DEBATE: Materialism vs. Anti-Materialism

[@joelcaron]

This should've been titled "Bryan Callen vs. Materialist & Anti-Materialist.

[@CALCANEUS3535]

Appreciate what Bryan is trying to do here. Bringing Heady but incredibly important topics of discussion to Simon everyday people like me. But man he cut in just as guests were digging down too many times. Man likes to hear himself talk. The more rigorous the guests are (especially philosophers), the more time should be given for them to lay out their ideas. I don’t doubt Bryan will improve on this (he does have talent) but one piece of advice id offer for debates like this is don’t be afraid of pauses and silence. The juiciest bits are often just beyond. Sorry for the pretentious advice, Bryan. That said, keep bringing them brother! You’ll get into your flow and don’t doubt you’ll make an important impact!💪🏽

[@joeleonard5345]

​@@CALCANEUS3535 so true. He didn't let Kastrup respond at all. It was Callen vs Materialist. He really missed out.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@@CALCANEUS3535 the best part was hearing a layman take on these 2!!!!.... these guys didn't even do research on each other to see which points they already agree on lol They're literally just arguing on the validity of their dualistic worldview but avoiding the whole fundamental nature of each together. both materialism and anti-materialism by themselves aren't fundamental to reality, together they are.... fkn reductionists XD

[@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386]

@@jaydenwilson9522 You abd Callen deserve each other.

[@cloudoftime]

Correction: Bryan Callen fails to understand and repeatedly interrupts a materialist and anti-materialist

[@lievenyperman9363]

Let the guests make their arguments. This could have been much more interesting if the moderator wasn't the one talking most of the time.

[@RichardCookerly]

Exactly. This was rough to listen to

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Yes, the moderator is so far out of his depth. Just close your mouth, dude.

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Then again, you have to blame the adults in the room - the guests - since they must’ve seen the ignorance of the moderator, but still did almost nothing to save the opportunity for a good discussion

[@ThinkAstro]

I completely agree

[@aaronsiebtes8672]

could not agree more. it was extremely frustrating to listen to. Especialy when in the beginning he talked about how he wants to let these two ideas clash… like he actually did the opposite of that and hindered the actually interesting thing which would have been letting them settle it out themselfes :/

[@goran586]

In my opinion, the host interrupts too much, let the guests speak to the point and finish an ongoing chain of thought. But I sympathize with the host's enthusiasm, so I understand that it is difficult to refrain from interrupting. At the beginning at 08:00, the host raised the question of a definition of consciousness, which unfortunately was not followed up in a way that it deserved. Instead, Dr. David Papineau deflected the question and picked up another thread.

[@Mike93Gee]

Bravo on behalf of Bernardo and David in quelling their frustration. Bryan is way out of his depth here.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@TSchmidt28]

Bryan I appreciate you trying to bring these ideas - rich, complicated, and technical arguments in metaphysics - down to a simpler level for the audience. But man, you’re underestimating the audience… PLEASE LET THEM SPEAK. Much love, thank you🙏🏼

[@YawnGod]

Bryan is doing this for himself. He is getting old and needs some consolation for his lived life.

[@LukasOfTheLight]

What could have been a fascinating video is instead a ten-minute polite conversation between philosophers, since we have to constantly skip past vast swathes of American babble spread throughout.

[@kafiruddinmulhiddeen2386]

@@LukasOfTheLight 😂😂😂😂

[@clivejenkins4033]

Could have been a good debate if not for the host, you have to admire Dr Bernardos patience

[@hook-x6f]

Bernardo is beyond brilliant. Notice how the other two are asking him all the questions? And not vice versa? Both of those guys are way out of their league.

[@frankp.3197]

I definitely wouldn't call this a debate, there was the host just asking the questions he wanted to talk about. They didn't have more than 3 minutes talking to each other without him asking what he wanted. Love how David asked him to shut up for a minute a nice way and let them talk, he say's you have all the time you want, and within 2 minutes derails everything with his questions.

[@KR-jq3mj]

Just love kastrup. His wonderful ability to articulate complex ideas and generosity online has been illuminating for years. Long may it continue. I had not come across Dr Papineau before but I enjoyed his contribution greatly.

