Bernardo Kastrup on the Nature of Reality: Materialism, Idealism, or Skepticism

[@tartarus1478]

Kastrup blows me away every time he speaks. I love watching any content that includes him

[@jackhammer111]

If you can't Dazzle them with your Brilliance baffle them with your b*******

[@casparrii]

I love that Michael Shermer and Deepak chopra are friends now. It's somehow enormously cathartic, like the two warring psychological factions in my own mind have found a way to be chill with eachother

[@matswessling6600]

Deepak .. another charlatan.

[@cloud1stclass372]

I really like Michael Shermer. I find myself far more in agreement with Bernardo, but I truly admire Michael’s willingness to engage with people he disagrees with. He’s a true skeptic. Have to respect that.

[@johnnyfmorgan]

I agree. some sceptics use the label as a shield to protect themselves from truly engaging with new ideas, not shermer. kastrup, though, is a real dynamo and constantly challenges me.

[@manofTao]

Kastrup is mind boggling to many a philosopher and i can imagine a few fidgeting in their discomfort trying to hold their integrity while struggling to grasp the flow, yet as an average guy i realise how his interpretations resonate with my undestanding of things that i got to from growing up in a western society and then discovering Buddhism and Taoism, the Tao te ching being a massive turning point in my view of existence. Great interview! Cheers

[@SebastianLundh1988]

Kastrup is one of the great thinkers of our time.

[@bor1490]

Better than that, he is able to combine imagination with thinking.

[@monkkeygawd]

Soooo true👍

[@S.G.Wallner]

Here here!

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

@@S.G.Wallner methinks you mean "hear! hear!". 🤔

[@LeftBoot]

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices what does Dharma say about Transhumanism topics?

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

It's very exciting to be alive to witness a change of a paradigm in the world. We still don't know what's going to replace materialism, but we're surely going to expand our understanding of reality.

[@B1bLioPhil3]

Idealism is here to stay.

[@ezbody]

All it takes is to simply observe people use their imagination to constantly, EAGERLY make stuff up while sincerely believing what they just made up, to understand that we are nowhere near to facing the reality (or what many people call "materialism"). Materialism, in its most basic, simply means the things we UNDERSTAND, while what people call "supernatural/idealism" are the things people IMAGINE. Note, that in order to achieve scientific understanding, one must follow the rules. It's like playing a game of chess -- if you don't follow the rules, the game becomes meaningless. In the same manner, what the idealists are doing is ultimately meaningless; as far as I can see they aren't even trying to follow the rules (scientific method), and the problem with their methodology is that there is, potentially, an unlimited number of ways to explain anything, that's why idealism trying to GUESS the correct answer from an unlimited number of options has pretty much zero chance of reaching the correct conclusion. It's like being obsessed with gambling, constantly loosing, and yet continuing to believe that eventually you will start to consistently make money -- we, humans, have been through it many times before, and yet we continue to insist on using a proven to be 100% unreliable methodology. Yes, idealism might be true, but not because some people want it to be true. To find out whether it is true -- follow the rules. Anything else is dishonest, and subject to immediate dismissal.

[@2CSST2]

People have been saying this form materialism for ages, it's not changing just like empiricism is staying the de facto way of understanding the world

[@Pheer777]

Yeah I can't quite explain it but I can almost feel a tangible shift in the air away from the "New Atheism" of the late 00s towards a more philosophically and spiritually mature conversation

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@B1bLioPhil3 lol no it isn't. It is consider a pseudo philosophy. Its epistemically and philosophically useless...you can only use it for your psychological anxieties since it includes a death denying ideology.

[@JL-og5uf]

Wow.. Micheal softening up to possibilities in his older days. There is hope. 😉 Bernardo is always on top of his game.

[@grosbeak6130]

Hope for exactly what? You sound like a proselytizer hoping to get a convert. What if it's Bernardo that needs to change or soften up from his idealism? Why does it need to be Michael? You're just showing your own confirmation bias by your comment here.

[@solosailor8799]

Original thinking.

[@restorationofidentity]

@@grosbeak6130 well said bernado kastrup receives why to much attention for his rather dubious biased ideology of idealism. He needs to step back and maybe perhaps take a more monism approach. Matter + mind = the same process. But he showing a typical Deepak Chopra view.. all is mind. 😒😲

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@restorationofidentity Kastrup makes arguments, all you give here is vague feelings. Also idealism is monist so your comment makes no sense.

[@restorationofidentity]

@@Sam-hh3ry ok here's a question what will you do once your body dies and your so called spirit go to where ever in heaven/hell some cosmic consciousness dimension? What then? Am being serious for how long will we live in this afterlife? Cause that's what at stack here. A fuzzy belief cloaked in idealism.. the need to live forever lol.

[@mrkcioffi]

I noticed in comments some of us are taking sides and bickering over Shermer vs Kastrup perspective. The point is we don't know. Nobody does. That's what both of them are saying. That's why both of them are brilliant. They don't let their false prejudices get in the way of reasoning.

[@greensleeves7165]

I already respected Bernardo, but I gained a lot of respect for Michael in this episode. Great discussion.

[@transientlotus8159]

It's interesting how at the end Michael, the materialist, says he finds the idea of idealism comforting, while Bernardo, the idealist, says he finds the idea of materialism more comforting.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

well Materialism addresses our existential anxiety with the indefensible generalization it proposes (nothing than the material exists). Idealism on the other hand addresses both our existential and epistemic anxieties since it includes a death denying ideology. SO idealism by default is a "more comforting". This is why Science rejects both and bases its philosophical acknowledgments on Methodological Naturalism.

[@tobiasjohnson]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 what’s the difference between methodological naturalism and materialism?

[@daviddeida]

@@tobiasjohnson 2 months and no answer..LOL Yes I really enjoyed that moment.He flipped it.Materialism leaves no consequence..Its basically saying you are a meat puppet,with no free will and a victim to genes and conditioning.

[@tobiasjohnson]

@@daviddeida that is what we are. You say it as if it's a bad thing though, I don't think you need to be nihilistic about it

[@daviddeida]

@@tobiasjohnson Thats what you identify as.I do not.If you can grant this to everybody,then you will not judge any person for the actions performed over which they have no control.If you cannot then its just a hypocritical existence.

[@shanegfenwick]

Brilliant from Kastrup. Thanks for hosting this conversation, Michael.

[@moesypittounikos]

Michael Shermer is a good sport for inviting Bernardo on his podcast.

[@solosailor8799]

Why? Bernardo has something to say. He blows my mind. No woo here.

[@moesypittounikos]

@@solosailor8799 because the more famous sceptics seem to be avoiding Bernardo

[@TH-nx9vf]

@@moesypittounikos No wonder they are avoiding him if this interview is anything to go by - Bernado's arguments seemed to go completely over Michael's head, no response let alone rebuttal. It's like he doesn't even know what idealism is.. did he even read Bernado's book?

[@b0ondockz838]

@@TH-nx9vf exactly. They avoid him because he's not religious, so they can't make fun of him easily, and he's a super intelligent guy, probably much more intelligent than a lot of the mainstream skeptics and materialist scientists or philosophers.

[@chewyjello1]

@@moesypittounikos I can see why!

