ATTEMPTED MURDER BY FEDERAL INTELLIGENCE WHO WERE DISGUSTED BY BLACKS: The abuse of Government intelligence and its psychological approaches: The presence of federal intelligence has applied inspired versions of the Rorsarch Project. The popular project that presents inkblots drawings to patients. The psychiatrist would ask the patients their perspective of what they gather from various inkblots. Intelligence today presents activity in the form of charades while anticipating what the victim will assume or think>>> DECEPTION BY SADISTIC RACISTS WHO SECRETLY MONITOR WAYS TO ABUSE VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT BY REFERRING THEM AS N***GRS The presence of abusive federal intelligence collections originated while my father, a filipino navy recruiter was stationed on Clark Airforce Base. My mother a black woman would also follow inner ear communications while she also was being evaluated by Intelligence who hated and was disgusted by blacks in which in 2022 I was referred to N****GR by their hackers. Before the internet federal intelligence 1981 would have my father place in alone with a strange man to learn my behavior by forming a neglectful event where I would be placed in a strange home with a man. This would allow U.S intelligence gather collect intel on just a specific aspect of my response behavior. ** SPECIFIC ASPECT BENEFICIAL FOR INTERNAL ABUSE OF INTELLIGENCE FOR CRIMINAL INTENTIONS BY ANALYSTS WHO WERE RESENTFUL OF BLACKS WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY** Later the agency would influence my parents divorce upon return to the United States. I would then be targeted for continued homicidal purposes. Placed in different environment and lifestyles to incite a seizure, alcohol and whatever intel the agency could use to subject me to 2019 traumatizing operation/ PsyOps operation that would apply very specific intel to cause paranoia , mental triggers and guilt-slinging within a fish-like bowl operation to cycle these abuses while familiarizing themselves with victims/targets logic & behavior. ( COORDINATED ACTIVITY BY OTHERS WHO FOLLOW INNER EAR COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AGENCY WHO ORIGINALLY GUIDED MY FATHER IN HAVING A MAN MOLEST & ATTEMPTED MURDER ME OVERSEAS CLARK AIRFORCE BASE ) Today U,S intelligence covert monitoring is conducted in the apartment they located after facilitating my fathers marital affair and racially intimidating both my mother and I . Today referred to as a SCRAPSHEET N****GR for Federal Government abusive psychological inducing practices: THE AGENCY EXERCISES THE VICTIMS MENTALITY TO QUICKLY MENTALLY CONNECT OR ASSOCIATE FAMILIAR DETAILS. THE ANALYSTS MENTALLY EXERCISES THEN DESSMINATES THE INFORMATION THAT EXERCISES THE MIND. THE HACKER-ANALYST WHO DID NOT HAVE THE INTERNET WHEN THEY ASSISTED MY FATHER WITH A MARITAL. WHO DID NOT HAVE THE INTERNET WHEN THEY RACIALLY INTIMIDATE MY MOTHER AND I. NOW WITH THE INTERNET THE AGENCY INVOLVED IN ATTEMPTED MURDER, NOW ATTEMPTS MURDER HOMICIDE THROUGH BY EXERCISING THE MIND OF THE VICTIM TO FAMILIARIZE AND ASSOCIATE THE GIVEN, PRESENTED ACTIVITY TO THE VICTIM. THIS CYCLE OF INFORMATION OR DETAIL IS THEN SEEN NOTICED OBSERVED BY THE VICTIM THEN DESSMINATED INTO INTELLIGENCE MEDIA RESOURCES LIKE A RELAY-BATON OF INFORMATION FOR THE VICTIM TO NOTICE WITHIN VARIOUS CHANNEL OF MEDIA. THE INTEL INFORMATION USED TO EXERCISE THE THE VICTIMS MENTALITY . *** the agency now conveys the following message: MATCH THE INFORMATION IN YOUR MIND N***GR AND DIE HAVE A STROKE AND DIE N***GR *** MATCH THIS INFORMATION IN YOUR MIND N***GR AND DIE *** MATCH THIS INFORMATION IN YOUR MIND N***GR AND SUFFER A STROKE *** MATCH THIS INFORMATION IN YOUR NAPPY HEAD AND HAVE A SEIZURE !!! THIS IS THE INTENT OF U.S INTELLIGENCE WHO WAS ASSOCIATED TO THE SURVEILLANCE OF MICHAEL QUIJANO OVERSEAS ON CLARK AIRFORCE BASE THE AGENCY REFERS TO BLACKS AS INFE RIOR SINCE 1981 AND HELPING A FILIPINO NAVY RECRUITER CHEAT ON HIS BLACK WIFE. . referred to as N***GR then arranges a mental trigger as a subtle threat by those who was involved in racially intimidating both my mother and I. An approach to influence self hate while Federal intelligence uses media for patronizing displays of seen in customized media as appearing non-threading while being abused by Intelligence gathering surveillance within the apartment monitored by racists involved in helping my father cheat with a younger mistess. LYING DECEITFUL CRIMINAL INTENT ABUSE OF INTERNAL USE OF INTELLIGENCE RESOURCES BY PRETENDING TO BE NON-THREATING. message from U.S intelligence :" PROVE IT, N****GR " - intelligence analysts/

