwhaWRxTvDm_zXW0

Im so glad i smoked before i watched thus

As this is the first in this series, I'd welcome feedback in what you liked and what you found less helpful:)

I belong to a book discussion group that goes by the name of The Philosophy Group. Free Will discussions arise regularly, with the usual arguments being offered, plus, recently, complicating thoughts re personal responsibility. As one who was raised and educated Roman Catholic, I find such discussions so tedious - and even childish since they go back, for me and many other people my age, to age seven (First Condession and First Communion). When I process the question now it seems obvious that , practically speaking, we are free to be ourselves, and we are free to do what might be viewed by ourselves as “the right thing.” These factors can be viewed as what makes our actions “determined,” but what’s the benefit of even asking the question? We do and must value personal responsibility, regardless of beliefs about so-called free will - which began as a theological question to justify ideas around The Fall, Satisfaction/Atonement, reward and punishment in the hereafter, and justifying the influence and power of the Catholic Church over everyone’s lives in the West. Thinkers who claim determinism negates responsibility are taking themselves way too seriously, and I don’t think they deserve out attention, That I feel this way results inevitably from my history and my temperament. I cannot possibly choose to hold the opposite view at this time. Re Bernardo’sviews on free will, they are for me merely philosophical entertainment. When less thoughtful others talk about free will, I often find such talk tedious and childish. Yet here I am commenting on this video for at least the 2nd time after having viewed and enjoyed this video for at least the 2nd time. I can’t help acting out being my obviously confused self.. And so it goes, round and round. To clarify and add to the impression of confusion, I very much enjoy carefully framed philosophical statements and suggestions such as TranscendentPsych’s video essay here. Plus, I am very invested in understanding Bernardo Kastrup. Plus, I very much appreciate TranscendentPsych’s appreciation for and understanding of the religious perspective, which, from my perspective, is sui generics. I’m a big fan.

🇷🇺☦Yes, DBH, unless you repent, just like the false gods, as a man you will perish, along with your heretical Origenist modernist ideology, in the everlasting fire of Sheol...🤌

Bernardo is the man, after listening to lots of his ideas and after reading some of his books, I’m not longer a materialist his arguments are just flawless, thanks for the video.

Bernardo admits that metacounsciousness is a capability, potential of Universal Consciousness but not a property. I got this confirmed when I asked where would metaconsciousness go at the end of the last metacounscious being, heat death of the universe, etc. It could not just simply dissapear and remains as a potential, to (maybe) be expressed again. But this brings forth other problems as this means that the inherent scaffolding of metacounsciousness was already there albeit unexpressed.

Consciousness is all that actually exists. Everything we experience is Perception In Consciousness.

I'd like your opinions on my video called, "The Idealist Inference Argument for Immaterialism." I'm a therapist and it informed this argument. If you search the title, you can find it. Loved your video and subscribed ❤

Love this digest! You mention a publication from Hart on consciousness, would it be possible for you to share a link? Many thanks

If conciousness isn't a product of the brain then why can we be knocked out, or become inebriated by drugs and alcohol to the point of becoming unconcious?

Thanks, I have been trying to understand the old Norse:English concepts of Wyrd and Orlog.. I have lifted the next bit from an article that explains it better than I could. The outcomes of the past inform our present reality; present reality informs our present actions; present actions inform future outcomes; future outcomes manifest and become outcomes of the past. The cycle continues ever onward. However, this process isn’t linear and isolated; the actions of others can also affect us and our actions can affect them. The outcomes of those actions can in turn affect other people, provoking more actions, and so on. Actions and outcomes weave in and out of one another to create the Web of Wyrd. Orlog can be thought of as the threads. The old Norse art of seidr enables the sorcerer to manipulate the web to produce the outcomes of their desires. Which implies a transcendent meta consciousness that could lift us above the primal laws of cause and affect

Kastrup's big problem is he's an idealist, so in an ideal world his statements would be true, but we don't live in that world, so he's mostly wrong

Other criticism of BK: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJW9iISbaZuZZ7csi=XZOL3hbwDTV7Vs4d

Superb English accent and manner indeed, on top of all the thought put in. Subscribing. (A beautiful reminder of Attenborough, but dreadful now to realise that "Soonack" Sunak and co have similar too, eloquently aiding the destruction of the our fellow human beings and their loved ones in Gaza and Ukraine!!🥶)

"Rational free will" seems to say that we are forced into our choices by our considered deliberations! (And one could say that each is forced into whatever degree of added deliberation by his temperament). Currently, it seems to me that the only genuinely (ie not redefined for philosopher's comfort) free will trickles in through what, in physics, we call quantum randomness/indeterminism. Because, indeed, let's not fall into the trap of begging the question...Whatever degree of free will exists in nature would appear, to an observer, as randomness.

We have free will, we can choose to self delete, however we are also a distinct part of nature.... It's the duality of being human...

I keep wondering about the role of temperament, and any distinctions between temperament and will. To what extent, if any, are we free to choose to act counter to our temperament? Truly questions for a transcendental psychotherapist.

I feel I need to view this video again to better appreciate it. but at this moment I don’t know if I actually will or not. If I do view it again or if I don’t will be a consequence of what? How can I know if my action or inaction will have been my choice or my fate? What difference will it make if I lean one way or the other? What is the significance of the free will question? I do know that thinking about free will gives me a heads headache

Im a big fan of bernardo kastrup but the subject of free will i find very difficult to get my head around

Interesting! I've always held the sort of Schopenhauer view. We can do what we will, but we can't Will what we Will. For example I can have a chocolate or an apple, but my desire for apples and chocolate comes from my nature and environment. I can't seem to make myself want things other than my wants.

Excellent! One point though. I was intrigued by your squeamishness about the God word. Because it seems to me you go on later in the video to paint an accurate picture of that entity, (provided your hearer is not hung up by myths from thousands of years ago). What do you understand to be the difference between God and what you describe?

Fascinating stuff. I wish I could share Addison’s faith that the future of Christianity is mystical, but I see one glaring problem here - the abundance of contemporary mystical experience testimonies, most notably NDEs. I think most people are aware of the standard NDE blueprint - the tunnel, meeting relatives, the being of unconditional love, but there are many exceptions to this. loads of them. One can find on KZbin hundreds of testimonies from people claiming to have met Jesus, claiming to have been given a tour of the afterlife, including infernal realms full of unspeakable horrors. Some even see their deceased relatives in torment. There are of course contradictions across these “Christian” accounts (as there are between most NDEs), but their existence should give us pause. I personally find the phenomenon deeply troubling as I wonder what kind of god would allow such confusion, possible deception, and evil (if the infernalist visions are to be believed). I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot of talk in certain spheres of Christianity about the need to reenchant the world (I’m thinking DBH, Millbank, Stephen Clarke, Pageau, Mark Vernon etc) but very little talk about this phenomenon, which is surely hugely significant if we’re encouraging a return to a mystical faith. NDEs aside, but on a related note, there’s also a growing trend within some Pentecostal movements of otherworld journeying, with many claiming, like Paul, to have been whisked up into the heavenly or infernal realms. Some are possibly lying, but I don’t think we can discount them all. For many, the cosmos is enchanted to the utmost degree - with occult spiritual forces behind everything, and a pathological preoccupation with evil spirits, curses and spiritual bondage. Pentecostalism is the fastest growing religious movement worldwide, and these once fringe ideas are becoming more mainstream, so we’re going to have to explain them if we’re going to have an honest conversation about spirituality and the nature of reality. I personally wonder what the heck is going on! Has anyone else thought much about these matters?

Addison and Rupert should have a talk. Both are very wise❤