Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism CRITIQUED

This video explains the two mistakes I believe Bernado Kastrup makes when defending his version of idealism: Analytic Idealism.
Link to video about indirect realism: • How a stick in water s...
#Kastrup #idealism #critique
___Video Contents___
00:00 - Introduction
00:38 - Disclaimer
01:08 - Issue 1: Kastrup's method of argument
01:49 - The entropy argument
10:06 - The evolution argument
15:47 - The mistake in Kastrup's method
18:17 - Issue 2: The nature of universal consciousness
19:50 - Explaining analytic idealism
26:36 - Why evolution cannot explain meta-consciousness
30:49 - Could universal consciousness be God?
33:22 - My (humble) advice to Kastrup
___Channel description___
I am a graduate of Cambridge University with a PhD in Philosophy. My thesis was on the nature of truth, and I specialise in metaphysics, logic, and the history of analytic philosophy. I believe philosophy should be made accessible to the curious and philosophers have a duty to reenter the public debate on the questions of importance to our age. This channel is my attempt to do that!
___Memberships___
To take the ideas I explore on this channel to the next level with in-depth videos and more academic content, please become a member. Most of the videos I produce are exclusive to members. There are also options here to get in touch with me and do philosophy together. Also, with your support I will be able to spend more time reading, thinking, writing, and shooting video content for all you good people! But I need to keep my family fed too, so your membership is GREATLY appreciated.
It's a simple equation: more members = more videos. Thanks!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

The comments and discussion this video has generated has been truly surprising. Sorry not to be able to engage with more of them. But I have read them all and thank you for all the time and effort spent in working through the issues raised. Thanks all and let's keep talking.

[@elliot7205]

Hi, what are your views of free will from the perspective of idealism? Is there room for it?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

@@elliot7205 Yes, I think so. I'll actually be doing some videos on free will later this year.

[@elliot7205]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy is it similar to Bernardo view about core subjectivities and what we identify ourselves with?

[@Aaron-bd9sj]

This was an excellent video. Would love for you to flesh out more of your metaphysical idealist position. Including free will as you brought up. Are you familiar with Giovanni Gentile and his version of idealism called actualism?

[@kruasan1]

15:51 -- Kastrup never adopts scientific realism. He talks about metaphysics, about the intrinsic being of nature. We can taboo these complicated words like “realism” or “antirealism” for simplicity, and just discuss what is being said. Kastrup merely claims that abstractions help us to describe the behavior of nature and to control the future, they are true and experimentally proven/reasonable. But science by itself is a tool which never assumes any ontology: not materialism, nor idealism, nor anything else. You seem to be confusing physics and metaphysics. Of course we can use science and talk about it without adopting a realist attitude, without going into metaphysics. In other words, Kastrup's position can be called “instrumentalism” -- that science and theoretical concepts have use in predicting observations, but we have no ontological commitments to them. Postulating a "literal physical being", which is unknowable even in principle, is a further, arguably unnecessary step. So Kastrup is an instrumentalist from the beginning to the end. The being of consiousness, on the other hand, is immediately known by the virtue of self-luminosity (svaprakasatva). 26:43 -- Consciousness and mind are different. The “empirical physical world” can be called Maya for simplicity, and it's an appearance which is not fundamentally real. Our bodies, our minds, any other object are a part of this appearance. But consciousness is not an object nor a process, so it can never be objectified and found *in* the empirical world (cf. Wittgenstein). Consciousness is just you, the "I", subjectivity or experiencing itself, the first-personal givenness of whatever is subjectively given, the empty principle of manifestation. It is maximally simple and has no characteristics or qualities, it never changes, it cannot be divided into parts and it is always the seer, never the seen. Naturally, it's the same in every human and every sentient being, because postulating different empty awarenesses solely by haecceity is incoherent (cf. Edralis: edralis.wordpress.com/2021/06/18/awareness-6-10/, cf. Daniel Kolak’s Open Individualism) There are even some reasons (that are too complicated for this youtube comment) to argue that consciousness is existence or actuality itself, so it can be identical to the Absolute. (And that's precisely what Kastrup does when he talks about consciousness being an ontological primitive in idealism; Atman = Brahman and so on.) Kastrup would probably say that evolution is literally what this continuous process of dissociation and complexification looks like from our point of view. But Kastrup uses terms that are not super precise for my taste, for example he calls the absolute "mind", instead of consciousness. (And well, given how much suffering we see in the world, this ontology is not much prettier than the default). I think it's obvious that an object cannot be an ontological primitive. Because any object needs space, time and causality to exist, while consciousness is a no-thing that doesn’t need these. So I think it’s not only that “we can’t ever get qualities out of quantities“ (as Kastrup often says) that is the argumentation for idealism, but, even more precisely, that consciousness is not an object among other physical objects! (cf. Sunyata in Buddhism). 29:54 -- I see no sense in saying that “meta-consciousness arises out of phenomenal consciousness”. Nothing arises out of phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness simply illumines everything, it's the existence of any thought, emotion or object of awareness. “Meta-consciousness” is just a fancy term for the higher function of the mind, it’s self-reflection or the self-identification with certain configurations of what one experiences. I don’t like using “consciousness“ word here at all. It muddles the already complicated topic. Intellect, personality, beauty, self-reflection, emotions, perceptions - all of these develop in conscious organisms with time and effort, while consciousness just passively illumines everything. The play works itself out. ( cf. Fasching here: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-008-9090-6 ) Here you are actually touching a deeper question of the mechanism of this play. For example, in Advaita Vedanta, there is vivartavāda, loosely speaking the "apparent transformation" of Brahman (consciousness / the absolute) into the world. It's enigmatic how and why it can be seemingly separated from itself in different finite objects (minds). And I’m no Vedanta scholar so I have no answer to this question, but maybe there is, so anyone can feel free to expand my description.

[@benadam6697]

You've misrepresented the his argument about perception. Perception of a thing in itself does not require replication of the perceived object inside the mind of the perceiver, since he's taking about the map not the terrain. Our map does not match the terrain out there. Also the interface theory, doesn't just say we perceive limited information that is useful, but false information that is useful.

[@extavwudda]

Nice video and nice try, but I think you've missed what Kastrup was actually trying to do here. He is not using the entropy and evolutionary arguments to strawman or otherwise counter other philosophical positions per sé. Though I definitely think Kastrup would do well to tone down his antagonism at times (lest it makes him seem sloppy) here he is actually using these arguments to build up towards the point that we simply could not see the world as it is, even IF we were holding a physicalist or scientific materialist position, which he assumes (rightfully so) a lot of us sort of do, whether we know it or not. He then reasons a conscious ontology (the idealist position in which we ALSO do not see the world as it is) in which a Schopenhauerian dashboard "phenomenology" "represents" an underlying cosmic "will". I think it would be accurate to say that Kastrup simply chose to "start from somewhere" and that you overanalyzed this rather arbitrary decision.

[@paulkeogh9604]

I've listened to a lot of Kastrup and read many of his books and understand his "entropic soup" metaphor - imperfect as it is - alludes to the overwhelmingly large, possibly infinite, amount of information that our sensors would have to accurately receive, and our brains would have to coherently represent if perception was in fact a transparent window onto reality. He further argues, with evidence from evolutionary game theory that survival depends on selective attention to reality rather than comprehensive apprehension and veridical comprehension of reality. Kastrup is a very sincere and authentic philosopher who acknowledges that words are always imperfect and inaccurate descriptions of reality. From my direct experience, the best way to engage him in meaningful discussions is to invite him to a dialogue rather than a debate.

[@PessimisticIdealism]

“Into the man’s head the whole world goes, including the head itself.” (James Ward, “Psychological Principles,” pg. 103)

[@Dystisis]

"Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it." Wittgenstein, TLP

[@FilipinaVegana]

That seems rather, um.... PESSIMISTIC.

[@Corteum]

See "headless way" with douglas harding

[@stevenyafet]

​@@Dystisisthanks for that. I was thinking, I know porn when I see it, but you corrected me. I know solipsism when I see it.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

You are right. There is a clip where Kastrup says UC is 'UNLIKELY to be metacognitive'. This is a mistake that only creates a new problem (even if not as hard a problem as materialism). BK shouldn't make assumptions about UC from observations of what he calls the dashboard (which entails space-time including Darwinian evolution). Also, the human mind is a part of UC, so it stands to reason that, if it's a localised, restricted perspective, it shouldn't be capable of much more than UC itself. Also, my experience contradicts what he said. When I experienced naked awareness divorced from conceptual reality, the awareness couldn't help but be aware of itself because it is in its nature to do so. This is metacognition! I think BK got it backwards. It is UC that is capable of all possible states of mind including metacognition. The human mind, on the other hand, can occasionally tap into them because it is mostly restricted to this space-time construct. I think that is BK's main mistake in his analytical idealism. Evolution doesn't explain metacognition if we say that only human minds can have cognition. His view almost mirrors materialism when it says we went from Homo sapiens to becoming Homo sapiens sapiens (man that knows he knows) without even explaining consciousness.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Agreed. He repeats the idea that UC is not metaconscious in other places too. It's clearly his considered view.

[@sxsmith44]

Yes analytic idealism says that consciousness is not metacognitive, it is instinctive. It’s rather obvious to me that nature/God is not metacognitive because if it is, it is amoral!

[@berenice39]

I have a problem with Kastrup's view of an afterlife. He jumps straight out of dissociation into universal consciousness. Why not still a different level of dissociation which would allow for continued individuality?

[@Achrononmaster]

Indeed. Kastrup is an ideologue? (irreconcilably jungian. Jung is his "god". Never a good thing for a thinker.) Seems like the best explanation, no?

[@CJ-cd5cd]

This is a good point. I agree with most of what Kastrup has to say, but it seems reasonable to think there could be different dimensions of dissociation

[@lau-guerreiro]

He argues for 2 levels. You argue for 3 levels. But if you can have more than one level, then N levels are possible. The question is: how many of the possible N levels have been actualized? 2,3,4,5?

[@animesh7296]

That the view of Samkhya Philosophy by Sage Kapila, which Siddharth Gautama (Buddha) learnt from his first teacher. Samkhya proposed of individual consciousness after Moksha.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

@@lau-guerreiro yes

[@bonoboji]

I suggest he interview Donald Hoffman because Bernardo accurately reiterates Hoffamn's research and arguments from evolutionary perceptual psychology. There is no error in Bernardo's argument from this stand point.