Anybody else find Chomsky's response to the spacetime question totally dissatisfying? 18:18 "Newton showed we have no notion of the physical." "What about Einstein and relativity and curvature of spacetime?" "That's a classic mistake. Newton was concerned with the mechanical philosophy. Spacetime continuum is even more remote form that than action-at-a-distance. Newton wondered a skilled artisan could construct this world." So?? We have the notion of the physical _now_ I've been trying for years to find Chomsky addressing this directly, finally found it, and are you kidding me? "those 17th century people couldn't demonstrate a notion of the physical. Their minds would have been blown by relativity and spacetime.... so dualism is incorrect because we have no notion of the physical" still today??

AI should be called AU for artificial unintelligence. Suppose I need to know if I can build a boat form cement. System A computes the answer by finding the probabilistic connections between BOAT, CEMENT, CAN, FLOAT in a pattern that parses to a yes or no answer. System B answers by a calculation that checks if the weight of the boat can be made less than water weight of the boat's volume so that the cement structure will be strong enough to withhold the water pressure . The two systems are doing completely different things even if they give the same answer. A human engineer would act like B, ChatGPT does A. Why is this not obvious to everyone ? The only reason why AI is semi-interesting is that it kind of gives the right answers DESPITE strategy A. But this only reveals something about the statistical structure of language, it does not show that the app "thinks" or "knows" anything or solves problems. .It may be "solving" MY problem but that is not the same as Problem-Solving.

Hi cdu students

Hi Richard, I'm glad you called him out on this ! But in fact what he says is even worse - much worse - because he is grossly misrepresenting the neuroscience evidence. Yes, the BOLD signal is reduced in fMRI studies of psychedelic effects and yes, that is paralleled by a reduction of the average firing rate of most neurons. But fMRI does not have the temporal or spatial resolution to reveal critical details of how neuronal activity is changed. When higher resolution methods are used (MEG, direct recording of spikes and LFP) the picture is completely different. In addition to the reduction of average rates, there is a gross disorganization of the pattern of activity. De novo abnormal gamma frequency bursts appear in the hippocampus and visual areas, there are specific cell groups the PFC that increase their average activity, the coherence/synchronization between areas changes, the LFP power spectrum is different, intracellular signaling including synaptic plasticity regulation is altered etc. So what the evidence shows is that ABNORMAL activity equals ABNORMAL EXPERIENCES. Wow! Who would have thought ? This is evidence FOR, not against, the neuronal basis of experience and physicalism!! And he actually knows this. P. Churchland described the evidence to him at a publicly available discussion. This is what pisses me off. I don't care if he wants to make a joke of himself with his sci fi nonsense, but I don't want the whole culture of epistemic solipsism and straight fraud to invade neuroscience (well, any further than it already has....).

