The Mental Nature of Reality

[@msnzbody3712]

I am not a smart person but of all theories this resonates with me at a deep level. It makes more sense than any other theory and explains why NDE's are real. I have also read "My big toe' and I find similarities.

[@Sinekyre14]

Yes! Finally a new video. I love all your material and would do anything to hear you speak in person. Millions of people out there need to hear your ideas. You are one of the greatest philosophers of our age. In my view, you have taken a field that has been poorly defined for centuried, and focused it in a presentable package through western rationalism and empiricism. ...it takes a lot for me to support someone else's philosophy, but with Bernardo I don't hesitate for a second.

[@bernardokastrup]

Thank you, The Forms!

[@sandeep2435]

The one and only scientist i have found talking about consciousness that make real sense is only you.I have watched thousands of interview regarding consciousness of many scientist but no one explained better than you.You have an amazing insight on this

[@jeanmichel8368]

Hi Bernardo. Although I don't always agree with you, I admire the clarity with which you present your ideas. It's always a pleasure to follow your trail of thought. Joe public needs to take back real philosophy from those jargon-laden academics. Your work is certainly helping to encourage people to directly engage with good old fashioned 'wisdom', a word that has long gone out of fashion but needs to brought back into the public domain.

[@bernardokastrup]

Thank you, Jean Michel!

[@mindmix3836]

Mr. Kastrup, you deserve a bigger crowd. This is reminiscent of a handful of gigs I presented for where it was less informal than my school/university presentations and more like a carnival where they place you in a room or tent next to other 'side-shows' where people randomly filter in and out as they please. How can you focus in such a situation? People look at you seemingly disinterested and they even leave in the middle of the presentation. Also, when they come and go like that, it stymies the presentation and you often feel as if you have to start all over again so that the new crowd can even understand where you're coming from. It's really a terrible format that only benefits the manager who sets it up that way. It's sort of like having a battle of the bands where two bands in a nightclub square off to see who's the most popular band. The only person who benefits from that garbage is the bar owner-some thick-lensed ego who gets a thrill watching men jump through hoops for him. Sort of like watching a chicken dance in a machine where you put a quarter in to give it food. I much prefer a school or university which is quality time for you and the audience alone with a designated block of time. There's focus in that. This is a circus and you really should avoid this format. You're far too distinguished and respectable as a philosopher. There's nothing wrong in reaching out to the common layman, it's just the format that sucks.

[@mindmix3836]

I should have said less formal-not less informal. It's late.

[@moesypittounikos]

Bernardo is sharp as a button. When the guy said it's funny how the DMT entities seem real I think he meant to be sarcastic. Quickly Bernardo goes Terence McKenna mode, ideas firing!! He even quotes great Terence to prove his point. Amazing.

[@mismass7859]

You’re born into the next level upstream of the filters between source and manifestation, like a newborn it all looks like a dream at first then it becomes as real and what we consider to be real and you can get again awaken to the higher level upstream towards source, the dimensions are filters and can be transcended all the way upstream to source, with or without aiding plants.

[@aduralkain]

Awesome talk! Way to go, Bernardo!

[@nivekvb]

I said to Arvin Ash on KZbin that AI will never be conscious, and he said, how could I be so sure? So I quoted some stuff by Roger Penrose. But thought afterwards that if mankind lives long enough then maybe they could reconstruct something close to a human being, but what I felt was that as we grow from the universe we have something very special and intrinsic built in, and that this can't be reproduced in a laboratory. I still believe that point of view is valid. We have a spiritual part. All life does.

[@OBIrish]

happy you have a new (new to me)video Bernardo !

[@kevinfairweather3661]

Think i may have listened to this before but i will give it another listen. I really enjoy listening to your insights Bernardo, keep up the great work. By the way, it would be awesome if you could get "Why is materialism bolony " transferred into an Audiobook !

[@o.nestorreyes9246]

Love the content. But I amuse myself at the thought that the "tripping" audience can "follow along". I've had 2 Starbucks, yet I have rewind/replay.

[@كيمدبلنيبنن]

Speech is not enough If consciousness is fundamental must empirical studies prove that. I couldn't find an empirical study that confirms this just a philosophy

[@BubbleGendut]

Why are we having this disassociated experience? What is the point?

[@AdventuresThroughTheMind]

lol, apparently I am making an accidental cameo in this video.

[@bernardokastrup]

Nothing is an accident ;)

[@brunobraz8128]

Nice talk, Bernardo! Can I ask you the names of these two physicists that you've mentioned at the end? I think it may give me a better context to grasp your concept of cognitive big bang. Congratulations on your last book! In my opinion, it was the best one so far. I would love to see that last part turned into a movie! :)

[@bernardokastrup]

Julian Barbour is the guy who wrote "The End of Time"! Shame on me for having forgotten it. The other physicist is Lee Smolin.