[@Scott_Terry]

What a great channel! Thanks for all you're doing! I'm a fan of Bosanquet, Green, and Bradley; trying to study them with Sellars (and Brandom) in mind. I watched Kastrup's series a few weeks ago and am looking forward to your analysis.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

You might like the membership programme then. I'm going through Bradley's A&R, reading it and commenting on it as I go. These videos are available to members, from the lowest tier. I'd appreciate your insights too.

[@CurrentAffairs-ne1rl]

Great. Was waiting for this since the announcement. Thank you.

[@FilipinaVegana]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;) Incidentally, are you VEGA?

[@Chemical_Truth]

I think what Kastrup meant by saying we would turn into an entropic soup if we would perceive reality as it is... imagine if you would feel every molecule of air touching your skin all the time and you would see the entire magnetic spectrum. You would turn into an entropic soup.

[@KevinsDisobedience]

Fair critique, but I think you slightly miss his point about internal perceptions matching our internal brain states. Simply put, without our useful evolutionary illusions and spacetime headset, we would BE nature and have no autonomy. My biggest issue with his view-with which I’m sympathetic-is that he devalues the physical world as less than the ground of being, ie, mind, but why place the value on the thing that gives rise to the the ten thousand things. Your dashboard argument is closer to the problem that he and Hoffman run into, which is an issue of epistemology. If the spacetime headset is an illusion (even useful), what faculty or epistemically method assures us that it is an illusion. We can call it reason or science, which is fine, and likely the right answer, but what was reason trained on in the first place that allowed us to see and seek the truth rather than survival merely. It’s a problem I’ve not heard him talk about. Isn’t it all Nature, everywhere interconnected and real? Local realism is false, right? That’s kinda my metaphysical hang up with Idealism, though I think Schopenhauer is basically correct.

[@zachmorgan6982]

Yes.

[@BUILDERtheSTRONG]

​@@KevinsDisobedienceif the internal is the source of the external then, the external would be the "true mirror" in a manner of speaking. If our perception is sourced from the internal awareness of the mind projected outwards, while the external consciousness is projecting inwards, then, where the two minds meet could be the truth of the experience. It would still suggest that it's all mind.

[@nicoladisvevia]

@@BUILDERtheSTRONG A very Kantian answer!

[@BUILDERtheSTRONG]

@nicoladisvevia ah, thank you for the feedback. Now, I can familiarize myself with Kant.

[@rooruffneck]

Bernardo said that in 2024 he'll be doing much less public chats. That said, hope you can set something up. Maybe when he's getting ready to promote his book in the fall something can happen. It will be his most concise summary of his model, so would be fun to hear you two chat. I think he has addressed your first concerns. But god knows where. Donald Hoffman often faces that criticism. Have you heard his responses and do they hold water for you? For some reason, I don't find it hard to imagine how a process of consciousness could evolve in a way that causes it to suddently 'fold in' on itself and become meta within a narrow context.

[@pedrosainhas997]

Hello great video! I would like to ask a question, does the objection you made to the fact that if absolute consciousness is phenomenal consciousness and not metaconsciousness not also apply to F H Bradley's idealism? Since Bradley held that the Absolute is immediate experience, is this not the same as phenomenal consciousness? So doesn't Bradley have the same problem as Kastrup of not being able to explain the emergence of the individual subject's metaconsciousness? Thankyou very Much!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Great question. I do think immediate experience is basically phenomenal experience, but Bradley does not think immediate experience is Reality as it is finite and limited. He think Reality is Absolute experience which includes and integrates relational experience (metaconsciousness) too. So he doesn't have that problem.

[@pedrosainhas997]

Thank you very much for the clarification!

[@remembertobe-effortlessly]

Ok, I've watched the whole thing - I would say this is the best critique of BK's work I've seen in 10 years. your distinction, that he mixes scientific explanations with explanations depending on mind (that is, mixes physicalist and idealist explanations) is one I posed to him many times back 9 and 10 years ago but he always dismissed it as irrelevant. You've brought it back brilliantly. Also, your idea of evolution as a means by which a collective consciousness evolves is common in some forms of Tantra and other schools of Indian philosophy. Notice I said collective, not universal consciousness. Sri Aurobindo speaks of "Group souls" - or the consciousness of a species. So the relatively non individuated cat has experiences that will contribute to the evolution of the species. There is, in his view, a transcendent non evolving Consciousness which expresses itself through involution and then evolution, which makes infinitely more sense to me than BK's view.

[@tamerogeny]

I had always been effortlessly attracted to Kastrup's conception, and I find his presentation very engaging. But I must admit that somehow I'd never considered your argument, even though it should be very clear, almost intuitive. Thank you for a very engaging analysis.

[@killroy901]

Great video! You mention at 26:55 that 'human minds are meant to be beyond the dashboard.' Could you elaborate on how that's the case? I'm not able to follow. Thanks!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I may be misinterpreting Kastrup now I think about it, but since he talks about us being within a dissociative boundary inside universal consciousness I assumed we were in the 'real world' rather than the dashboard. But it could be that he sees us on the 'immediate side' of the dashboard rather than the 'beyond side' of it, which may make a difference to him, idk. But still, he needs to explain how/whether time applies to human minds when it is a feature of the 'paradigm of the dashboard', which ever side of it we are meant to be on.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Bernardo just concluded an event w/ the Essentia Foundation discussing Mind & Time and just had a second lively discussion w/ Michael Levin (just uploaded the other day, iirc) in which the issue of time came up. Tbh, Bernardo hasn't settled on any definitive belief on Time. To the best of my understanding (so take it w/ a grain of salt) he leans towards what we regard as the "past" and "future" as ontologically absolute states that never vanish and never go anywhere. They only seem to exist separately and seem to disappear because that's how our own cognitive apparatus is structured to filter and interpret them. So, yes, it seems like Kastrup's present leanings would conclude that our "dashboard" is creating an entropic arrow of time and that whatever Time itself ultimately is at base-level Reality does indeed exist, albeit in a very different way that we're struggling to wrap our heads around. Here's the Kastrup/Levin discussion: (kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIuph6WlhrSjd8U&ab_channel=AdventuresinAwareness). The relevant section starts at about the 12:00 mark. On a separate but still relevant note, I would submit that the notion of the past, present and future existing, in some sense, all at once coincides w/ reported near-death experiencers who consistently report exactly that. They'll say they can't explain how they came to that knowledge but somehow they just know it.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Imagine each individual one of our selfs exists within a sphere and the spheres of all of us are floating in a soup of universal consciousness. The inner surface of each sphere is our personal dashboard, the totality of all that we have evolved to see and feel and touch etc. The outer surface of one's sphere both translates our dashboard manipulations into terms the universal consciousness understands and in the opposite direction, transfers thoughts from universal consciousness into dashboard terms that we have evolved to understand. Of course the spheres and dashboard and universal consciousness are all entirely metaphorical. This is not entirely unexpected in light of the fact that the majority of our important thoughts are couched in language. Right?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Yes I understand the metaphor. The question is that if time is just a feature of the dashboard whether our minds are in time, especially if Universal consciousness is not. And then you have to somehow fit evolution into the picture and apply it to minds that are not temporal.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy I have come to understand that 'time' is a concept only (not an illusion, a concept), a kind of culturally evolved shorthand way to think about the movements of objects relative to each other, i.e. there is no such 'thing' as time. (Carlo Rovelli's videos are helpful to understanding this). Universal consciousness has no meaning for me. Being conscious is a process, not a 'something'. I am conscious of this and I am conscious of that in full realization that I am conscious only of my thoughts. But I have a clear understanding of what a thought is. It is what the discharge timing patterns of neurons represent. Patterns and processes and representations are all abstract entities but entirely dependent for their abstract existence on the existence of a physical substrate. To assert everything is thought is like defending faith as a path to truth when it is self evidently not. Oh oh, my thoughts have started wandering so, still interested in your thoughts, I'll stop.

[@ChristianSt97]

even though I disagree with some points in this video I have to say that generally it's a good critique

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@kuningaskolassas4720]

Really glad you did a video on him. While I also disagree with him on several matters, I share a lot of his issues with materialism/reductionism, and I'm glad he's helping bring it back to public awareness. Aside from your points in this video, why do you think he has been mostly dismissed in academia? I know idealism in general has something of a cultural bias against it, but do you think there's anything unique to analytic idealism that puts it at a greater disadvantage?

[@olbluelips]

Materialism vs idealism may matter to us but it’s a niche interest. Scientists don’t need to be metaphysically accurate to produce useful theories, while philosophers have debated this for millennia, so I don’t know if Kastrup’s work has been rejected as much as it’s stayed within its niche

[@aanakrukavi]

What is your views on Advaita Vedanta worldview (Non Duality) philosophy.

[@blbphn]

brilliant analysis - thank you!

[@michaelbarker6460]

This is all well above my pay grade but I still really like to think about these things. Having said that I'm still trying to wrap my head around the first section about Kastrups entropy argument. It reminds me of the idea that "the simulation is not the thing being simulated." For instance we can simulate something like different properties of food on a computer, like in a video game where the characters can eat and respond to it in similar ways that we do in the real world. But no matter how complex and accurate that simulation of food ever becomes it won't (presumably) ever turn into actual food that we can eat. Food is a substance that relies on interactions beyond the atomic level whereas computers rely on a structure that begins and ends with bits or tiny electrical gates as 0 and 1s. No matter how complex those bits of electricity in or out of gates are arranged on a computer chip we obviously won't be able to eat it. Another example and the one that actually reminded me of what Kastrup said is the idea of simulating a very complex thing like our climate as a whole on a computer to then make precise predictions about the weather far into the future. Very precise as in what days will it rain in a specific location in the year 2040 for example. But this is more than likely impossible with a computer simulation because that "simulation" is already running as the thing itself and its running at the fastest possible speed, which is itself the climate as it is. A computer replica of the earths climate that takes into account all of the essential physical interaction it needs to in order to make precise weather predictions far into the future would have to be far bigger than the earth itself and run at a much slower speed, as the lowest level it can go is a few nanometer sized bit gates running at a set clock speed. Whereas material reality presumably goes to levels far below the atom in size and interactions cap at the speed of light. Whatever the climate is doing right now can in that sense be seen as "the most efficient simulation of itself." All of this to say that it seems we couldn't therefore accurately represent or simulate the world around as long as whatever the thing we are simulating has more necessary information than what is possible to contain within a brain or whatever system or thing produces the representational output. That output has to be compressed in some way. I think you're right in that most people don't believe that we have actual bits of the world outside ourselves inside our heads, like if we perceive a bomb exploding there isn't an actual bomb exploding inside our brain. But on the other hand many people do believe that we can for instance actually produce consciousness by simulating it on a computer. Isn't this akin to people believing we can produce actual food, or fire, or storms on a computer or is akin to believing that when we perceive an apple there is ultimately an actual apple inside our heads. Because if that isn't the case saying that it is a direct perception instead of a replica or simulation or model just doesn't mean anything. Or at least anything that I can make sense of. What does direct perception even mean? If we intuitively believe we are "directly perceiving an apple" what are we claiming? Not that its your view of course but just the view in general.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

The film, "The Matrix" explores this idea. Have you seen it?