[@jamenta2]

Suffering is meaningful, and insight is the goal. Very Jungian line of thought by Kastrup.

[@grosbeak6130]

Most of his thoughts and fundamental ideas are derivative. And he even admits it in other interviews. He basically got his ideas from George Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer. Just throw in some quantum mechanics and you'll see that practically everything that Bernardo says is altogether derivative. He truly has not one idea that's not either coming from George Berkeley, Arthur schopenhauer, Carl Jung, or quantum physics.

[@jamenta2]

@@grosbeak6130 Well I don't have the same breadth here philosophically speaking (as he apparently does) so I am unable to judge. I can only speak from my reading knowledge of Jung. I think you may be simplifying Kastrup a bit, have you read any of his books?

[@bergspot]

@@grosbeak6130 grossly simplified.

[@ericmichel3857]

@@grosbeak6130 These ideas go far further back than the one's you mentioned. As Bernardo says, these ideas come from ancient religions/philosophy like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism... Even Christianity if viewed as metaphor, actually speaks of this same philosophy. He never claimed to invent these concepts, he is just using empirical scientific reasoning to argue for this philosophical perspective.

[@grosbeak6130]

@@ericmichel3857 affirmative.

[@youtubecanal]

Great guest. Great choice. Great topic of discussion. All memories are false because every time we remember something the brain is writing a new narrative.

[@buckfozos5554]

Great talk, deep concepts. Now we need Kastrup vs. Harris - Bret Weinstein can moderate. :) Seriously though, I wish they'd hash these things out. Thank you Michael Shermer for introducing me to another great mind out there (yourself included).

[@moesypittounikos]

Sam Harris has too much to lose in debating a smart underdog like Bernardo.

[@jamesoeming5022]

I don't think Sam's ready to face up to the reality that he's a minor leaguer in this area. He still wants to cherish the notion that he really knows that he's talking about and he's at the top of the pyramid. All it takes is a little courage and spine, but I don't think Sam's got it.

[@rooruffneck]

Sam Harris is 100 times more open to idealism as a reality that Shermer. But Sam and Bernardo's personalities will drive each other nuts.

[@MattFRox]

@@rooruffneck that’s a great comment. Could u nutshell an explication that their personalities would not meet well?

[@shaun906]

it reminds me of Einstein arguing with other scientists by letter!

[@seandotexe]

Wow. Shermer is usually so antagonistic against idealism and anything "woo", but he really made this a nice conversation. Not a debate, or "gotcha" interview. Bernardo is really good at this type of conversation, too. Really awesome.

[@solosailor8799]

I don't see why you write that. I don't see woo. I see a person with two PHDs and a boatload of examination.

[@B1bLioPhil3]

@@solosailor8799 It's ridiculous how brillant Bernardo is. He doesn't get nearly enough credit. I think he'll be making waves in the coming years, though.

[@solosailor8799]

@@B1bLioPhil3 totally agree, I must relisten to get the full impact of this talk.

[@seandotexe]

@@solosailor8799 I came here because of Bernardo, he's been my favorite philosopher for the past 4 years. That being said, I was commenting on how Shermer usually approaches any consciousness-as-fundamental philosophy. I find the "skeptic" approach to be really dull (granting I know it's necessary to be skeptical), but it usually just subverts really brilliant thinkers from pushing the boundaries. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I was just commenting on how different this one-on-one conversation was. Shermer really listened and I appreciated that. Most of my prior history of seeing Shermer is on Chopra debate panels on consciousness. So maybe I could see a drastic shift in his attitude towards Bernardo's ideas due to the lack of a live audience or "teams" of people debating. Not sure.

[@solosailor8799]

@@seandotexe yes, I understand. Thx for the background.

[@isitreallyso1897]

Micheal, I love the fact that you bring on such a variety of respectable perspectives that you disagree with! These discussions are just brilliant. Thank you!

[@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt]

Baseless disagreement... my favorite

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

He brings them over to expose their irrational foundations.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt baseless...only facts and reason make his disagreement baseless.

[@daviddeida]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Well he certainly seems perturbed in this conversation,as his foundations were brought into question.

[@apzzpa]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Do you have anything meaningful to say on the discussion or are you just an ideologue with your fingers in your ears crying treason?

[@TheFrenchNanny]

Omg this guy is the best. How can you be so smart on all levels !

[@solarpoweredafricanvegansp178]

I agree! I was listening to him and all I could think is “good gracious, this man is well educated on a plethora of topics!”. I’ve seen hardcore atheists debate him and have a smile on their faces as he highlights the assumptions they themselves have overlooked. You can see their worldviews start to shift before their very own eyes.

[@goldwhitedragon]

Google Chris Langan.

[@sxsmith44]

I’ve been a BK fan for two years. I’ve listened to over 50 KZbin videos of him. I’ve listened to this five times. I think this interview was a big stride for us fans. I think the K picking up his pace

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Have you ever thought why are you a fan of his? That is a sincere question.

[@daviddeida]

Yes,the last six months its really opening up,so pleased for him and for so many people..One day he will be on Joe Rogan.lol

[@mkor7]

@@daviddeida Rogan is too light weight for BK.

[@daviddeida]

@@mkor7 Hes a heavy weight in the feild of media.He is a good listener and would certainly ask good questions and more on point than Sherman

[@sxsmith44]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 same reason I used to be a Sam Harris fan…I thought he was right.

[@scottnorvell2955]

Shermer has the ability to do something that few of us have managed. No matter how much he learns he is nevertheless able to keep an open mind about what all that knowledge means. He has been able to remain unattached to his bias. Well done.

[@Hunterw657]

Shermer is not a skeptic at all. He's an academic apologist. Notice how he never challenges institutional gatekeeper approved narratives.

[@gavaniacono]

Bingo.

[@crucifixgym]

Another person carrying the torch of the end of materialism science, much respect for Shermer hosting these talks to clarify the ignorant misconceptions.

[@lifecloud2]

Wow ... I agree with Kastrup almost completely. This is part of an argument I've had with others.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@Growseth Jones “There’s no evidence reality is mental” Was that a rational claim or was it just determined? The fact is that there is more evidence that the Easter bunny and pink fluffy leprechauns exist than that the materialists (random) cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of the coin, the meaningless (random) accidental arrangement of the cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists morning cup of tea created metaphysical realities and metaphysical presuppositions, that is transcendental categories such as Truth, that is value, that is oughts, the prescriptive laws of logic, (conscious agents and free will, that is rationality), inductive reasoning, empiricism, universals, morals, ethics, art, poetry, literature, music, beauty, meaning, purpose, empathy, compassion and ultimately love!! So for the same reason I reject the reality of pink fluffy leprechauns and the magical invisible “nothing” that created everything proposed by the high priests of “new atheism” I would also reject theoretical abstractions of mind such as “matter” conceptually defined under physicalism because using Occam’s razor I can make do with realities only given, that is phenomenal consciousness!! Because the fact is that the only ontological category that enables billions of people to experience any quality or even any quantity, if there is such a thing as quantity in this context, is phenomenal consciousness!! It’s the fundamental ground of reality and is simplicity itself (Occam’s Razor)!!

[@chewyjello1]

Kastrup is great for giving us a gentle reminder that we don't yet have it all figured out...and how lucky are we! :)

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

we don't need Kastrup's pseudo philosophy to remind us that...what do you think thousands of studies running every day are for?????????