Brown: Tom, do you agree that regular calculators are not doing addition? Tom: Yes, absolutely! Because they're not doing it correctly. They stop, make mistakes. Calculators are dumb. Me: Add that to the Tjump satirical lexicon.

Why don't you get Bernardo on your show? He has come on other shows that have questioned his theories, and answered them. If he knows your background, my guess is he will oblige.

Did u see his video with curt jaimungal from 2 years ago.

Mark tetzner here: under idealism the idea is that in some instances when the brain gets damaged the alter gets pierced and like so external mental contents impinge into the eddy.

9:05 "we don't really know what all this activity that we're looking at is really doing, we have very crude ways of measuring the level of activity, and we're not even really sure exactly what we're looking at." - This is exactly what I meant when I said in our exchange that the empirical argument against leeway freedom and interactionist substance dualism doesn't work. We would need to much more about brain activity to make a case against interactionism on that basis.

Perhaps Bernardo did not discuss this point in that interview, although I know he has done so elsewhere. But there is more to this phenomenon than you are discussing. Specifically, psychedelics, etc., shut down or diminish areas of the brain "required" for learning, visualization, etc. according to current neurological understanding. At least if I am remembering this research on psychedelics accurately. It's been some time since I read it. A much better example is the near-death experience of Eben Alexander, in a coma for a week or more due to very sever bacterial meningites. There are extensive medical notes of his condition, which have been reviewed by many physicians. And his brain was SHUT DOWN, relative to these higher cognitive function areas. That's the critical issue. The brain stem does not generate these types of experiences; nor do many other areas of the brain. As far as system "connectivity," I still know of no neurological data that says you can have system connectivity supporting these higher functions that does not include these parts of the brain that were wiped out by Alexander's meningites. Lastly, though materialists can issue even more promissory notes, claiming it's still possible to explain such phenomena strictly physically, it is clearly the weaker explanation, given pretty conventional understandings of IBE (inference to the best explanation), relative to certain other non-physicalist explanations. So perhaps this one thing does not "debunk" physicalism, but it does and should lower anyone's credence in physicalism. Put enough of these credence-lowering phenomena together, which we can easily do (NDEs, psychedelic research, psi phenomena, the hard problem of consciousness, etc.), then that credence becomes very low indeed.

Kastrup says, quote, "under physicalism (...), an impairment of brain function should always correlate with impaired cognition". This premise is only seemingly a part of his argument, because it's not what his counterexamples target. His counterexamples concern brain damage on one hand and some kind of cognitive improvement on the other. Here's Kastrup's argument, rephrased for clarity, so the dubiousness of his premise (2) is not obscured: 1) For a materialist, the brain is the mind (let's ditch the nuance and just grant this). 2) If the brain is the mind, then damage to the brain must not result in any changes to the mind that we would judge as beneficial. 3) But there are cases counterfactual to 2. 4) Therefore the brain is not the mind. I phrased this target claim (2) in the weakest possible way. Even so, it's obviously absurd. Kastrup is a "smart guy"? I have yet to see evidence of it. All I've seen from him is transparent sophistry.

Use this one trick to debunk physicalism! (MATERIALISTS HATE THIS!)

Light mode is pro toto EVIL.

"The mind is identical to the brain" is so, so much more problematic than anything Bernardo is saying. Nowhere else in nature or in science are we comfortable saying "A is B even though there is no kind of a priori entailment whatsoever from truths about A to truths about B." Imagine if Maxwell had just said "I’ve done it! Electricity just is magnetism" without offering any kind of theoretical framework showing how truths about one can entail truths about the other. Also, Bernardo has written a couple papers laying out this same argument in the level of technical detail you seem to be expecting from this interview. It goes into detail regarding inhibitory processes, how ‘brain activity’ should be understood, what the physicalist model actually entails with respect to NCCs, etc. I absolutely don’t think the argument is a slam dunk case against physicalist views but it exposes a very strange and real thing about the mind and brain relationship that at minimum conflicts with naive physicalist views of how it ought to work. You’d think that for someone interested in consciousness, understanding the state of the brain during psychedelic states, meditative states, etc. would be the real point of interest here.