[@tombaker4586]

Well, since our family had a ghostly encounter, the spirit parallel state of being is our Outlook ( ever since this happened ). Great channel and a very likeable presentation. Tom, Brussels, Belgium.

[@haushofer100]

I'm watching this as a physicist (I did my research into string theory) interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics (and how it impacted our world view), and noticed how Kastrup uses quantum mechanics to defend his idealism. I haven't finished the video so maybe I'll come back with some actual comments about the content, but just replyed to let you know you misspelled his name in the video title: it's Bernardo (with an extra r) ;) I only recently discovered your channel, and as a physicist and philosopher-wannabe writing about physics and philosophy I like it a lot. If you ever want to use quantum mechanics in some sort in your video's and need some view from a physicist, I'd be happy to exchange thoughts!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thank you! I'll change the spelling, and I just might take you up on it! I intend to read through Tim Maudlin's books to get a better grip, but I haven't done so yet.

[@haushofer100]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Maudlin is indeed really good, both his books on spacetime and quantum mechanics. Another great book is Norsen's "Foundations of quantum mechanics", and a bit more on the popular side Adam Becker's "What is real?"

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Does one become a philosopher by thinking philosophical thoughts? I think so but like me, not necessarily a good one. Since it is my self who is conscious it seems to me that what a self is has a bearing on the topic and especially on the meaning of the word 'conscious'. It seems to me to be quite obvious that my self is a thought. Being a thought would certainly account for my self's ability to have commerce with the myriad of other thoughts which represent the universe and everything within it. Now if a thought is simply a process of neurological activity that in coded form, represents my self and everything else then the physical is merely the substrate without which process cannot exist (making the physical absolutely necessary but details beyond chemistry not necessarily relevant).

[@morphixnm]

Excellent analysis and my first intro to this channel. A few years ago, before Bernardo became famous, I had the chance to ask him some questions in his forum. One of my questions was about the relationship between between dissociated minds and what is there beyond their dashboards. Bernardo says that what we perceive is how thoughts in mind at large appear to us, and what are outer thoughts to us are inner thoughts to mind at large. I wanted to know if he thought our inner experiences were also on a screen of experience, and if so, what is our relationship to some "reality" behind this inner screen? And if. as dissociated alters of the one mind, we are fundamentally similar to it, would not its inner experiences also be on its own inner screen of experience? And finally, if everything is mental, then there would seem to be some kinds of mental "objects" somewhere behind all of our screens of inner experience, operating there in a subconscious world of causes and effects, as much unknown to mind at large as for its dissociated offspring. This all seems very complicated to me and not as parsimonious as Bernardo thinks it is.

[@starxcrossed]

This was really good-you explained the problems I had with these ideas better than I could figure it out. I agree with you, even though I still love, Bernardo.

[@BadjaBeats]

26:58 He acknowledges that universal consciousness bears resemblance to the consciousness of earlier life forms, yet he does not claim that it is more akin to these early forms than to later ones. The absence of metacognition doesn't necessarily equate to greater similarity in every aspect. BK's argument is that universal consciousness constitutes a high-dimensional 'space' encompassing all conceivable experiences, inclusive of time. It is not constrained by space and time like our perception; its higher dimensionality allows it to encompass all characteristics of space and time, along with additional elements.

[@kgrandchamp]

Hi Nathan! Thanks so much for this fascinating video and critique of Bernardo Kastrup's idealism! I've been trying to understand his ideas (and learning philosophy in general) and have so many questions and no place to find answers. Medical science uses the dashboard to make all these amazing medications and surgeries that seem to function, so how does work on the dashboard affect "reality" i.e. mind, so well? Also, his critique of panpsychisme is the problem of the adding up of micro-consciousness of particles, but then he admits that when one dies, our conscious states are somehow added to mind at large Then there is the problem of evolution of mind, that you mentioned, that seems to be mirrored in the "dashboard" of the brain structure and DNA itself. How does mind relate to DNA and influence it's changes and evolution? Also, MAL doesn't seem to be made of the same "stuff" as my mind. Just a small point to say that cats and dogs, who have phenomenological minds, do seem to dream so probably are able to have "dream alters"! In any case, thanks so much for your thoughts and this debate! 🌿

[@skaleru772]

Hi, I've been following BK's work for quite some time and I think I can help you with some of your questions. 1) The "dashboard" is just the interface between us and MAL. We can have effects on MAL and vice versa, not directly, but through the dashboard. In the end, there is just mental stuff affecting mental stuff, which is easier to explain than scenarios where non-mental stuff affects mental stuff, and so on. This is Bernardo's point here. 2) There is no problem here, instead of Combination, Bernardo's arguments rely on Dissociation. When the dissociation ends, the contents are "combined" with MAL by definition. The remaining challenge is to explain Dissociation in the first place, which, in his opinion, is an easier problem to have compared to the Combination Problem in Panpsychism or the Hard Problem of Consciousness in Physicalism. 3) Here, it gets tricky, and that is true for every theory that states time is emerging. However, this does not mean that any concept like evolution, where time is essential (in fact, all communication would be impossible when thinking 'outside' time), cannot be used to explain your argument. Time still tells something essential and true about reality, and whatever "that" is, though as a projection, is what we experience as time. 4) I mean, this is the whole point about Idealism. What other "stuff" does it seem like? 😉

[@kgrandchamp]

Hey skaleru thanks for your replies! I do have problems formulating my questions as I am not sure of what Bernardo means thru my own ignorance of philosophy and bad thinking! haha! What I mean is that MAL does not seem to be like my mind and seems alien and very different! We are supposed to be like it as we are dissociated from it but it seems very different. My dream alters don't seem different from "me" in my dreams, they feel the same - when I wake up - whereas I don't feel like my subjectivity is the same as MAL's! There are so many questions and details one could go into on most of his ideas! Thanks for taking the time to answer, though! :)@@skaleru772

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@@kgrandchamp You can feel like a different person in your dreams because sometimes you don't remember waking life or you can even experience false memory syndrome. I would also add that, from my own experience, I have taken psychedelics and I have felt like my mind was altered to the point where I wasn't even human anymore, and yet, in terms of consciousness, it was still me. But the most profound experience was when I was using mindfulness meditation in an attempt to induce a wake-initiated lucid dream. What I stumbled upon, however, wasn't what I expected. All qualia had disappeared save for the experience of awareness itself. To this day I feel like no words can do it justice. All thoughts and memories were gone, my earthly identity was gone, and I was in a state far divorced from conceptual reality. It was a blissful stillness, nothing weighed on me, like I was a luminous witness or a radiant emptiness. It was pure consciousness and it was clear. There was nothing to be aware of but itself (so definitely metacognitive) and something about it was both revelatory and unfathomable because there were no words to describe it and nothing to refer to it. I wasn't human, I wasn't anything but unperturbed consciousness. Even the concepts of time and space were gone. I could stay there forever! Then, as soon as the thoughts came, the stillness and bliss were gone. The first subsequent thoughts were along the lines of, 'What is this?', 'Where am I?', 'Who am I?' and they paved a way for a narrative that would attempt to formulate answers and describe what was experienced. I became human again as though I needed to do so in order to attempt to map out that state. I needed to become something else in order to do it. The narrative of that pristine cognition is what you get from me which somehow doesn't do it justice. But an insight remained. I know I didn't really become something else. At my core, I am precisely that formless, empty consciousness which transcends all conceptual reality. It's empty and yet capable of being filled with entire worlds. There was a radiant quality to it, like it had a creative principle. I speak about it as though it's separate from me but it is, in fact, the real me. I am just disassociated from such a pure state now because I identify as being this human being living this life. I don't know about MAL, perhaps we can only truly experience it once we have shuffled off our mortal coil, but what I experienced could definitely qualify as primordial consciousness or the ground of being. I hope this helps.

[@kgrandchamp]

Wow Arlindo! What a beautiful, well written answer! Thanks so much! I have to reread your text to absorb it when I get back from my Sunday walk! haha! Your awareness and perceptions are way beyond my experience so I feel pretty humbled and thankful for your sharing your experiences with me! Have a great day! 🌿 @@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@@kgrandchamp You too. I'm only sorry that I can't quite capture it with words. I wasn't even looking for it. I stumbled upon it during meditation lying down. I've never experienced anything like it again and I'll never forget it. But, who knows, maybe one of these days when I do mind awake body asleep/rested exercise akin to mindfulness meditation.

[@surrendertoflow78]

The insistence that mind-at-large is without meta-cognition (and the reasons given) is my biggest issue with Kastrup’s message and I keep relentlessly asking interviewers to challenge him on this and NO ONE does!! So I’m thrilled to see you questioning his line of reasoning on this. I am also generally a fan of his and have much respect and gratitude for his work with the Essentia Foundation, but alarms always go off in my head when he starts talking about this topic. I SO wish he would come on here to speak with you!! I agree with your points about why universal mind would more likely be meta-cognitive and also about what is probably the actual driver of Katstrup’s resistance to the idea (there are more clues to that regard in other things he says that clearly show an influence of and reactivity to Western Christian views.) I would also like to add that various reports of mystical experience, NDEs, and STEs point to evidence in favor of a universal meta-cognition that is experiencing the world with/through us. I know he has more recently started taking NDEs seriously in general, but he completely ignores the preservation (or elevation rather) of at least an approximation of higher-order meta cognition. Thank you for helping me feel not quite as alone in my objections to his anti-meta-cognitive arguments! 👏🏻 I really wish he’d be open to discussing this.