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 “We don’t need Kastrups pseudo philosophy” Still trolling I see Nicholas Kaspar!! During the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, that is during the reign of what is now referred to by historians as the (cult of reason and atheism) in France one morning's executions began with three men: a rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an atheist who was a “rationalist” skeptic but unfortunately also an (aristocrat). The rabbi was marched up onto the platform first. There, facing the guillotine, he was asked if he had any last words. And the rabbi cried out, "I believe in the one and only true God, and He shall save me." The executioner then positioned the rabbi below the blade, set the block above his neck, and pulled the cord to set the terrible instrument in motion. The heavy cleaver plunged downward, searing the air. But then, abruptly, it stopped with a crack just a few inches above the would-be victim's neck. To which the rabbi said, "I told you so." "It's a miracle!" gasped the disappointed crowd of blood thirsty atheists. And the executioner had to agree, letting the rabbi go. Next in line was the priest. Asked for his final words, he declared, "I believe in Jesus Christ the light of the world, lord your will be done not mine." The executioner then positioned the Christian beneath the blade. And he pulled the cord. Again the blade flew downward thump! creak! ...stopping just short of its mark once more. "Another miracle!" sighed the very disappointed crowd of atheists who were hoping for blood. And the executioner for the second time had no choice but to let the condemned go free. Now it was the atheists turn to face death. "What final words have you to say?" he was asked. But the skeptic didn't hear. Staring intently at the ominous engine of death, he seemed lost. Not until the executioner poked him in the ribs and the question was asked again did he reply. "Oh, I see your problem no supreme mind and consciousness needed, whoops sorry I meant no sky daddy involved it’s nothing more than a blockage in the rear gear assembly, right there!!" “Where!!”? Said the executioner “I can’t see a blockage because there clearly is no blockage and I actually built this machine and also I oiled, tested and checked the mechanism as usual just seconds before the prisoners where brought out?” The atheist stood condescendingly with his hands on his hips and screamed…”I don’t need a pseudo philosophy and woo to know that happened by random chance so it’s clearly not rational or true or even scientific”. The executioner replied to the hysterical atheist.. Certainly sir, but right after I’ve sorted out your so called blockage in the rear gear assembly let’s see what your “random”, “chance”, accidental, blind, mindless, meaningless magical “matter” does to save you!! God facepalms!! Gotcha!! ❤️😎

[@fudgesauce]

Who claims to have it all figured out? Every day I know there are thousands of papers being published on a huge variety of topics, including consciousness.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 If you wish to critique Bernardo's worldview, that's certainly your right - but leave the childish insults out of it and stick to the merits. Either you can argue on the substance of what he's arguing for or you can't. One good place to start is to argue persuasively as to how quanitites can give rise to their polar opposite in qualitative experience. I've argued w/ many on this topic and seen a variety of views (whether it's Frankish's Illusionism, Cooke's "Living Mirror Theory of Consciousness," Integrated Information Theory, etc.) and haven't come across one yet that makes a real substantive case as to how consciousness arises from physical systems. By all means though have at it if you think you're seeing something other people aren't.

[@litresearch87]

It is painfully clear, watching Shermer, that Bernardo is quite gracious, since Shermer has not even a clue about what is being discussed! In other words, Kastrup has gently dismantled Mr. Shermer's thinking mechanism!

[@anthonyw6488]

Yes Michael was hopelessly out of his depth, and I could see that for the majority of the time he had no idea what Bernado was talking about. Kudos to him for engaging though.

[@scottnorvell2955]

Shermer is such a wonderful host and so very respectful. I loved this interview. I am admittedly in the Kastrup rabbit hole and think he may have the closest idea to what it is to be me. Great session and thank you Mr Shermer for an engaging conversation.

[@stanh24]

Absolutely fascinating conversation!

[@HigherSofia]

Well done. Honest, balanced and open discussion. Beginning to like Shermer more and more, he seems to have softened his hard edges and opened up a bit after all those years debating Deepak. Kastrup is an important systems-buster and is doing groundbreaking work in finally making some dents in the mainstream misconceptions about idealism and injecting very potent eastern philosophical thought into western academic minds. Along with Jay Garfield.. which is someone @skeptic really should consider having on for a conversation, that would be really amazing, I think Shermer and Garfield would get along very well!

[@koffeeblack5717]

I'm glad someone is giving Schopenhauer a proper contemporary, analytic treatment. Schopenhauer 2.0 if you will lol.

[@Raydensheraj]

Schopenhauer is KING

[@johncasarino5627]

willcel

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

It does feel like reality is psychic. It's true that we can really only make indirect references to the nature of truths. I like to think of us as a point of light in an ocean of spectrum..Lol. And I've noticed that there's something special about going into the middle of things. Like.. when one overcomes an obstacle by going straight into it, it feels satisfying. This is like my second time around philosophy stuff and I'm starting to finally appreciate Bernardo on a greater level. Before, I watched too much philosophy on KZbin and really got burnt out on it but I've calmed down since then.

[@jj4cpw]

This interview is proof positive that even people we think of as bright can get trapped within a paradigm to the extent that questions asked and statements made are besides the point.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Can you elaborate on that?

[@Billy-xl4sv]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I think he means how Michael asks the same-ish question a few times over

[@shawnpalmer6715]

how is silence explained

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Understanding how sentences encode meaning makes it easier to grasp how neural discharge frequencies are able to do likewise.

[@mrkcioffi]

I love both these gentlemen. Long time fan of Mr. Shermer, & recently discovering Dr. Kastrup. I'm grateful just to have witnesses such extraordinary intelligence. Consciousness or God if you want, is Pure intelligence. Wow.

[@Chemical_Truth]

I have the feeling Shermer doesn't fully understand Kastrup. Kastrup explains something and then Shermer asks the same question only formulated in another way. Or Shermer sais something like "ok, ok ...we both don't know". What do you mean "we both don't know". Kastrup just explained it.

[@mkor7]

Indeed. I got the same impression of Shermer from this interview. He asked the same question twice about a half hour apart and the second time it was barely distinguishable in formulation from the first instance. As if the first instance never happened.

[@delublink127]

agreed. it’s rather frustrating. there are many interviewers that spoil their time with him. drives me mad.

[@desertportal353]

So good of Shermer to introduce me to Bernardo Kastrup! What a breath of fresh breathable air is this Kastrup! Much to explore here - with heart and intuition. Thanks Skeptic. I look forward to as many interviews with Bernardo as I might find.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Well nothing to explore really since we are dealing with unfalsifiable old beliefs that were foundational to Christianity ,Platonism and every now and then some recycles the same ideas by using different words and logical fallacies.

[@footballfactory8797]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 why are you going through every single comment trying to bring Bernardo Kastrup down? Really does he destroy your worldview that much that you need to try and debunk him hahaha. Jesus just have an open mind

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@footballfactory8797 I care about my members of my society to become rational educated thinkers. We need to inform people of charlatans and con artists. Now openmindedness means to be willing to accept a claim in the face of evidence....not accept it without any.....

[@footballfactory8797]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 there is no evidence for physicalism whereas consciousness is our only direct experience, which world view is based on a fallacy?