[@brandondietze4656]

lol i love how u said challenge me if u think im full of shit

[@bernardokastrup]

:)

[@tyroneslyce4879]

K railroads Wtf? lol

[@raphaeltossings3237]

Thank you, this is very profund and substantial. Are you familiar with Advaita Vedanta ? Ramana Maharshi says for example: "Excluding thoughts, there is not separately any such thing as ‘world’." or "Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself. "

[@bernardokastrup]

Thanks Raphael. Yes, I've become familiar with Vedanta over time.

[@raphaeltossings3237]

There is also similar statements in Kashmir Shaivism: the universe is considered as a pulsation (Spanda, Shakti) or cristallisation of universal consciousness (Shiva). I tkink these mystics have attained very deep truth thanks to their deep inward practice of meditation and to the analysis of daily life in a simple way; it results in even more experiential theories (a special kind of ontology based upon phenomenology) than in european philosophy. I want to read one of your books. But I hesitate between "Brief Peeks Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism and Culture" and "Rationalist Spirituality: An exploration of the meaning of life and existence informed by logic and science". Which one do you recommend me ? Unfortunatelly, I do not know a lot of things concerning science, except the main known theories, without necessarly being able to understand them technically. I study philosophy (and sanskrit), I am interested in "mystic philosophy" but I do not had a scientific formation. However, I think that I am able to understand your work. I hope so... :)

[@bernardokastrup]

Brief Peeks Beyond would have my preference :)

[@raphaeltossings3237]

I think also: it seems a good synthesis. Thank you :)

[@alexisrosalesruiz7334]

What do you think of Eckhart Tolle, Alan Watts?

[@LogosTheos]

Great talk Mr. Kastrup! Also I recently bought your books "Materialism is Baloney" and "Brief Peeks Beyond" and am enjoying them. Off topic but I was curious. What is your ethnicity? European? Asian? I can't tell. Also your accent.

[@bernardokastrup]

Ha, Asian was a first... :) I'm part Portuguese, part Danish...

[@TheYellowshuttle]

Bernardo I love your content. The analytical precision with which you handle it, I feel huge respect. ❤️ During one of your talks, you mentioned that when the dissociation ends, you'll know that it was "really you" all along. But universal consciousness is NOT metacognitive. So wouldn't that be a contradiction? Because to know that it was you, you need the tool of metacognition. And if you have dissolved, the metacognition has also dissolved. So without the tool, how would you have that feeling after dissolution? Any thought on that much appreciated.

[@TheYellowshuttle]

Many thanks Bernardo! I think I understand what you mean. To use a metaphor, it's like when you abruptly wake someone from deep sleep, for a brief moment the waking state catches a glimpse of what it "felt like" in deep sleep. Amusingly, maybe that's why people resist being woken up from deep sleep. Wish you best!❤️

[@bernardokastrup]

Nice to get such a nice question! Yes, on the face of it it is a contradiction. The recognition of the self requires metacognition. My motivation to say this was certain psychedelic trances during which we transition through an intermediary phase, in between metacognitive individual self and non-metacognitive oceanic awareness. That subtle, liminal transition point, if one pays attention, allows one to catch brief metacognitive glimpses of an experiential reality beyond metacognition. The transition is experienced both 'on the way out' and 'on the way in,' so to speak. I speculate something analogous may happen during the death process, as psychedelic trances are fair models of dying, in that the drug dissolves the default mode network.

[@malabuha]

If you look at the apparent progression in development of alters in consciousness (evolution of life on Earth from ameba to orca for example) it appears as if there are many but are actualy a process of just one alter in consciousness. Because there is an apparency of time and development there.. and the feature of experience within one alter is such you get estranged notions and multitude of selves. That would account for the fact of evolution and development. I understand there can be many alters within one psyche, but these alters live separate realities. And on Earth we experience a genetic connection as evolution and share the same reality. We have continuetion. That's why i suspect there being just one alter which single feature gives notion of self in consciousness. Almost as if an alter is a mode of percieving. I may be wrong there

[@VagabondMorrison]

have you studied much in the area of emergence?

[@etmichel]

This is a much better version of the same lecture. Better camera angle, framing, and the audio is way better! kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpy3hqF5rplkd80

[@adrianstratulat22]

Damn, the audience does you no credit.

[@bernardokastrup]

I guess I know why you say this, but they were good!

[@patrickthomasius]

Its quite rough to be at a psytrance festival for 7 days;D