[@crimsonguy723]

I think BK definitely has some explaining to do in this area. However, this video critique left me wondering about the following things. There are real world cases where dissociation can occur while we are unconscious (dreaming while asleep or under general anesthesia for example). Technically, this happens in a mind capable of meta-cognition, but not at the same time as the dream character is meta-conscious. So this would imply that UC does not necessarily have to be meta-conscious. I also wonder if dissociation can occur in people with Dissociative Identity Disorder while the main identity is sleeping or otherwise unconscious, with one or more alter's being fully awake and meta-conscious. I haven't heard BK address these specific topics, but would be interesting for sure. Also, research on mystical experiences, STE's, and NDE's are probably post-facto descriptions of what people experienced, so the 1st-person perspective is necessarily brought back into the picture in order to be able to talk about what happened. During my own psychedelic trips I have experienced "oneness", although there was always a trace of meta-cognition like you're saying. I think the trace was still there because there was not full ego-death or "association" happening. If full ego-death or association happened, I would expect any reference points, the feeling of "I" or "me", to fully dissolve based on my own experience at least.

[@surrendertoflow78]

@@crimsonguy723 I honestly don’t understand why people speculate about NDE research if they haven’t actually studied it (as in accounts with verifiable details that have been researched by DOPS at UVA Charlottesville) or experienced it themselves. I see this All. The. Time.

[@tomaskubalik1952]

Is perfect indirect realism a term you made up? When I write a book, I would like to use this term. It's a nice phrase that could one day enter philosophical dictionaries. It would also be a good title for a book.

[@UsedHeartuser]

I can't speak directly for Dr. Kastrup, but here's how I understood his arguments: 1. I think in his view evolutionary theory is primarily a mathematical theory, that doesn't necessarily need time and space the way we normally conceive of it. I also believe I somewhere heard him talk about the possibility that there exists something like "proto-time" in which consciousness can evolve. In any case, there seems to be a process happening in universal consciousness that, from our view, looks like evolution. 2. Meta-consciousness comes about when phenomenal consciousness folds in on itself to create something like a loop (not spatially of course) for the purpose of self-reflection. The underlying substance is still only phenomenal consciousness, only with a more complicated structure (a loop). For this to happen nature needs something that, from our view, looks like evolution. 3. I think the idea behind not giving meta-consciousness to universal consciousness is the question of what would then be the whole point of creation? Especially with all the suffering it entails. If universal consciousness already had meta-consciousness to begin with, then our existence would be completely pointless. From our perspective at least, we seem to be the only creatures capable of meta-consciousness. So it makes sense to assume, that meta-consciousness arose from an evolutionary process of which we are the endpoint. 4. The motivation behind this process is self-knowledge. Since universal consciousness is only phenomenal conscious, it can't reflect on itself. It therefor must create humans, which have meta-consciousness, in order to gain self-knowledge. This process is not premeditated, but follows a "blind will" like in Schopenhauer. That's why universal consciousness doesn't care about all the collateral damage (suffering) it entails.

[@eleni8920]

This was really good. I like Bernado Kastrup, but I also picked up the problem with his description of phenomenal consciousness. It's possible that since he initially came from a field that has a dominant materialist worldview, it might be more challenging for him to make the leap to a Divine or Infinite intelligence, or whatever descriptive word you want to use. For example, his evolutionary description of metacognition demonstrates more of a materialist explanation. The other issue is time and space. Kastrup doesn't take into account other lifeforms from other worlds and/or dimensions. They might have existed in the past or concurrently alongside us. Or, time is merely an illusion and past, present, and future might all co-exist. Sorry, I can get carried away with uncertainty. LOL. What is interesting is that when I listen to Kastrup describe his analytic idealism, he presents his theory as though there were an intelligence within the primary consciousness. He may not even be aware that he is doing that. Sometimes the theories we come up with shatter our world views, and it takes time to untangle ourselves from it. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Kastrup notices the inconsistency with his phenomenal consciousness and adjusts his theory to address it. I hope he does as he is truly gifted in how he can eloquently explain complex ideas.

[@berenice39]

I have a problem with Kastrup's view of an afterlife. He jumps straight out of dissociation into universal consciousness. Why not still a different level of dissociation which would allow for continued individuality?

[@Flynn-hl7ug]

This video must of taken a lot of effort - and it's a joy to watch, thanks for making it

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jmeden]

Superb episode. Your critique of BK’s illegitimate use of evolutionary theory to prop up his idealism also applies to Donald Hoffman’s work. You should invite him into the pod.

[@Boulanger948]

Hoffman has responded to that criticism before

[@johnnastrom9400]

I think Tom Campbell has also used that as well.

[@martifingers]

In Kastrup's view, why does entropy appear on the dashboard? ie this seems to be the acid test for his view on scientific realism/antirealism.

[@alexmerab4206]

it is difficult to find BK's week points, but you did great job!

[@NikolajKuntner]

Thanks for the discussion. I hadn't known your channel and I've only seen half an interview with Kastrup. I think your video citations helped me get his argument. Now as for your first counter-case, I think a good part of Kastrup's argument can be saved: To critique e.g. realism, then (as per the method of deconstruction), we may adopt the realist framework (e.g. evolution applying to everything, or talking about what happens when we follow what happens with entropy) to show the problems with it. I.e. it's not really necessary to restrict ourselves to the dashboard as long as we're not making positive claims but only show contradictions with others. As for the second half, does Kastrup postulate that the "actual outside beyond the dashboard" is indeed timeless? I don't know, it wasn't part of your video citations. Because what I'd get at here is that apriori we could have evolution both on the dashboard and beyond it. Making postulates about the world beyond the dashboard makes the theory unappealing, but at least we shouldn't say it's necessarily faulty reasoning to speak of evolution there.

[@mrnibelheim]

Yes, this is the reason why I, too, am happy to allow Kastrup the use evolution theory: as a helpful tool for deconstruction. But then he seems to want to construct another view, and that could be a trap, in my view. Nagarjuna saw this trap; hence his insistence that emptiness (i.e. when all deconstruction is done) is also empty of independent existence. Then, no conceptual view can prevail, which is not nihilistic, but helps me to accept conventional reality with more lightness.

[@Adm_Guirk]

The entropic soup idea in regard to perception comes from Carl Friston's free energy principle.

[@purememory939]

Great video!!! Have you checked out Bergson? Matter and Memory makes a great case for a kind of direct perception that can account for illusion and error. Also I just finished reading Fichte where the ‘thing in itself’ or ‘beyond the dashboard’ is quite compellingly revealed as pure dogmatic speculation. Like you, the problems around the dashboard and the nature of the absolute are one of my major issues with Kastrup. Thank you for making this video, it is a much needed counterpart to Kastrups dogmatism, which can sometimes be hard to recognize through his otherwise beautiful and eloquent thoughts.

[@CJ-cd5cd]

I am a part of the world as it is in itself; therefore better understanding of my self gives me some access to it. That’s the Schopenhauer stance to the noumena, anyway.

[@VenusLover17]

Good stuff. Respect Kastrup a lot, but your challenges are very sound. Thanks so much

[@funkyskunk1]

I admire Kastrup's work and I think Idealism is closer to reality than materialism. However, my biggest problem with idealism is the relationship between Absolute/Universal Consciousness and individual minds such as my own. Bernardo talks about dissociation, but this is still a tentative explanation. Perhaps we can never really understand such a thing. I'm not afraid of the theistic implications of idealism at all, even though I used to be an atheist and a materialist. As I studied the mind-body problem and probed for solutions, I moved from materialism->panpsychism->idealism. Idealism makes it very likely that there is some kind of intelligence at the bottom of reality. If Idealism is true, it has implications for our daily lives. We are all part of one great whole, and we should treat all human beings and all life with compassion, loving kindness, and respect. I have been dismayed by some idealists (who shall not be named) who do not appear to have realized this.

[@TheMoopMonster]

The partitioning of God's mind into the individuated, coherent, and holistic selves we apparently experience, is indeed one of the greatest mysteries to contemplate. I think of the universal principle like a macro scale version of your mind-body. Your brain, and it's abstracted information processing, modeling yourself and your environment, is like the overarching will and telos of the universal consiousness. Your autonomic functions, are like the fabric of space-time, and the complex structures of material objects in the world, the baseline necessities for existence. Your willed functions, like your hands and feet, your mouth, your eyes, are the actualized interactions and relationships that occur within that world, like the movements of bodies in space, and the various exchanges of energy occuring in those bodies. There is so much more to unpack here, but the idea of "man made in God's image" rings true for me. Ultimately, in my personal synthesis of experience, it is doing all of this because it loves us. It wants us to love each other and the whole, with no expectations or demands to do so, or act in any way, as we are literally it. It revels in our independent existence, and freedom, and the fact that it has actualized an other, to which it can share its infinite eternal self. It is absolutely unselfish, and has given to us all of the properties that it has. An infinite, eternal existence, within an infinite eternal existence. This existence is inherently good, and meaningful, and it never ends. Everyone is it's favorite person, everyone is safe, we are all together forever, and we will all eventually experience being this thing, the most blissful experience imaginable. From nothing it came, and nothing it will always be, it cannot be erased, and you, cannot be erased.

[@MonisticIdealism]

I have a video on the relationship between absolute consciousness and individual minds where I give my own answer on this. It's called "Idealism and the Decombination Problem".

[@kathytomasi]

Nice critique of Bernardo's analytic idealism. I've been a fan of BK for a few years now and am grateful that someone so accomplished in science is helping to bring these matters to the mainstream. The mainstream materialist view is damaging to our culture, the planet and our individual lives and we need it to evolve. So, thank you for helping to spread the word. One of my few criticisms of BK is his view that UC is not metacognitive. UC MUST be metaconscious if human minds or other minds are. UC is the Infinite while human minds are finite and arise from UC. Human minds cannot have qualities that UC does not. UC IS all things and all potentials. I also disagree with how he talks about evolution. I think evolution pertains only to how UC expresses itself from the finite perspective. The Infinite One (UC) does not evolve or change.

[@laze4534]

How are you rationalizing that materialism is harmful and idealism is not?

[@remembertobe-effortlessly]

This is really excellent and wholly in line with not just my view but that of many philosophers and philosophically inclined friends. I don't know much yet about your view of idealism, but I wonder if you know BK has stated that the view closest to his is that of the Upanishads - but it turns out, it's not the Upanishads per se, but that of the extreme illusionist view of Shankara. I have felt what McGilchrist would call the extreme left hemisphere view of BK but never have seen the limitations of BK's view so clearly explained as in your video. Like BK, Shankara ultimately ends up with a universe that simply cannot be; all our perceptions are mere Maya, illusion and the real world - the Nirguna Brahman (impersonal pure Consciousness) is nothing like our perceptions. IN fact, this "world" of perceptions has never even come into existence. As he puts it in an interview with Swami Sarvapriyananda, "nothing has ever happened, nothing happens, this is not happening, nothing happens." A great contribution, thank you. Looking forward to seeing more.