[@Dontwannaknow44]

Wonderful discussion. Thanks for sharing

[@craigwillms61]

I do appreciate Shermer's manner in these discussions - where he obviously disbelieves what is being discussed. But when he says how do I suffer (when dead) if I haven't got a body? I'd just say, a huge percentage of our suffering is in the mind/conscious. Therefore if the conscious survives bodily death then suffering is a distinct possibility.

[@chewyjello1]

Good point. But, isn't even mental suffering based in the body? For example, anxiety is just bodily responses that feel unpleasant to us...even if our thoughts trigger it. I've always heard people who are deep into meditation say there is no suffering in pure consciousness. So maybe there actually couldn't be suffering?

[@daviddeida]

Such an immense pleasure.Even though there seemed moments where Michael world view was shaking and he diverted to distractions,maybe to keep the conversation going.. I understand,lots to take in. with huge ramifications.Correct it all depends where you start from.The nondual awareness or thinking is thee place to explore from,rather than trying to get there from non dual.

[@lerouxviljoen7320]

It was a privilege to watch this. Thanks.

[@cutecats1368]

Good host. I saw another interview with a materialist, and he constantly interrupted Kastrup by not understanding his logic at all. Michael is calm and at least understands what his guests is talking about which makes the interview much more fluent and fruitful.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

that other host shouldn't have been interrupting Kastrup. There is nothing there to understand. Linguistic artifacts, a modified christian dogma, made up entities...just a mesh of philosophy. I am not sure Kastrup him self understands what he claims and from conversations I had with his fans, every single one has a different opinion.

[@apzzpa]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 In what part does he suggest christian dogma and made up entities?

[@Sapientiaa]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Made up entities? Which entities? You mean the current phenomena that cannot be explained by intersubjective agreement? Have you been living under a rock?

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 “Christian dogma” “Made up entities” (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that my Christian neighbour is to blame for me not getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll.” “The belief that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth” “The belief that if i just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!!” “The belief that the most luxurious slide into the VOID and into oblivion is the highest ideal and virtue of the human being” Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting… ❤️

[@1968Mcneil]

Bernardo is a HeavyWeight, pretty interesting!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Heavyweight indeed....he shovels tones of new age bovine manure in every interview!

[@HIIIBEAR]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 where does he lose you? I’m actually interested because his argument is very convincing.

[@JesusGanga]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 false

[@mkor7]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 You come across in this thread as a stalker, or as someone with an axe to grind.

[@msalign1124]

may the world have discussions in this way... thank you

[@toomanydonuts]

No. Vote for me first and get me in office and then I'll tell you what we're going to do. -Mitch McConnel. Three days ago this man said that. After all that's the American way. Never ever was it that way.

[@krishnapartha]

Polite conversation. Refreshing and enlightening. Thank you B and M!

[@magiccarpetmusic2449]

Bernardo gives me at least some hope for the future of the human race at an exceptionally troubling period.

[@jenmdawg]

He has given me a foothold.

[@CoreyAnton]

20:00 Some strange assumptions in here: If it is too much to claim consciousness somehow emerges from non-consciousness (that you cannot get from quantities to qualities), what are we to do with the emergence of life itself? Did life come from non-life, i.e. chemistry and physics? Was the life somehow always present? Seems incoherent, no?

[@timh4255]

it isn't the same issue. the materialist has to explain how qualities can emerge from their ontological reduction base but the problem of a-biogenisis is common for any ontological position. no one knows how life began.

[@ellebellebehring5329]

Excellent guest. Kastrup is awesome 🤩

[@Pegasus4213]

One of the issues with assessing consciousness is what it actually is. All assessments of artificial consciousness are related to what consciousness is and whether it is present even in matter itself. This might then allow even artificially created systems to have 'some kind' of innate consciousness if consciousness creates all forms of reality. Consciousness may create matter itself and be the platform upon which physicality rests or emerges. It may be the 'Atlas' holding up the physical dimension. If it is immanent within all expressions of reality, this just might allow artificially created systems to have different levels of not only similarity to our experience of consciousness but be in some sense, self-aware!

[@silversurfer4441]

The more I listen to Kastrup the more I realize he's just at another level. Even Shermer squints throughout this discussion struggling to understand what Kastrup is saying. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of it though and has extended a great amount of respect for Kastrup and visa versa. As much as I disagree with Shermer's ontological views, I've always liked him. I've always believed he sincerely wants the truth -whatever that entails - hence his serious and respectable demeanor towards Kastrup. It's almost as if he's saying, 'change my mind, if you can. All empirical data welcome.'

[@kleenex3000]

The more I listen to them clowns gloryfying the deceptive assertions by Dr.Kaastrup, the more I lose my faith in humanity: It is irrefutable , that anybody cannot only see all that is outside their own body, they also can see their own body, if not even their own brain. Just let me open your evolved-primate skull!! We can , go figure - put an electrode into a certain areal of your brain and have it fabricate an out-of-body experience for you!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

yes his woo are at another level indeed.

[@daviddeida]

@Dutchy Holland His ignorance is hilarious,hes like a flapping dinosaur .

[@daviddeida]

There was a moment where he groked it,"It all depends where you start from".His brain imploded and reverted back again.It seems to take time to let the information sink in .

[@mkor7]

@@daviddeida Indeed!

[@solarpoweredafricanvegansp178]

I was listening to Bernardo and all I could think is “good gracious, this man is well educated on a plethora of topics!”. I’ve seen hardcore atheists debate him and have a smile on their faces as he highlights the assumptions they themselves have overlooked. You can see their worldviews start to shift before their very own eyes.

[@neethy1836]

wonderful conversation, thankyou

[@detodounpoco37]

This is true skepticism. Openness to new ideas but constant questioning. Bernardo is one of the most brilliant philosophers alive, with deeper and (most important) experiential phenomena of consciousness, and I highly agree with his notions. Combine philosophy, psychedelics and constant curiosity, and your self will be transformed. The ALL is mind the universe is mental

[@dwai963]

100% Agree

[@b0ondockz838]

I love Kastrup, I just think he's wrong on NDEs and the afterlife. I think there's more to it that we just don't understand.

[@ericmichel3857]

How so? He does allow for the experience so...

[@b0ondockz838]

@@ericmichel3857 there are a lot of his ideas/statements that seem to contradict other of his ideas/statements, and many of them he mentions in this interview. On one hand, everything is mind, and we are many images or expressions of mind taking place within space and time. On another he puts major emphasis on how nature labored for millions of years to evolve all the biological features we use to survive, eyes, ears, nose, etc., and states it's not possible for people having an NDE to be seeing, smelling, feeling things the way we do in this physical world without this physical body. He even says, why would nature expend all that effort creating this physical body, if it can easily have a better one? But then he says we should be careful how much faith we put into believing this reality. So, it seems to me that maybe he's making that fundamental mistake by assuming a "physical" body, like the one we have here, is necessary for us to experience anything, including the ultra reality and enhanced consciousness experienced during a NDE. That doesn't make sense to me.