Thanks for this response!

Bernardo Kastrup is a liar. He's not just mistaken; he has a PhD in computer science and philosophy, so he knows better. He lies about science to rationalize idealism. He has no evidence or sound reason to support his claims, but doesn't need any when making claims about idealism, because the claims are BS. He comes from the William Lane Craig school of philosophy, where honesty isn't valued.

Yes, Bernardo, this one thing DOES debunk physicalism!

No critique of the brain and mind can debunk physicalism because physicalism has no theory for how exactly brain stuff relates to mind stuff. The hard problem remains unsolved even in theory! You can't show a contradiction or problem with a theory that doesn't exist.

The first sentence sounds cognition is generated __exclusively__ by the brain, which is definitely wrong :D But that's how these philosophers sound, clueless.

I think anomalous cases like he describes are really important when trying to understand the brain and cognition, because they show not what's usual, but what's possible, and those possibilities set criteria that have to met by any theory. Not just here but in any such endeavor, it's underappreciated imo that exceptions can be more important than rules. That all said, although I'm not a physicalist, I agree this in no way debunks physicalism for the reasons you give.

Bernardo is a joke why bother?

Unrelated but love your beard

Bernardo does not explain why or how mental illnesses can be explained using his alter theory of personhood. Different personalities, basically.

hello, it's a pity you didnt continue your thoughtful comments. If you had got to the end of my talk, maybe you would have been convinced that the sensorimotor approach really does dissolve the hard problem, in somewhat the same way as the problem of the ether, the problem of force at a distance, the problem of life and the vital spirit, were dissolved in the past. Please contact me and we can have a discussion over video if you like.

Hi Richard. If you held that type C is unstable and identities need explanation, would you still be inclined to endorse type B?

Truly enjoying this as a philosophy major

23:45 starting at the fundamental physics level is a bad idea for thinking about consiousness why is that? it seems to me that the fundamental physics level informs us about the pieces we have to work with. if someone wants to propose something utterly different, why should it be entertained?

There is a perfectly logical argument for the probable existence of a God who is not unlike an open-theist Trinity. You can find it on my blog (which is linked to on my KZbin channel), or via this link: enigmanically.blogspot.com/2023/05/proof_26.html

Portanto, a arte em filosofar consiste em inverter a ordem de inquirir invertendo a referencia da argumentacao comecando na abstracao e desenvolver o juizo da conclusao na direcao da realidade concreta evitando cair em introducao de defeito no sistema sendo construido.

Noam is being a bit clever here. First off, the relevant framing here isn’t, “is there a physical world”, but is there a reality OTHER than the empirical reality? So, is he denying the reality of my subjective experience in a dream? We could then argue how this “apparent” reality- that of first person subjective experience- differs from empirical reality from the standpoint of an objective study. If there can’t be an objective study of the subjective by our current scientific method- which include hypothesis forming- then has he ANY frikkin idea how we bridge the gap between, “reality exists” AND “we have no scientific purchase upon it”. This gulf is where likely new science will happen. Chomsky keeps trying to force the discussion to the old paradigm. DUDE!

Maybe a bit random, but a few times I had an impression that some people seem to accept determinism (and maybe some other similar philosophical positions) because they haven't really done substantive mental work on themselves, like making deliberate effort to retrain their mind to have different habits of thinking, etc.

What definition of free-will are we using here???

A beautiful lecture

Professor, would you say logic is the foundation of philosophy?