[@AhmedMohamedFarrag]

You are absolutely spot on. That switch from SR to SA undermines his first argument; and then he goes on and undermines his evolutionary premise in his second argument by undermining the reality of the scientific paradigm.

[@donaldwilson5693]

That was very interesting and thought provoking.

[@metacomputics3013]

Very pleased to discover this channel! I agree some of Kastrup's arguments for idealism are indeed flawed, as you rightly pointed out. I am keen to hear better arguments for idealism from you. Can you give me some links to your work, please? This is the first video I watched on this channel.

[@johnharris3118]

Great video, thanks. I am a fan of Tom Campbell's MBT and Bernardo and Tom have debated with a large degree of agreement but Bernardo is happy to fall back on mainstream science when it suits him whilst maintaining the view that Materialism is Baloney.

[@konberner170]

Great! In my view, you were too kind. For every issue you pointed out, I saw many more. His approach seems to be to make generalizations based on presumption over and over again. That is not, in my mind, any sort of philosophy.

[@selviskk]

I agree with the part about meta-consciousness, and I thank you for providing some good insight on this topic. I remember reading Kastrups book where he tries to argue his view in more detail, and I was thinking to myself it didn't make much sense. He creates this metaphor about the medium of consciousness swirling itself into a mirror and then seeing its own reflection, the dissociated state, thus becoming meta. But then he says its only a metaphor and must not be taken litterarly. But that is just saying it didn't really happen, because he does not give any common property between what is happening in the metaphor and what is happening "in reality". Also, if consciousness not being meta, seeing itself in a mirror would not suddenly make it go meta. Why would it? If a creature without self-knowledge sees itself in a mirror, why would it suddenly gain such knowledge? At least, he didn't give any argument for why it would. I think a more plausible view of meta- consciousness is that its like a dimmer switch. It can never go completely dark but can become brighter and brighter. While reading his book it seemed to me he wants to exclude any notion of universal consciousness as being an agent with self-reflection, because it could imply theism of some kind, and he wants to present himself as a strict naturalist whose theory can compete with other strictly naturalistic theories.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I thought the same when reading Materialism is Baloney. He talks about metaphors, but then treats them as models and reads conclusions from them. Bad ones in fact, for reasons such as you give. And that's why I focused this critique on his analytic idealism course online. Also, it is later work.

[@MonisticIdealism]

Bernardo is awesome, but I agree with these critiques. I've been making these exact same constructive criticisms against analytic idealism for years.

[@FilipinaVegana]

What is the antithesis of "ANALYTIC" Idealism? "NON-ANALYTIC"?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

No one has thought about these issue more than you Monistic ;). I'm a few steps behind.

[@Mandibil]

Did you criticise them in your recent interview of him ?

[@MonisticIdealism]

@@Mandibil No, I brought these criticisms up in my first interview with him.

[@FilipinaVegana]

@@MonisticIdealism Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.

[@StefanSchoch]

Listening to you I have the impression that you haven't really understood Bernardo. Much of your critique relates - as far as I can tell - to problems we inevitably face when we try to explain these topics in a language, that is 'by definition' (trying to define) dualistic. So one question for instance is how literal you take the image of the 'screen of perfection'. Here I think you haven't represented Bernardos point adequately. So with all respect: nice try, but not convincing (to me). If you're interested in answering the question how 'meta consciousness' could evolve from 'phenomenal consciousness', I'd recommend studying Ken Wilbers Integral Approach and engage in some spiritual practice to 'see' for yourself where language no longer works. That (plus the work of Iain McGilchrist) brings it perfectly together.

[@remembertobe-effortlessly]

This is interesting. I read all of Wilber’s works up to 2006 and never found them compelling; to much basic misunderstanding of Sri Aurobindo and many others as well as basic mistakes about what developmental stages in psychology are actually about; very familiar with McGilchrist and agree he does excellent work, but i think much of it (particularly Part 3 of “The Matter of Things” is quite in conflict with Bernardo’s ideas. The mai problem is taking universal consciousness to be EITHER meta conscious in teh human sense or phenomenally conscious. Bernardo claims his major inspiration (or at least, started claiming it in the past year) is the Upanishads, but neither his writing, nor that of Wilber or McGilchrist is more than minimally related to that of the Upanishads, which take Chit (or hinted at in later Upanishads and openly embraced by the Tantras, “Chit Shakti”) as an infinite intelligence, infinitely beyond that of either phenomenal or human metacognition.

[@StefanSchoch]

@@remembertobe-effortlesslyYes, this is interesting indeed. For me personally the main question is, whether a theory or approach _makes sense_ and relates in a meaningful way to my own insights I gather from enganging in deep spiritual practice and then see if both (ineffable insight and verbal interpretation based on the theories) integrate well with each other. That said, for me it's less a question of a theory 'being right' than being 'useful' as a framework and guidance on the (neccesary) path of practice and seeing for oneself what the 'real truth' is (which cannot be articulated in words). As Wilber puts it 'all is true - but partial'. So true. And partial. 😉

[@rubenpalma4045]

Congratulations. Great work. I was waiting a looong time for the content of this video. Kastrup is a brilliant and inspiring thinker, but sometimes seems too convinced of his own views (a common trace among brilliant people).

[@thenonphysical]

Well done. I am not sure about your first part, as an argument against BK, but your 2nd part to me is brilliant. I would like to add to the 2nd part that this physical universe shows sign of intelligent design. It shows signs of being a simulation. If you have a simulator of the universe, this requires metaconsciousness too. The quantum acts like a computer. Actually we use quantum computers today. Don't you need metaconsciousness to develop computation?

[@ramyafennell4615]

My wish would be to hear you talk to Bernardo directly. I have followed many conversations where Bernardo answers critics but yours is a call for clarifications on certain points, which by the way I dont understand either. Except for part 2.... I was left confused and wanted Bernardo there to clarify. For me its easy to understand why Universal Consviousness would not be reflective...if you really rest in being...there is completeness...everything is filled with being. Try it....just feel...I am...stop at.... am...hold the mind there...in Being. The rest....metacognition and phenomenal cognition is all becoming. With thanks for bringing me back to Parmenides and his eastern counterpart the rishis of India.

[@TimScarfe]

Knowing about Active Inference myself (I've interviewed Friston about 8 times at this point!), you might have gotten the wrong read a tiny bit on the "naive realism" part - he's not arguing about perceptions, rather representations in the brains "generative model". However, this is often misunderstood i.e. the model is a fiction, the mechanics are actually diffused in a complex way, even outside of the body.

[@HUSTLE_MONEY]

Can you elaborate please? Just a little deeper than the higher level mentionings.

[@vincentcausey8498]

I was never convinced by Kastrup's assertion that universal consciousness is phenomenal but couldn't put my finger on the reason why. This explanation goes a long way to convincing me that universal consciousness must be meta rather than phenomenal. Following on from that argument, I can't disagree with the suggestion that Kastrup seems reluctant to fully embrace the implications of analytic idealism.

[@DisturbsOthers]

Thank you for this thoughtful critique. I confess to being a devoted fan of Katstrup's philosophy. I can't say how many videos I've watched of debates between his point of view and others and I always end up in his camp. In large, I feel most of your criticisms might be misunderstandings. But, the one at the heart of your critique is compelling. Is universal consciousness phenomenal or meta? What if it's neither? I don't think Katstrup is so dumb as to not see the flaw/question you put forward, or at least your perception of it. I take his use of terms for varying "levels" of consciousness to be entirely about the difficulty of putting all of this into words from the perspective of the type of observers we are. These are concepts that are nearly impossible for us to grasp fully because we are embedded in, and part of, what is and cannot perceive it from the outside. What convinces me of Katstrup's philosophy is that it ties in nicely with Stephen Wolfram's concept of the Ruliad, Michael Levin's work in developmental biology, and eastern philosophical views of reality - particularly Vedanta. Each of those views entails translation from their discipline's unique vocabulary and focus, but it feels to me that they are all saying the same thing. I pay attention when physics, math, biology, and metaphysics are all describing virtually the same thing (and in a way that makes sense to me) and try not to let specific terms and language get in the way of understanding what is being conveyed. I'm sorry Bernardo turned down your invite to debate because I would like to hear his answer to your point. What is his reasoning for the apparent distinction or is this, at core, a distinction without a difference? "

[@levanmelikishvili4373]

Thanks for nice analysis. Your discussions was very thought provoking and your arguments sharp. I'm a big fan of Bernardo's work, but as all theories do, his one also has some weak points and it may be useful to examine those carefully to refine his case. To be honest some of your arguments looked like a hair splitting and not very substantial to me (probably more important from your perspective as a philosopher), and I think Bernardo would have been able to easily address most of them (for example about mirroring of perceptions and brain states, also about evolution not providing actual data). Where I complete agree with your point is about meta consciousness of Mind at Large. I think it `s much more logical to assume that the traits that we demonstrate would also be present in Universal intelligence and probably in much higher degrees. Also it's also possible that through this temporary dissociations, certain experiences can be achieved and certain qualities obtained that won't be quite possible without it. Hundreds of speculations can be made why this may happen. For example children naturally create "dissociated alters" to play engage in games with themselves. And again what we may call suffering, can very well be seen as something completely different in a larger context. From the perspective of timeless and boundaryless being. Like a scenes on a cinema screen cannot devastate us when we remember that it's just a movie. We even enjoy tragedy and violence. Now I'm not suggesting that larger consciousness is having fun with suffering of his dissociated states. I'm just saying that we are sometimes projecting our limited motives on a processes that probably my well be beyond our mundane logic.

[@Flynn-hl7ug]

Thank you

[@robertdabob8939]

Pretty sure the use of the term 'analytical' is a shout out to CG Jung's analytical psychology, and universal consciousness is basically synonymous with the collective unconscious and it's archetypes. That's clearly the framework behind his work and also adds context to his point on universal consciousness being only phenomenologically conscious - in an unconscious state. The way I see it we are it's meta conscious expression. Perhaps the representation of universal consciousness in a differentiated state - our isolated subjective ego's experience - is a form that gives rise to meta consciousness? I guess evolution applies to mind with regard to instincts and archetypes, being the means by which unconscious patterns of shared behavior fosters the emergence of culture, for example. It's when we encounter our instincts and their correlated archetypal images in our personal lives that we gain access to energy and motivation - libido - so we're psychologically wired for adaptation and survival and that seems to be the nature of universal consciousness.

[@casperdermetaphysiker]

Have you heard about Gustav Fechner?