[@ericmichel3857]

@@b0ondockz838 I think you misunderstood what he meant. You have full experiences in dreams without physically seeing, hearing, feeling, or tasting. What he suggests is that consciousness is the ontological primitive from which all experience derives, but it does so through the manifestation of mind and body. Materialism supposes that matter is the ontological primitive and that through some unknown complexity conscious experience emerges. Idealism suggests that consciousness is the ontological primitive and that through the development of mind and body we have consciousnes experience. Either way the physical world operates within physical laws. One of those laws is the law of conservation, information is never lost, so when you are born and later die, that experience ceases like waking up from a dream but it is always a part of the underlying consciousness of existence. Kind of like spacetime where past, present, and future, all exist, only we experience individual moments in a linear progression. So all conscious experience is just part of a greater whole. The experience that you are a separate individual having a finite experience is a type of illusion. The real you is this overall consciousness waking from the dream of that experience, but as long as the universe exists producing living organisms, we continue to have experiences. So when you die an return is it possible to recall the experience of a particular place or loved one? Of course, but that is an experience like a dream rather than an actual physical experience. If that makes sense?

[@cloud1stclass372]

@@b0ondockz838 It also gives nature a sense of agency and forward-thinking capacity. If that is the case, what does that say about the nature of our own inner-conscious life as a reflection of the same nature that labored to create us? I think it implies that ultimate reality looks more like a monotheistic God than we would like to believe. And I don't see that as a bad thing.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@b0ondockz838 this is the problem with woo woo language...concepts shift and meanings get fuzzy. This is a death denying ideology dressed up in a philosophical cloak. So you can not have idealism without an afterlife claim...and NDEs is the "best" excuse for an Argument from ignorance fallacy!

[@yadurajdas532]

It’s hard to understand BK. His concept of individual self. In the analogy of waking up from a dream and not lamenting over it, making this analogous to death. And walking up to consciousness. I will ask if some one could clarify this point. In his view, what would happen to him after his dissociative process finishes ? Now that he is disassociated he contains unified subjectivity of his mental exaltations, what would happen with that phenomena of subjectivity once he dies ? Will he be conscious of the totality of the universe as much he is conscious of his inner self right now ? Or will he just disappear?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

good luck Every follower of Kastrup has a different understanding of his theology. Even his concepts fluctuate from presentation to presentation. He is promoting a new age of Christianity where the Mind takes the place of god, Consciousness plays the role of his Logos(λογος), instead of the trinity he appeals to 7 billion "subjective experiences" (whatever that means). In both religions Dissociation from mind and separation of god are the reason why we don't see "reality" and of course both come with an afterlife. Kastrup's version is Helll free...

[@yadurajdas532]

Well… this is better and more plausible than I am just a chance of nothing. My Pain or my joy were created from nothing and for nothing. This sounds tremendously absurd

[@daviddeida]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 LMAO.Mind is a myth,brain functions,thats all it is.Has zero to do with christianity, thats your ignorance.He is not denying we dont see reality.There is never a separation from Consciousness.There is no after life,space/time is a concept.

[@daviddeida]

@@yadurajdas532 Exactly.People want to identify as a meat puppet,no free will,just brain functioning who no one controls and a victim of genes and conditioning which they did'nt choose.Its laughable,they think the seen creates a seer..LOL

[@daviddeida]

He will disappear,like the dreamt disappears when you wake up.

[@gratefulgregg9058]

I find BK's seeming animosity toward Sam Harris mysterious. I have followed both of their work for many years and fund them to be more in agreement than not. Sam says things in articles and during guided meditations on his meditation app that sound remarkably like things BK is saying. Hopefully they become great friends some day.

[@a13xdunlop]

I dislike Harris, little more than a celebrity showboater.

[@scalperbot]

Sam flat out rejects idealism, listen to Sam's talk with Rupert Spira. Sam can be obnoxious in his discourse, which tends to be ego-driven debating vs having an honest open-minded discussion when faced with a world view that opposes his own. I suspect that's why BK doesn't like him.

[@patrickkissane4341]

I feel sam has more of the intuition of idealism, but doesn't want to state it due to the grief he'd have to deal with from his colleagues. Based on how he speaks about conciousness, he implies that its fundamental. He's says "conciousness is everything" "conciouness is one thing that can't be an illusion"..hes knows its not physical.

[@gratefulgregg9058]

@@patrickkissane4341 precisely. BK also walks a fine line with belief, which is something SH reacts strongly against.

[@patrickkissane4341]

@@gratefulgregg9058 you're saying Sam reacts strongly against what exactly?

[@AnswersInAtheism]

Oh Michael, Michael. I am at the 1:25:00 mark and I certainly hope you push back a little bit on this reduced brain activity causing psychic experiences. On psychedelics the DMN is certainly less active but parts of the interconnectedness of cortical columns lights up like it's christmas.

[@JackPassmore]

I've waited for this.

[@kgrandchamp]

Thanks for this talk Bernardo and Michael! What would the brain's role be, the appearance of the dissociative barrier? A mirror of our inner subjectivity? What is the role of Darwinian evolution? The genome producing proteins? Who or what is organizing all this? Mind at large, my core subjectivity? So many questions Thanks again! 🌿

[@deepblack67]

The Life after Death is a funny thing of course there is no "life after death" the question is "Is there consciousness after death". Trivial? No it is an important shift from thinking from the perspective of matter only.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

this shift is called irrationality since the available data don't justify such shifts....

[@footballfactory8797]

Near death experiences give good evidence that consciousness after death is true

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@footballfactory8797 lol they don't. They show us that people interpret their ineffable experiences in line with their death denying ideologies.

[@footballfactory8797]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 why does everyone have similar experiences then? An all loving white light?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@footballfactory8797 well its like Roswell. If tomorrow we have a similar malfunction of our brain, we will interpret it by using the same interpretations. i.e.10 years ago I had to give 50ml of blood for cell culture (knee chondro implant culture). As soon as the doctor reached 30ml I started seeing flashes, light and the chaos! I didn't apply any interpretation on it because I knew that loss of blood pressure affects brain function!

[@patriciaching6392]

When aligned with nature we become aligned. Bernardo's gift is to identify with nature not to compare. He is a naturalist. We create our favorite dreams out of our nightmares. As Bernardo shares we don't mourn our dreams. Thank you Michael.. very entertaining. When working with the dying what worked in the immediacy is the question, "Maybe you are already on the otherside?" We have never known death.

[@schmetterling4477]

Nature is mostly eat and being eaten. What's so great about that? :-)

[@patriciaching6392]

@@schmetterling4477 in the feedback loop of the external and internal. We are the most important component to shift perceptions from meaningless to meaningful One not two.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@patriciaching6392 And there is the bullshit. ;-)

[@patriciaching6392]

@@schmetterling4477 bull**** is where you have the power of discernment. It is a self correcting universe. It is inside out job. There are 3 businesses mine, yours and God’s (of our understanding/a power greater than a human power) to get to God’s we have to go through mine and yours. To eat and be eaten is owning the BS to manifest through a higher power. Say when you feel scarcity (eaten) it is to go with in to the power within and visualize 3 things you need to live on a physical planet: food, shelter and transportation. See yourself sitting in the middle of the sun eating a mango. Then do what you normally do, get out of yourself and act as if. You will manifest (eat) from somewhere. Try it.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@patriciaching6392 And this is where I am reminded of the story of god ventriloquating the donkey. Hard pass. :-)

[@dawid_dahl]

Great conversation, thank you! 🙌🏻

[@117-d7r]

One problem I noticed was that Bernardo mentioned: why would nature painstakingly build eyes, ears, smell, etc, but then him and Sherman begin to mention states where you can see, hear, feel, feel pleasure, etc without any sense organs whatsoever functioning such as psychedelics, dreams, etc you may say well the organs are required to do so, but why in psychedelic trips do people report colors they have never seen before, sensations they haven’t, etc do the eyes develop extra photoreceptors during psychedelic trips and specials neurons, etc?