Goff did respond to the shombies argument though? It'd be nice if he developed the response and put it in print, but he did respond during your episode with him. He said that the zombie argument and shombie argument are symmetrical and both concievable, but only if you accept dual carving, and if you reject dual carving, zombies are conceivable and shombies aren't, and he argued we should reject dual carving. Is there anything that response misses, or do you just accept dual carving?

Unrelated to the topic of the video, but I wondered if you would consider a discussion with Graham Priest. I know he's a logician and not a philosopher of mind, but his views on god-particularly as they have manifested themselves through eastern traditions-nothingness as the ground of reality, metaphysics, physicalism, etc. would be interesting to engage with as I'm sure you could push him further than most interviewers who have talked to him for YT videos.

Hey RIchard. You had one of my favorite conversations with Bernardo Kastrup. He's promoting his new book and it would be so fun to hear you guys dive in again. Have you reached out?

i haven't read your shombies paper yet (apologies). But from the sounds of it, you are making a type-b physicalist move like the one katalin balog makes in "in defense of the phenomenal concept strategy", where she suggests, among other things, that it's conceivable that a (minimal) physical duplicate of our world is a phenomenal duplicate. If so, then the second premise of the conceivability argument linking an epistemic gap to a metaphysical gap is conceivably false and -- given that this principle if true is true *a priori* -- it is false. hence, the conceivability argument fails at premise 2. does that sound right to you? i don't know if that's what frankish had in mind back when he wrote the anti-zombies paper, but with his turn to illusionism, he seems much more in the type-a camp.

Wouldn't the symmetry to the zombie argument (such as to put their conceivability's in conflict) need to be a kind of "conceivability of a lack of a conceptual gap between physical and phenomenal properties", or in other words, a "conceivability of the inconceivability of zombies"? But wouldn't this be incoherent for those who find zombies conceivable in the first place? Wouldn't the mere positive conceivability of x necessarily commit one to denying the notion of its own inconceivability, thereby shombies/ anti-zombies? It certainly seems that the conceivability of zombies is more readily apparent than their being inconceivable such as to, if nothing else, grant more weight to "zombies-over-anti-zombies-conceivability" compared to the alternative. If the only point is that conceivability isn't in-itself anywhere close to a sufficient guide to metaphysical possibility, then that's obviously fair. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted anything (or everything).

JOSH WEISBERG ❤❤❤❤

Nice, I never get tired of those

Philosophy KZbin BEEF

I really recommend to anyone watching and interested in the shombies argument to read Professor Brown’s paper Deprioritizing the A Priori Arguments Against Physicalism where this is discussed. I think you allude to this paper but didn’t give the name of it. I think it is a great paper and I find your case very convincing. Thanks for this response video!

So a shombie is a duplicate of you? Without being you? How do we know they are not identical?

I think the shombie argument is effective for showing conceivability is an unreliable guide to metaphysical possibility, I have pointed to it a few times when p-zombies are brought up. A lot of people misunderstand it for some reason, or maybe I am the one who is misunderstood. A common critique is that the shombie argument uses conceivability to go right to metaphysical necessity while p-zombies shows a metaphysical possibility which undermines a metaphysical necessity, but I don't think this is the case. I think you're just showing a symmetrical inverse argument holds up with the same strength, which undermines Chalmers' use of conceivability as a guide to possibility in the first place. At 11:50 - I find this distinction confusing. What do you mean by "real"? Is it possible to expand on what you are thinking of in this aspect of your argument? I was under the impression that Keith thinks the appearance of phenomenal consciousness IS "real" in that the appearance is a real part of the physical structure and function of physical consciousness, but it is the ontological status of this appearance as a special, intrinsic property beyond the physical that is not real, which is what actually constitutes the illusion. I think this would line up with what you say here. Is this not the case? I know there are some forms of illusionism that do fully deny phenomenal consciousness, but I thought Keith's conception was different?

So the shombies argument is just against non-physicalism that claims physicalism is impossible? I am a non-physicalist and don't claim that physicalism is impossible, so it doesn't apply to my view?