[@yssode]

That’s not 1080p now is it

[@nicoladisvevia]

Just chanced upon your channel and subscribed. Excellent presentation! I hadn't realised Kastrup is rather Kantian (if your representation of his thought is correct) in that he holds science to investigate only the 'dashboard', i.e. phenomenal consciousness, and incapable of reaching further into reality itself. Towards the end you say that purely phenomenal consciousness cannot be in a state of dissociation, only meta-cognitive consciousness can. From my understanding of Kastrup, our form of phenomenal consciousness is already a form of dissociation, and Kastrup's own meta-cognition merely comes to recognise this fact. Whether we agree with his thesis on meta-cognition or not (I, like yourself, don't) why should that at least not be possible? (Although dissociation would be a somewhat misleading word.) But I'll have to learn more about Kastrup's theory and arguments.

[@watchfuleagleson]

Thanks for speaking up! Bernardo falls short in what I’d call big picture metaphysics. I find it cold comfort, as well as un-parsimonious and downright materialistic, to hope that our combined suffering will help a schizophrenic universe become saner. The favored big freeze scenario for our expanding universe would, if correct, finally render it unable to support life; hence the consensus that the universe is as mortal as you or I, and its existence, along with everything in it, is meaningless per se. Idealism, in order to be consistent, must envision Mind as ultimately beyond time, space and causation-which Bernardo has at times admitted, but usually sets aside.

[@radscorpion8]

9:25 this is the crucial point. And what is so shocking is how easily we can see this error. I paused the video for a few seconds after you summarized Kastrup's argument and came to the same conclusion. He is simply confusing our perceptions with our brain's cognitive ability to maintain that screen of perceptions. They are two completely different things. It would be like saying a computer program that records brownian motion of water molecules, must itself be undergoing brownian motion of its circuitry, gradually growing more disordered to the point where nothing makes sense. Its false on a very elementary level. I don't think I am a genius here but I really expect better from a trained philosopher and I'm glad you pointed it out in such clear terms.

[@olbluelips]

I don’t think he’s saying that at all. Not trying to be argumentative, can you elaborate? I understand your critique but not exactly where Kastrup makes the error

[@tinalee8468]

I enjoyed your critique and learning about Kastrup's idealism. I'm a bit baffled about why he decides to retain a sort of Kantian phenomena and noumena divide (represented by the dashboard and whatever lies outside of it, which "is nothing like the dashboard"). I would think the big benefit of idealism lies in dissolving that divide in various ways so you don't have to explain how to bridge the two, otherwise he'd have to explain how we can know that universal consciousness is what lies beyond the dashboard (just as scientific realists have to explain how we can know that the world in itself is what scientific theories describe). Also, what does the 'analytic' in 'analytic idealism' refer to? I tend to think of analytic philosophy's focus on language and logic.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Very astute comments and I have similar concerns. Besides the term "analytic idealism" was already taken in the work of A C Ewing. I assume he called it that as Kastrup considers himself an analytic philosopher.

[@tinalee8468]

Thanks!@@AbsolutePhilosophy

[@olbluelips]

I agree that universal mind must be at least slightly metaconscious, since there’s nothing for it to know but itself. 26:30 onward was a really great line of critique especially I don’t think I agree with the criticism around 3:00-10:00. The entropy argument may not be the standard or even simplest critique of direct realism, but that view is so flimsy that even the fact that vision uses photons makes it fall apart, as photons arent like… little dots of colour whizzing around. Or like you said, the fact that it can’t explain illusions. Combining direct realism with pretty much any scientific fact is enough to send it spiraling into incoherency. Kastrup has simply combined direct realism with the fact that our mental states correlate with neural states. “Mirroring” is just the correlation that’s most “direct” As for that particular possible form of perfect indirect realism you mentioned, it seems magical to think that the apple is entropic, and that your perception of it is entropic, but that the middle layer (brain) is not. This wouldn’t be a good place to hide from the entropy critique. Now, I have actually talked to someone who took the view that our perceptual states were mirrors of the objective world. Like me, he was not a philosopher.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Penrose and Hoffmann work in the framework that I myself can navigate and see as being cooperative means or avenue but these types who really seem to just circle back to status qoue doesn't fullfill the 3 data transfer of idealism, subjective and objective i see as neccassary. As far as some critical extreme that provides access to a feild or demention of higher cognitive awareness of human dashboards i think we must appease the possibility

[@travisbplank]

Been looking for ahwile for someone to ceitique Kastrup's idealism besides edgy teenage materialists thatvassociate tok heavily with ye olde "horsemen atheism". This critique isnt perfect, but it's well articulated. I'd love to see more explorations of his ideas from you in a "friendly bruising" way. Easy sub. Look forward to exploring more of your channel.

[@jamescareyyatesIII]

Excellent lecture.

[@ianbaez1998]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the mere existence of phenomenal consciousness be sufficient in and of itself to ground the existence of meta-cognition? If phenomenal consciousness is simply awareness, then wouldn't the emergence of meta-cognition be entirely deducible from the theorerical ability of awareness to direct itself upon itself? In other words, if the nature of reality is ultimately just awareness, then isn't self-awareness (meta-cognition) just awareness folding in on itself? Meta-cognition is not a different type of consciousness; meta-cognition is just different configuration of phenomenal consciousness.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

This is a bigger jump than statements like 'just folding in on itself' suggest. Most theories that make this distinction point to the structural nature of meta-cognition that makes it amenable to thought, in contrast to the unstructured nature of phenomenal consciousness. For example. phenomenal consciousness contains no 'I' (the subject), unlike metaconsciousness. Its a big difference.

[@ianbaez1998]

​@@AbsolutePhilosophy I don't think I agree with your assessment, but I really appreciate you responding and explaining your rationale. The 'I' [the subject], in my view, already exists **in** phenomenal consciousness. To be more precise, in my view, phenomenal consciousness **is** the subject (i.e., it is the intuitive felt "is-ness"/"am-ness" of my existence). Meta-cognition, in my view, is just *this* phenomenal subject, becoming keenly attentive to itself. I mean, doesn't this transition happen all the time during the transition between dreams and lucidity? In a dream, the subject still exists, the only difference is that it doesn't have a keen attention to itself. In other words, in dreams the core felt-ness of my being is still there, it just doesn't direct its attention to itself to such an extent as to acquire an idea of itself as a distinct 'I.' Of course, with all that said, I am by no means an expert. I'd really appreciate any reading recommendations on this topic if you have any. Again thanks a lot for responding!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

@@ianbaez1998 Well I know Kastrup suggests the idea was first explained properly in 2012 by the person he quotes, but it has been in philosophical literature for a long time. You could start with Ned Block's 1995 paper available here: www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/on-a-confusion-about-a-function-of-consciousness/061422BF0C50C5FF00927F9B6E879413

[@ianbaez1998]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy thanks!

[@andyjurko75]

As a fellow idealist, I agree that Bernardo's view of "evolution to meta-consciousness" is problematic, to say the least. To me, the main issue is it implies time is fundamental while I think Bernardo himself believes the concept of time is emergent from consciousness and I do as well. Idealism is definitely not a silver bullet that answers all important philosophical questions, as one could have an impression from listening to some gurus, it's just more true to reality than materialism. Still I'm too very grateful to Kastrup for promoting idealism.

[@krisc6216]

But, time is never fundamental, even in our current conscious state, it's a mental construct. You cannot experience any other moment than this one, the only one.

[@andyjurko75]

@@krisc6216 True, time is just a theory of our dashboard which seems to be a lower form of higher order universal consciousness.

[@paulkeogh9604]

Paradoxically, if it's correct to understand universal consciousness (UC) as simultaneously 1) the shared context for all individuated/dissociated states of consciousness (alters), and 2) the dissociated consciousness or bounded awareness itself including meta-consciousness, which is the capacity to periodically reflect upon and critically assess the contents of experience or in other words, re-represent the contents of consciousness in which one interprets, describes or otherwise characterizes different states of one's own mind, it doesn't make sense that "universal consciousness must be at least meta-conscious" as the host suggests. Rather, UC must at least have the potential for meta-conscious experience. So, like all paradoxes, this one only exists in the minds of seemingly separate, meta-conscious entities.

[@CJ-cd5cd]

Assuming you also take a representational view of reality, according to your version of idealism, what is it that’s being represented?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Good question! I take what Kastrup calls phenomenal consciousness to _be_ reality (although not in whole) and so it is not representational. But metaconsciousness and thought _is_ representational... typically of that which can be phenomenally experienced. So I don't have veil of perception issues.

[@CJ-cd5cd]

​@@AbsolutePhilosophy I'm not quite sure I understand how your idealism differs from Kastrup's. According to my understanding of analytic idealism, Kastrup takes phenomenal consciousness to be the ontological primitive, and what is being meta-cognized is phenomenal consciousness. Analytic idealism posits that perception itself is a representation of phenomenal consciousness. Are you saying that perception and phenomenal consciousness are one and the same?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

@CJ-cd5cd Nope. Part 7 of the course makes clear Kastrup thinks there is "the world as it is in itself" and then there is the "representation" of that world in phenomenal consciousness and then the "rerepresentation" of it in metaconsciousness. I don't think phenomenal consciousness is representative of anything. And metaconsciousness represents phenomenal consciousness, so there is nothing outside experience like the "world in itself" that Kastrup thinks lurks beyond the dashboard.

[@CJ-cd5cd]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Perhaps Kastrup is guilty of not being as precise in his videos, but you should read his books for the nitty gritty. For example in his book on Schopenhauer, Kastrup takes the world as it is in itself to be endogenous, non-perceptual feelings or volitional states, and perceptions to be the representation of such: "Perceptual representations thus already entail a subtle level of self-reflection". Referring to the world as it is itself (which consists of his elucidation of Schopenhauer's concept of the Will), "In its primordial configuration , the will entailed no representations, as there were no individual subjects yet--i.e. no alters of the will. The experiential states of this primordial will did not include perception of a seemingly external world, for there was no such world yet. Instead, they entailed only endogenous FEELINGS (italicized in book). Moreover, the DISPOSITIONS or IMPETUS inherent to these feelings triggered self-stimulation or self-excitation of the will, which in turn led to the latter's unfolding into the known universe" (p. 113).