[@jorgetorres6162]

Amazing dialogue!!!

[@lifecloud2]

Someone once said that the benefit of suffering is that it teaches you how not to suffer. But that alone is valuable. To me, the worst thing you can do with suffering is deny that it's there.

[@patrickl6932]

Bernardo is an extremely impressive human.

[@Flowstatepaint]

Great interview! Adore Bernardo. Fellow Santa Barbarian here. I hope my art makes you smile

[@demergent_deist]

The problem with Kastrup's idealism is that it depends on the reality of DID, that is, on something that is certainly not yet widely accepted. On the other hand, Kastrup talks a lot about biological evolution, but idealists tend to have problems integrating evolutionary theories into their system. Schopenhauer, for example, strictly rejected Lamarckism and Darwinism because they assumed the reality of time, while for Schopenhauer time can only be something ideal, residing in the cognizing subject.

[@demergent_deist]

@@NOCOMPLYE The idea of dissociation is definitely interesting, although it still seems speculative to me as a metaphysical principle.

[@pandawandas]

DID has been empirically demonstrated to be real over and over again. It was controversial maybe in the 90s, not now.

[@demergent_deist]

@@pandawandas If so, Kastrup makes a good case.

[@DOMOZORROORROZOMOD]

Having a soul, is a process that many bond, in love of what you have made your self, as them, many as a one in many.

[@MrSidney9]

Ideas that are infalsifiable and with no predictive power should not be taken too seriously . I’d like see him debate someone and gets the proper push back. Idealism is still very Interesting and fun to think about.

[@jackhammer111]

Ideas that are impossible to forget? (that would be the French meaning) The word you're after is not even unfalsifiable (voice to text came out "unpause a pineapple. Probably because unfalsifiable is not a real word. If it can't be falsified it could be true, and somehow I don't think that's what you meant either 🤣) it's falsifiable, which gives you a credibility problem. you don't seem to understand the thing you are criticizing. It makes me wonder if you know what idealism is. Words are supposed to be the agreed-upon framework through which communication can happen. Sorry I missed your Sydney 9 oh, it's just that sometimes I can't get past some of the things people say in KZbin comments.

[@pandawandas]

They do have predictive power. Analytic idealism makes several predictions, all of which have been experimentally confirmed: 1. There ought to be correlations between large reductions of brain activity and an increase in the information of phenomenological contents. Or in other words, an enhancement in the richness of experience. (Neural correlates of psilocybin, fMRI, Carhart-Harris et al 2012. Broadband cortical desynchronization underlies the psychedelic state, Nutt et al 2013. Two-dose investigation of the 5-HT agonist psilocybin on relative and global cerebral blood flow, University of Zurich 2017. Could go on and on, many more papers.) 2. Physical quantities don't have standalone existence. (An experimental test of non-local realism, Anton Zeilinger et al.) 3. Evolution did not set us up for the truth in terms of perception, so we perceive an encoded reality. (Fact, Fiction, Fitness. Hoffman, Prakash et al.) (Fitness Beats Truth theorem, Hoffman et al.)

[@MrSidney9]

@@jackhammer111 I am glad was able to make you feel smart because of a typo. The word I meant to write and which I use all the time is indeed " unfalsifiable." It's a real and pretty common word in modern science and philosophy of science. Karl Popper, in an attempt to solve the problem of Induction has pretty much established that a theory has no merit if it's unfalsifiable. Modern science operates under this view. We've come to understand that experiments can only establish the falsity of a theory, it can never confirm it. I can easily conjure a thousand unfalsifiable claims, some of which contradict each other. What then do you decide to go with? the wise thing to do is dismiss them all. And that's what most of us do without realizing it anyway (except when it comes to superstitions). If a theory is making contact with reality then it should be testable (falsifiable) by necessity, at least in principle. ex. "I have a physically undetectable pet dragon," should simply be dismissed.

[@jackhammer111]

@@pandawandas "information of phenomenological contents."Huh? Fact, Fiction, and Fitness mentions "stuph". I can't even find what that is in a Google search. And I assumed when you talk about stand-alone experience you mean the proton isn't really there because it's made up of other stuff that isn't really there yet our senses tell us that things are there because there was no evolutionary advantage in organisms understanding what "reality" is. And even though I buy into that it doesn't explain why I'm conscious or why at age 72 my life is becoming increasingly untenable

[@pandawandas]

@@jackhammer111 "information of phenomenological contents" Thoughts, emotions, sensory perceptions have information. There is an increase in the information of experience during a psychedelic trip, which would entail an increase in brain activity SOMEWHERE to account for this. There isn't. "Stuph" is defined in the paper. "mean the proton isn't really there because it's made up of other stuff that isn't really there yet our senses tell us that things are there because there was no evolutionary advantage in organisms understanding what "reality" is. " Sure, yeah. "And even though I buy into that it doesn't explain why I'm conscious" Consciousness is fundamental. " why at age 72 my life is becoming increasingly untenable" It's not meant to explain that. Sorry, man/madam.

[@chrisatteridge]

Great interview. Thanks for letting him speak at length

[@isabelmorais9430]

It would be more than interesting to hear Bernardo Kastrup and António Damásio speaking about this subject!

[@lbazemore585]

I had a professor who insisted on calling Berkeley’s, and Bernardo’s view “idea-ism” in order to distinguished it from Platonic idealism.

[@ryanapodaca9042]

That just muddies the waters even more

[@NorthenTasawwuf]

Great interview 👍, great job! However, Shermer has to be careful here with his own biases - just because a bunch of people are name and brand celebrities, it doesn't mean that they necessarily know anything, or more precise, understand these matters well. This one cognitive error is already the cause for a bunch of further cognitional errors.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

INDEED. Incidentally, are you an Idealist?

[@NorthenTasawwuf]

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices maybe 🤔, but if so, not in any typical way. I like Kant's transcendental idealism (meaning I have no problem with modest realism) and I am probably pretty close to advaita vedanta, but I consider these frameworks more as useful or pragmatic, practical fictions, rather than set in stone, meaning I leave a door open for cognitive improvement on my own part, or another way of saying that I approach my own experience, understanding and judgement of these things with modesty and moderate scepticism 😉

[@hypnos2367]

The trap that majority of people fall into most of the time, is that they are unaware of their own bias, the source of their beliefs, and that they always assume that the world works as they think it does in the present moment. And most want to have a set of truths that they can believe in, or rely on if you will, because it is easier. In that way materialist skepticism, as expressed by 95% of all media scientists (Tyson, Green, Carol, etc) is like any other religion - and like a true fanatic they claim that they are not religious, it's the other guys.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

@@NorthenTasawwuf 🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above. So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. Cont...

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

In recent years, the term “CONSCIOUSNESS” has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalized) to refer to a far more Homogeneous Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The dialectic exercise in the following three paragraphs should help one to understand the nature of the fundamental conscious observer, that is, the ULTIMATE observer of all phenomena (i.e. the subject/Subject, which is the authentic self, as opposed to material objects): If one were to ask you whether you are the same person or individual you were at birth (or even at conception), you would probably respond in the affirmative. So, then, what PRECISELY is it about you which has remained constant since conception? In other words, what is the self-identity you had as an infant, which is the present “you”? It cannot be any part of your body or mind, since none of the atoms or molecules in your zygote body are extant, and “you” certainly did not possess a mind at conception. If you are reasonably intelligent, you may claim that your genome is the same now as it was then. However, it has recently been scientifically demonstrated that genetic code can (and usually does) change throughout an individual’s lifetime. Furthermore, nobody actively conceives of their essential nature being a bunch of genes! More intelligent souls would probably counter thus: “The thing which stays the same from my birth to the present time is my sense of self.” This too, is fallacious, since the sense of self does not emerge until at least a couple of years after birth. An infant has no ideation of itself as an individual actor. You may then say “I was a (male/female) human being” but that doesn’t specify any PARTICULAR human (you, yourself). So, then, what EXACTLY is it which remains “you” from conception till death? That is the “I am” which precedes any artificial sense of self. In other words, rather than saying “I am a man/woman/human/king/pilot/etc.”, simply the impersonal sense of “I am”. That is the true self, which is the Universal Self. Therefore, your essential nature is Cosmic Consciousness, usually called “God” by theists (see also Chapter 10). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself. Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit [from “bṛh” - lit. “Expansion”, in English]) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”. REALITY is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings (which occur either spontaneously, or after a gradual process over many months or years), yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16, but have yet to awaken to their essential nature). “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” ************* “The ego is the identified consciousness. When the impersonal Consciousness identifies itself with the personal organism, the ego arises.” ************* “The only true meditation is the constant impersonal witnessing of all that takes place in one’s life as mere movements in the universal Consciousness.” ************* “Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.” ************* “Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness. This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise. Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.” ************* “Just as the difference between the space in a pot and the space outside it disappears when the pot is demolished, so also does duality disappear when it is realized that the difference between the individual consciousness and the Universal Consciousness does not in fact exist.” ************* “All there is, is consciousness. That is the Source from which the manifestation has come. ...And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness.” ************* “All there is, is Consciousness, not aware of Itself in Its noumenal Subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in Its objective expression. If this is understood in depth, there is nothing more to be understood.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.

[@MadMax-gc2vj]

Two great minds.

[@john-2140]

Shcermer wasn't keeping up at all.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

The self in conversation with the self!

[@goodquestion7915]

Kastrup puts Consciousness as present in everything and everywhere, pretty much as the background noise in a party. Therefore HIS proposed Consciousness can be ignored because it's unexplainable, all-pervading and nothing is gained considering it. Now, we need to focus on the Interesting Consciousness, which is the one conscious entities have and rocks don't.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Shermer Believes in the Religion of Scientism!!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Not accepting woo doesn't mean that one embraces scientism. There are middle grounds ...no need to go to the extremes.

[@daviddeida]

Their days are numbered.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

LOL!

[@dannyhuelva4897]

I do agree that it's not simply physical system inside brain that causes phenomenal consciousness but at 20:15 both Shermer and Kastrup discussed about the question if not the brain then what else is causing it, I found Kastrup's answer puzzling and I think it needs an elaboration. I just feel that what is really going on in the brain is not being accounted for, In particular, if what is causing is a certain state of consciousness in a particular perspective, then why exactly in the brain and not somewhere else? Why is there a neuronal activity in the brain when somebody exhibits consciousness? Why is it that if somebody cuts my head off, my consciousness breaks down?

[@deepblack67]

Nice conversation. I often wondered while listening if either of you had read The Holographic Universe? I would call my self a "Holographic Monist" I guess. I think if you look at what Bernardo talks about that and integrate that into an idea of consciousness as a holographic field, that much of Michaels questions about after death, memory, and such can be answered - the wave set that you were, your memory, tripping can all be explained if there is this field - your self disappears with the loss of your body, but that part that we call the conscious I returns into a higher level of this field is my guess, like the matter and water returns to the Earth. Notions of Intuition, Morphic Field, telepathy, would then all be bleed through like listening to your neighbors through the wall. It is all music. IMHO

[@ryanapodaca9042]

Good book

[@chuckbeattyo]

48:30. wow. Great example of important research that is cutting edge. How the heck do planaria with their heads chopped, who grow new heads and seemingly then repeat specifically unique feeding patterns which were specifically learned and supposedly stored in their old chopped heads, LOL. I'd love to hear of the current new and further research pointing how they are physically able to do this. Muscle memory vs brain memory, etc. ? And is brain memory of humans just so much of something else we haven't yet labelled correctly. Cellular memory? Which is out there in the body, waiting for the new head/brain to be grown and then the cellular body/muscle stored memories then connect up and fire off "memory" to the newly grown brain that then is the engineer part of the whole animal pushing it into the old learned muscle memory of the pre-head-chopped planarian?

[@jgarciajr82]

I love Sam but sometimes he needs to be yelled at.

[@nackyding]

I've noticed in all of Shemer's interviews whenever he makes a point he has to read pre-written narratives and points inorder to expresses his views and arguments. That comes of as not having a real and true sense of understanding what you're talking about. If he really knew/understood these views he'd be able to express them without reading from a book excerpt or magazine article.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

You want to try & prepare for interviews on different topics by different writers & see how ad-libbing works….(?)

[@nackyding]

His guest aren't reading scripts from magazines and books. Also when I'm well versed in a subject I don't need to read from magazines and books either.

[@nackyding]

@@christopherhamilton3621 Btw this is his "own" material he's quoting. I would think he'd be able to articulate his own work without having to recite it from a magazine article...

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Perhaps. Maybe he’s being careful about being misquoted. They’re not always his own books though in this one they are. I do agree he may not quite be on BK’s wavelength/level here….

[@mitkoogrozev]

I disagree, due to personal experience. Here's what I mean, and what might be happening with Michael as well : In text form I'm usually able to respond and do respond in large walls of text :D. If I have to speak instead, I won't be able to be so lengthy and coherent in my response. While you speak , you cannot 'hold in memory' a lot of what you've already said, and for me a lot of conflicting version of how to respond 'come to mind'. And unless it's something very trivial or something I do all the time (like lets say work, for which I can speak relatively smooth and easy), after a point I might start to speak very slowly. With a pause after every word. As if I'm thinking about every word individually. While in text, I can re-act ,redact and re-read the shit out of what I've written until I can articulate it to a degree that I find satisfactory . Appropriate to the best of my knowledge, to fit the context to the best of my ability, to whatever degree the other person's question or statement activated the appropriate associations in my brain. All of this text is basically an example of what the text itself is about :D . It's definitely something I wouldn't have been able to say if we were conversing verbally :D.

[@mr.knownothing33]

“matter is not a machine, and we do not have any definition of matter. The properties of the material world are inconceivable to us.” -Noam Chomsky

[@johnhanks4260]

What is unconsciousness?