[@beniscatus6321]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Phenomenal consciousness has different meanings in Analytic Idealism depending on context. If we go so far as to ascribe the modern term ‘phenomenal consciousness’ to Mind at Large, we must bear in mind that ‘phenomenal’ in this sense means ‘experiential’; it is not in opposition to Kant’s ‘noumenal’ because of course MAL’s experience is beyond ours - it is noumenal to us as dissociated alters; we can only begin to appreciate its depths by ‘self-transcendence’ and introspection. Our everyday experience of MAL’s phenomenal consciousness comes via the senses, giving rise to perceptual states which fragment Nature: we reduce the icons and symbols of MAL’s ideas and feelings to mere ‘objects’ which are images or representations of the interacting and interconnected contents of the Transpersonal Mind.

[@douglaswoolley6101]

Meta-Consciousness can only exist with Language. Also we experience a very small portion of the total scale of "Reality". We cannot see or experience a planck moment nor the span of a million years. We are very successful within the sphere of objects we can handle, and in building instruments to deal with objects out of that range (Cern, JWST, Microscopes etc.) The word reality is a place holder. For most of us that is enough.

[@Robinson8491]

I think the first entropy argument you discuss Bernardo is using, from external chaos having to be mirrored inside being impossible, is Immanuel Kant's

[@KT-dj4iy]

24:35 I'm not sure it makes sense to see phenomenal consciousness as a "lower" form than meta consciousness; simpler, yes, but not necessarily lower. In that sense, Kastrup's Universal Consciousness is somewhat reminiscent of Plotinus' _The One,_ or the God of classical theism. In fact, in the latter (not sure about the former) simplicity is an essential aspect of what God is. Following that approach, it's not just that Kastrup's UC _happens to be_ phenomenally conscious (and not meta conscious), it is _necessarily_ so. But for me, what undermines that possible overlap between Kastrup on the one hand and Plotinus, Aquinas, and the like, on the other, is the apparent spontaneous coming-into-being of these ring-fenced additional personalities. That immediately raises the question as to how -- by what mechanism -- did that happen? Kastrup seems to be offering the UC as the unitary, primordial thing. But it can't be. In addition to the UC he also needs some mechanisms governed by some _"Laws of Personality Emergence"_ and if those exist, then the UC just isn't the bottom line he seems to think it is. It's similar to the kind of unitary, primordial no-thing your Lawrence Krauss types postulate. We know that whatever was _not_ there at "the beginning", the various mechanisms allowing for quantum fluctuations and so on certainly were. And in that case, Krauss's nothing just isn't the bottom line he seems to think it is.

[@santacruzman8483]

It seems to me that, as Kant explained, we never be certain of what exists behind our "dashboards of perception', so I would agree with you that Dr. Kastrup's theory is conjecture...as is yours...as it seems that each are unfalsifiable. Am I missing something here? This is a sincere question.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

No you aren't missing something, and are entirely correct. That's why the neo-Kantians rejected the idea of the 'thing-in-itself' entirely. However, I wasn't advocating Analytic Idealism with a revised kind of universal consciousness (although I can see why you might think so). I was only saying that _Kastrup's commitments_ mean he should, upon consideration, take universal consciousness as being meta-cognitive. My idealism does not have some speculative realm beyond the veil of perception, as I don't have an 'indirect' view of perception.

[@santacruzman8483]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Ahh...that make sense. I appreciate the clarification sir.

[@anteodedi8937]

I generally dislike idealists because they talk nonsense most of the time, but you are an exception, lol. I love the part about the self refuting character of his arguments. Hoffman makes the same mistake by appealing to evolution, science, and space-time just to deny them one moment later. Regarding the second part, the universal consciousness is supposed to be the mind of what we call the inanimate cosmos. I don't see how that mind can be metacognitive like we are. I think there is a pretty strong intuition here. There appears to be a correlation between the complexity of the minds and the complexity of structure, functions, behavior. Consider a human, a dog, and a beetle and compare them. Now consider the inanimate cosmos. It has less complex structure, functions, behaviors than a beetle, and therefore it must have a much less complex mind/consciousness and such a mind just doesn't seem to qualify as god in any sense. Just like the inanimate cosmos of the materialists, it does what it does, without deliberation or any sense of morality. Not an idealist, but I like flirting with the idea of a naturalistic idealism or a naturalistic panpyschism.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for the compliment. My idealism is very different to Kastrup's. I'll be doing videos that start to sketch out my views over the next few months. Let's see if I can make it plausible to you. I like a challenge :).

[@ryanashfyre464]

I see where your critique on universal consciousness and the notion of it being metacognitive is coming from, but I might submit that the obvious fine tuning of the universe lends towards precisely that outcome. If we were talking about a purely natural mind akin to that of an animal, completely oblivious to its own actions and how they impact others, we might reasonably expect a naturally chaotic universe to reflect that behavior. Is that what we see? Absolutely not. We see jaw-dropping levels of harmony, behaviors so spectacularly fine-tuned that the finest watchmaker would blush at their sheer inadequacy in comparison. This is not a universe bereft of intelligence acting like an impulsive animal. That aside, to play Devil's Advocate for Donald Hoffman for a minute he's addressed your exact criticism a number of times. What he would say is that evolution is merely a pointer to something outside of spacetime that is *not itself* what we could recognize as evolution. Since spacetime is emergent from something deeper in Reality, we've no good reason to think that whatever it is that evolution is representative of will, in any meaningful way, look like evolution itself - therefore your claim that he shot himself in the foot is invalid.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@ryanashfyre464 Hoffman talks nonsense. He has never substantially addressed anything. He seems more like a con artist to me. You cannot appeal to scientific notions and be a scientific anti-realist because you are throwing your entire framework out of the window at the same time. It is a self refuting stance. Kastrup does the same thing. I think Tim Maudlin pointed that to him in a short clash they had. He was trying to misuse quantum mechanics as always, but a theory of physics (a theory that describes things in physical terms) cannot even conceivably refute physical realism. As for fine-tuning, it can either be a brute necessity or a brute contingency under a naturalistic view. Once you have fine-tuning/constants, evolution takes place. I am not quite sure your appeal to it affects my point. I was talking about the inanimate cosmos and if it happens to have some kind of mind/consciousness, I was deriving conclusions about that mind/consciousness. I was already operating under a naturalistic framework, and fine-tuning doesn't pose a problem for a naturalistic view to begin with. Actually the conclusions I derived about the mind/consciousness of the inanimate cosmos (assuming it has one) predict all the data of suffering and evil.

[@CeroAshura]

Complete misunderstanding of Hoffman's argument IMO. Suppose you have a measurement device that is spaced with 1cm precision, this unit cannot make accurate measurements of objects smaller than 1cm. Yet it is still fully functional for its own scale adjusted objects. From what I understand Hoffman is not stating that evolutionary biology is incorrect and therefore useless, rather he's saying evolutionary biology is incorrect and useless beyond its scope. People didn't stop using Newtonian physics to calculate object trajectory just because we have Einsteinian physics. It's still very functional within its framework.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@CeroAshura Scientific theories being at least approximately true (like Newtonian physics) is what scientific realists argue for. Hoffman ain't one.

[@Stofflichkeit]

Delightful

[@subjektobjekt736]

For a couple of years I have wondered whether Kastrup uses his occasional scientism-style reasoning for strategic appeasement to intellectual paradigms, or if he is intellectually committed here himself. I don't have an answer yet, and perhaps this is just the riddle Kastrup represents as a philosopher when seen from the outside. But it is good to watch someone discover similar issues!

[@goran586]

In the framework of Analytic Idealism one might say that we, as dissociated alters within the construct of "Mind At Large" (MAL), embody the meta-cognitive facets of MAL on the perceptual dashboard. In a parallel vein, biological evolution serves as a dashboard representation, elucidating the intricate dynamics of MAL's relentless pursuit to comprehend itself. MAL might therefore be understood as fundamentally phenomenal-conscious, but in a process of becoming meta-conscious. To the extent that man's image of God is an intuitive peek behind the dashboard of perception, C.G. Jung espoused a parallel perspective. According to him, the transformative shifts in humanity's conceptualization of God throughout history mirror the evolution of its consciousness, and maybe also the evolution of God's consciousness.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

That sounds like the kind of view I say in this video that Kastrup would need to adopt to maintain his account of mind arising from a dissociative process.

[@swerremdjee2769]

Very good of you to notice, respect👍 Ive created a theory, the narcisist, psychopath and empathy theory, the catperson and dogperson theory. The catperson or part is the self, the dogperson or part is the self in a group. 20-60-20, in de dogperson/group, 20% being pro the argument and willing to do something about it, 60% being neutral or going allong with which side wins, 20% being against and willing to do something about it. 20-60-20 in the catperson/the self/ personal, 20% pro or going along, 60% is you/how you see yourself and how you are today, 20% is against and not going along. Some people hate cats and or dogs but they cant or dare to out it in the open because of the consequentions it may have for them in their group... Catperson, female, emotional, introvert and live in the moment/the now. Dog person, male, rational, extrovert and lives for tomorrow. The dogperson uses physical violence where the catperson uses psychological violence. I also included some 2 hemisphere data and some historical proof in an email which Ive sent to a few scientists a few years ago. I also came up with KABE=W, knowledge aquired by experiance = wisdom. Let me know what you think about it👍

[@george5464]

That’s literally Bernado position though? Have you read his books?

[@swerremdjee2769]

Almost forgot the most important part🙂 The catperson wants their animal to live free, to be selfreliant, in a way the catperson is there for the animal/other The dogperson wants their animal to be free but within the group accepted norm , they will adapt more easily to an inhume norm, the dog/person is more there for the dogperson. 60% being the norm people who like both cats and dogs, 20% dont like cats and 20% dont like dogs. Within each side there are extremes the narcisists and or psychopaths. The police dog trainer, the dog is only there for one purpose, if the value of the dog doesn't conform it will be replaced. The outer fringe of the catperson doesn't allow the cat to go outside, has their nails cut, if the so doesn't allow the cat to a cat and when the cat doesn't conform by their standarts the cat will be replaced.

[@besmart3191]

Oke its here👍

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

It does not follow that because mis-perceptions of the world are possible, therefore, any and all perceptions of it -- correct or incorrect -- are indirect perceptions of it. This like arguing that because it is possible to give an incorrect answer on an exam, therefore, any and all answers -- even the correct one - must be indirect answers.

[@BadjaBeats]

27:20 The reasoning flaw you've identified is indeed significant, so much so that it's surprising how BK or his immediate colleagues could have overlooked it. Alternatively, could it be possible that you have not fully comprehended the theory he proposes? Ask yourself this: Could you tonight dream of the complete evolutionary path from abiogenesis to who you are now ? If yes, then that's sort of what happened according to BK. A higher consciousness dreamed all of this up. each evolutionary stage in your dream would still feel like a lapse in time, but does time really exist in your dream? No because time can freeze go, go backwards, fast forward or anything in between. Time and evolution are just experiences in your dream made of mind stuff.