[@sherrydionisio4306]

Please, more with Bernardo Kastrup, Michael.

[@harkema8090]

Bernardo has a real waterfall of talks!

[@justus4684]

Bernados facial expression is that of a true debate giga chad 😂👍

[@333STONE]

Conciousness is one thing. We all perceive it through individualized lenses.

[@LeftBoot]

Lenses - r/neuronaut (Reddit)

[@333STONE]

@@LeftBoot ok?

[@LeftBoot]

@@333STONE see Reddit

[@333STONE]

@@LeftBoot individualized, meaning from the perspective of different sets of experiences, cultures, tribes, family's etc. This is why conciousness is viewed differently. Of course there is much more to it. Thanks

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

No you don't perceive "consciousness", you perceive the content of your conscious states that we label consciousness...that's a linguistic trick of idealism.

[@lioneye108]

The world wins when Bernado is invited on the Joe Rogan Podcast

[@subplantant]

Human consciousness has existed for about 0.0000581x the age of the universe (and a rather smaller proportion of its time potential to support life) and we're appropriating it as the fundamental stuff of everything? Anthropomorphism taken to the max!!

[@SebastianLundh1988]

Bernardo doesn't believe *human* consciousness is at the center of everything. He believes *consciousness* is fundamental. In the same way your brain is a symbol representing your mind, the inanimate universe as a whole is a symbol representing a mind. Do you understand? We are disassociated alters, or offshoots, of this mind.

[@subplantant]

@@SebastianLundh1988 The only consciousness we know of is our own so any consciousness Kastrup is referring to is modelled on our (his?) own. It can be nothing else.

[@connorcharchuk1548]

This has always been my central issue with metaphysical idealism. It is inescapably deeply anthropocentric.

[@subplantant]

@Meighan Dacey This is all just a list of human concepts and experiences that exist inside consciousness as we know it. That's why Kastrup makes so much sense to people who know there's no getting outside consciousness but need something else.

[@subplantant]

Also sometimes you're not aware that you're feeling an emotion and then you become aware of it and it goes away (ie has less effect on our biology) so who's to say the emotion isn't aware of our awareness of it? Isn't that what meditations for?

[@juergenbloh45]

Thanks a lot

[@jonathans.bragdon5934]

I suppose that ‘there are no real memories’ is more of a proposition than a reality. Where does reality of a present situation crumble off into the unreality of memory? Is there a continuity at all?

[@grosbeak6130]

You know it's kind of cringey seeing all the groupies here speaking words of near worshipful admiration for Bernardo Kastrup. Especially when it's painfully obvious he got all of his fundamental and basic ideas from George Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer. He is truly altogether derivative. People in the comments section here, educate yourselves. Bernardo even admits it in other interviews. He is not saying anything fundamentally new that hasn't been discussed at length by these other philosophers. Now just add some quantum physics and a bit of Carl Jung and there is Bernardo kastrup.

[@grosbeak6130]

@@NOCOMPLYE read my comment more carefully you will find that I'm not even implying that his arguments are not sound. Really, just read my comment again more carefully. I was saying that he's not really bringing to the table something fundamentally new in the annals of philosophy.

[@grosbeak6130]

@@NOCOMPLYE affirmative. Well said.

[@gamislatte5470]

Under Materialism, mind is produced by the brain (i.e. the brain must produce mind). Hence Materialism predicts the following: 1. The Universe must be very old. Because its the ONLY way this can happen via evolution. Lo and Behold the Universe is very old indeed aging around 13,8 billion years. 2. The Universe must be very vast. Because its the ONLY way this can happen under materialism. Lo and Behold the Universe is very vast containing billions of galaxies. 3. The Brain must be very complex. Because its the ONLY way consciousness can be generated under materialism. Lo and Behold the brain is the most complex physical systems we know of. All these 3 predictions DO NOT have to happen under Idealism. 1. Under Idealism, the universe may as well age only 1 million years old. (and the idealism still holds) 2. Under Idealism, the Universe may as well just contain earth, moon and sun only. (and the idealism still holds) 3. Under Idealism, the brain may just be as complex as your liver.(and the idealism still holds) So Materialism actually "predicts" how the characteristics of our universe and our brain MUST BE. And we indeed see the predictions are accurate. On the other hand, what does Idealism predict? does it predict nothing? well you know what they say about a theory that tries to predict nothing and explain everything. Your prior could be matter as the primary or consciousness. How are we then supposed to update our posterior probability (using Bayes Theorem) when choosing between Hypothesis A (Materialism) vs Hypothesis B (Idealism)? If you pause and think about it. Materialism is indeed a brave theory that predicts boldly that in order for a being with consciousness like us to exist. Those 3 features of our real world must hold true, or else materialism would fail.

[@gamislatte5470]

@@NOCOMPLYE I would rather believe in Patricia Churchland's view than random youtube commenter with name "BRAT". LOL

[@gamislatte5470]

@@NOCOMPLYE Idealism is nothing new...its has been around for ages (The Refutation of Idealism by GE Moore 1903) and says nothing just like theism...replace God with Mind at Large...and voila...woo woo...I am not interested in entertaining your woo-woo bud.

[@DOMOZORROORROZOMOD]

To be consious, one is observering consiousness.

[@joepillari7142]

what a great waste of time. what a great distortion of reality

[@SebastianLundh1988]

In what way?

[@DanHowardMtl]

Found the materialist.

[@SebastianLundh1988]

@@DanHowardMtl Yup.

[@confederatesouth]

Very obvious bias

[@martenjustrell446]

@@SebastianLundh1988 Just guessing here but I think he is talking about the mental masturbation that meta physics and idealism almost always comes down to. It's like string theory but without the math. Will not prove or disprove anything and it's the same old circular reasoning that wont end up in any progression of knowledge or human well being. But philosophy is not modern science and should not be taken as it either. It may steal concepts from it just like theology with its misuse of the word energy but in the end it's the same fun speculation and abstract reasoning that humanity has been doing for as long as they have existed. Wont solve anything nor cure diseases and is in its core not falsifiable. But everything must not be serious. Fun speculation is what drives much of human creativity and it might not be able to say anything about reality(that can be proven) but it makes the world more interesting and pleasurable.

[@tybowesformerlygoat-x7760]

Most of the questions demonstrate the interviewer doesn't understand the guest. Would have been nice if he'd disclosed this instead of all the random objections. Intellectual semantics vs knowledge.

[@jordancox8802]

Dr. Shermer, I think you should interview David Bentley Hart to engage with some of the questions you asked about the soul/Christianity.

[@dhammaboy1203]

“I think the enemy is nihilism. That you’re suffering for nothing!” Bernardo is right - suffering with meaning is a much better orientation. You need to find a purpose - whatever that may be!

[@swamitripurari5650]

If Kastrup's view is correct, what then is the nature of the universal mind? And does it have a form, given that in his world view consciousness does manifest as forms?

[@distractionchannel4954]

...experience is everything

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

nice vague deepity sir....

[@jonjenkins]

Consciousness (awareness & cognition) is from my perspective, a component of of Cosmic Intelligence (Mind)very similar to that of Bernardo Kastrup

[@patrickcompton1483]

Great reference to Godel, Escher, Bach, you should read this if you respect the connection between math, music and painting, all as forms of art.