[@marlobardo4274]

Alfred Korzybski elegantly stated that no model whether map or dashboard should be taken for the reality itself.

[@StatelessLiberty]

I agree with your criticisms of Kastrup. I am surprised however that most philosophers favour indirect realism. A while back I read The Concept of Mind and it had an argument which I found convincing on this topic. The argument roughly goes that “seeing an image” or “seeming to see something” are conceptually derivative of the ordinary concept of seeing. When you’re shown a photograph of someone the point is to produce an experience that is like seeing them for real. In general the concept of “seeing an image” is parasitic on the ordinary notion of seeing. For these reasons it doesn’t make sense to say that all seeing is really seeing images.

[@Boulanger948]

This seems to be more of a linguistic criticism of how we use the word "seeing"

[@StatelessLiberty]

​@@Boulanger948 yes but I think comparing ordinary usage to philosophical usage is important because philosophical problems ultimately arise out of ordinary language (non-philosophical discourses I mean).

[@Boulanger948]

@@StatelessLiberty but you still get what someone says when they claim that all we see are images, you imagine a world outside of your phenomenal perceptions, dissimilar from them but that grounds them in some way, why pretend that you don't know that just because you can technically say that the language used isn't accurate, "well actually it doesn't make sense to say that all we see are images because the concept of seeing an images is contingent of the very phenomenal perceptions that you are claiming to be images". Ok, but you still know what he's trying to say right?

[@StatelessLiberty]

​@@Boulanger948 I'm saying the very concept of seeing has the notion of "directly seeing an object" built into it, it never involves seeing "experiences" or something else. Even when I see an image, e.g. a photograph, it is an object which I see "directly." More generally, we learn concepts like seeing from a community of language users. A concept can sometimes be misapplied but it can't always be misapplied without making the concept meaningless. If you tamper too much with the properties of a common sense concept that you lose touch with what you're even talking about.

[@Boulanger948]

@@StatelessLiberty honestly I'd be interested in how you'd even prove the claim that the very concept of seeing has the notion of directly seeing an object, I'd be willing to grant that if i introspect and give an honest answer of how I feel about I'd agree with you, but I don't see how we would be able to prove that this is how people everywhere all the time use it or that this should be the privileged way of using it

[@paulmint1858]

Dr Bernardo Kastrup is super talented and on point on many levels… a true breath of fresh air… and all you. Can do is inflate your egos and grab attention … what some people will do for clacks , how pathetic.

[@nyworker]

To perceive the ideal view of the wotld, we have to be locked in forms of perception first. In other words we oscillate between the two views of reality.

[@Mandibil]

Good job mate ... there are many holes in his "arguments", you point to some of them ! Nice to see people who can actually argue rigidly to point them out.

[@teemukupiainen3684]

Thx...we'll see if the challenge will be accepted. He should though, you nailed the problems of his thinking. But humble and friendly? My ass....Don't blame you, Kastrup doesn't usually appreciate other peoples opinions. If they don't praise him, that is....Would be interesting to know what you think about Joscha Bach's thoughts about consciousness and philosophy. Also what you think Michael Levin's Planaria/Barium and xenobot/anthrobot studies tell about the nature of consciousness and Evolution theory.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

So, if we have a 'higher' knowledge of our own thinking, we have a knowledge that is in a sense external to our thoughts. Yes, it is true that we call this 'reflection' and that it is a reflection on our thinking itself, and so we might simply say this is a higher level of thinking that exists dependently upon the lower level of thinking, however, the question that needs to be answered is, how this even possible in the first place ? It is not sufficient to simply say that it is an obvious fact -- few would deny that, I think. How is it possible that an awareness that depends upon thinking and its ideas able to 'take a step back' and reflect upon itself ? Could it be that knowledge or awareness is not as thought-dependent as the epistemologists have led us to believe ? Perhaps it is time for these theorists of knowledge to think outside the epistemological box.

[@nicbarth3838]

Would it be accurate to say that the mind can reflect on itself or be meta cognitive because you are modeling cognitive states and then looking at it. How you look at it tho is an interesting question. what are your thoughts on how meta cognition is possible, are you thinking that thinking about your thoughts does not require memory kinda like how you could still maintain this function if you had anterograde amnesia and retrograde too, I like to think this is true. Yea maybe thinking about your thoughts relies more on your capacity to remember what is being thought and to then reproduce that and to represent the cognitive processes to get to that thought which would mean that you would need to adapt your view of reality very quickly and adopt a new grip on reality that you could look from in order to inspect the thing has been modeled to represent a prior representation of reality. IDK if this is really meaningfull tho because you are trying to know HOW this happens not WHAT is happening so IDK. The bare minimum two facets of cognition I think are needed are Cognitive flexibility and Attention Modulation

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@nicbarth3838 I am actually thinking more along the line of making a distinction between thought and awareness as distinct brain functions. Reflection, I would say begins with being self-aware of one's own thinking, so it must be different from the thinking itself to some extent.

[@monkerud2108]

i think it is much worse than you said, whether the world is material or consciousness, you still have to explain how it is structures and what the hell it means in both cases or you only have more or less empty labels with respect to ontology, they only point back to a feeling associated with experiences of having thought about concepts. in the case of matter the external hard table or the mushy crunch of a french fry. and with consciousness the experience of having an experience, saying that positing the two intuitions as fundamental means essentially nothing with respect to the ontology, you have to structure a proposal of what the words mean in the context of ontology, not just refer back to intuitions we do not notice are obtuse and grounded in pure feeling and familiarity. we as philosophers should be really careful about what we feel is well understood when there is no basis for understanding what we are talking about at all. the same goes for the materialness of a fundamental equation of physics, all a mathematical model can offer is an account of what happens or what is in terms of familiarity with concepts like motion or location, it doesn't carry itself on its own back, the pattern is assumed, and that is fine, but then we have to say that a certain outcome is what we mean by material. instead i think the ontology of the world is material in the sense that it carries its laws with it in its state, and the form of its state is its own and cannot be fully known by familiarity, it can carry no precise description mathematically for this reason, we can only model parts of it and its dynamics effectively, and stand in awe of its workings which are neither blorhg, teluariosrisulus, material or consciousness, these are just place holders for concepts in this context which we don't understand and can't readily apply without cheating ourselves with familiarity. we can choose to call nature as it is material, it is the only material which is tangible and is the origin of all hard tables and all experiences, whatever it's workings is like, but calling it either or is kind of like trying to argue whether cheese is made out of 2 or 5, it makes no sense to us, but if we didn't know what cheese was in any detail we might fool ourselves into thinking the distinction was about more than familiarity with 2 and 5. i call nature material, but what i mean by it is simply what nature does, not what can be defined in other terms, that is the only thing i can be 100% certain of, and in that respect nature is my only example of what material means, with all its sub-materials and experiences just essential properties of it in some form not precisely known to me, that is enough. narrowing down natures operations is still possible in terms of abstractions, but reification of the concepts that arise in those endeavors as applying universally is a mistake.

[@Boulanger948]

Why call it material

[@quintalfer]

Very interesting video.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@camer7976]

I agree with you that meta-consciousness arising from a universal mind not capable of it is the most problematic aspect of Kastrup's model; this lead me to consider for a while that for dissociation to continue to have explanatory value, all aspects of an alter must be present within the mind it is dissociated from. However, it seems to me that what is described as meta-consciousness is dependent upon language, if this is the case, it is reasonable to assume that a universal mind would not meta-consciousness, as with nothing else to communicate with, it would have no need for language. Language is used to reason through uncertainty, which is what I am doing write now as I am thinking about your video, but if I didn't need to engage with something outside of my mind, I wouldn't have any uncertainty, at least not in the same way. For example, in dreams (I believe that Kastrup has argued that people are not meta-cognitive in their dreams) I am able to process where I am and who people are without needing to reason from external stimuli in the way I would while awake; it is not necessary to analyze the "physical features" of a dream world while dreaming, they are grasped intuitively. Therefore, I think meta-consciousness may be a habit which is expressed by mind under certain patterns of experience but may not be present in a mind that has access to "perfect information"; meta-consciousness could be a feature of a more limited mind, not a mind that has evolved beyond the capabilities of the universal mind. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this, thank you for your video.

[@Ripred0219]

Another issue with Bernardo's claim that "Our brain would turn into an entropic soup if we perceived all that there is to perceive therefore we don't perceive all that there is to perceive." this argument has a hidden claim within that has not been justified which is that there exists a threshold for all systems (brain in this context) where the amount of input is 100% not manageable. The issue with this is that it is conceivable that for every input that there is an experience, now will this be an incredible amount of sensory recognition? Absolutely but that is way different from it being impossible or inducing the dissolution of the brain Although I do agree with the conclusion that our senses are limited in perceiving all that there is in reality but for other arguments, NOT because our brain would self-destruct if it tried to handle every input. Also worth noting that Bernardo actually has much better arguments for why our perception is limited in his books. Specifically "Why Materialism is Baloney"

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

I am not convinced that Kastrup's theory doesn't account for illusions, especially when he describes information transfer in his whirlpool analogy which doesn't always accurately reflect the point of origin. After all, we can THINK we are seeing something when it's something else. But I will hold off critiquing your critique of BK until I finish the video. Kudos to you for your effort.

[@stevewturnbull]

The reality of illusion creates the illusion of reality.. Or, reality is an optical delusion of consciousness .. When you get this, you get the illusion of ego/separation too .. But it's a big leap to claim, as Kastrup does, that everything is mental and there's a universal mind behind it all. I remain a stubborn agnostic but it was good to see someone trying to critique his argument.

[@JamesBS]

Great analysis. Re metaconsciousness it would be more parsimonious to state that universal mind is metaconscious. After all, awareness is self aware. Why should it be different for mice or amoeba?

[@Jy3pr6]

Are you planning on interviewing any contemporary idealists such as Howard Robinson? That's the biggest philosophical lacuna on YT, I think

[@nafowler]

You are a good philosophy communicator! I am no where near an idealist but I’m confused why universal consciousness would not just be meta and phen consciousness to start with. He also has a hard time arguing against other theories. On a side note, I’m curious how much psychedelics play a role in people’s belief in the theory of idealism!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I can't speak for others, but my idealism is based on philosophical considerations and a religious temperament.