[@PromoMIAR]

Host derailing these Guys. They would get much further just talking to each other... Hard going this is.

[@TheDillberto]

Bryan Callen sucks

[@maciekjanicki1754]

Wonderful guests but Bryan was so distractive. I would love to see this debate hosted by somebody like Curt Jaimungal or actually to see them talk to each other alone

[@Thomas-gk42]

Curt from the toe channel? Come on, that's a Kastrup promotion channel.

[@amberlynn147]

@@Thomas-gk42 He was *immensely* distracting (and disruptive). Just loud, largely uninformed, woefully untrained in philosophy, and downright annoying. "I don't want to take up too much of your time," he said at the end. "So Bernardo, your final thoughts?" (Verbatim. Wow.)

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@amberlynn147 you mean this guy Callen? You're surely right, though I didn't follow the hole debate. I don't like Kastrup either, boring he repeats constantly the same thousands of years old stuff. Just wanted to know, if he still sticks in his pseudoscientific claims of debunking superdeterminism. Sadly, he did.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@Thomas-gk42 lol "debunking" superdeterminism. there's nothing to do debunk as it's not a falsifiable theory.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@Sam-hh3ry and what do you know about superdeterminism? If it's as much as Kastrup, nothing.

[@CALCANEUS3535]

Wow, This Kastrup guy is a heavyweight thinker and communicator. Honestly makes me rethink a lot of my own bias ideas absorbed by current culture rather than more sound logic, reason and grounded intuition.

[@John12512]

if you have some time, i highly recommend his books. Why Materialism is Baloney blew me away.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

Sorry to bring it to you, but you're both exactly the opposite of heavyweight thinkers.

[@John12512]

@@Loddfafnisodr you must be a true heavyweight thinker to be so confident in a judgement based on a single comment

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@John12512 Unironically true.

[@John12512]

@@Loddfafnisodr Fill us in on your thought process

[@crucifixgym]

If you edit out only Callen talking the show is 15 minutes long.

[@Sinekyre14]

Bernardo Kastrup made incredible points. He's an incredible guest, and you should tell Joe Rogan to have him on.

[@OmriC]

Bernardo was invited to Joe Rogans show, he didn’t feel like going from what I gathered

[@John12512]

@@OmriC I think he said he's waiting for the right time

[@misterbiscuit2538]

I agree that the host talks too much instead of allowing the guests to talk to eachother. However I understand how difficult it is to keep quiet when you have tons of questions.

[@CoachStephenDredd]

Ok 40 mins in and i cant deal with the hosts interruptions. Im out

[@bronsondeliac2625]

Great show. Have been following Kastrup for years, he's the greatest living philosopher imho

[@thepath964]

He's the best!

[@patrickbarnes9874]

I disagree. I have also been following Kastrup for years, but I do so because he's good natured and entertaining with interesting ideas. I don't think he can be considered great. Kastrup's philosophy is an atheist formulation of hermeticism. It's derivative and therefore I don't think it can be considered great. Great is revolutionary. Great is innovative. Great isn't adapting a centuries-old mysticism into a modern atheist conception of the same ideas. That can be a mighty impressive thing if it is done well but I think by its nature it falls short of being great. I don't think iterating on previous ideas has the potential for greatness. It doesn't matter how well you do it, the thing itself isn't great.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@@patrickbarnes9874 if the new ideas were a mistake then i don't see why we can't seek wisdom from our ancestors, erroneous & deviant ideas are just as bad as derivative. maybe update them and bring them into a modern worldview.... platonism seems pretty special as a potential foundation for what comes next.

[@zvz5823]

Hegel was the last philosopher

[@Henry-kv7zl]

​@@zvz5823 ^^ first year philo student trying to sound eclectic ^^^ look out folks, he formulates his opinions based on the optics

[@rooruffneck]

Bryan was sweet but when the materialist asked if he and Barnardo could talk to each other for 10 minutes....Bryan agreed...for two minutes:) I love his enthusiasm, but these guys kept being taken off the tracks they were laying down... That said, I so enjoyed hearing what points they did get to dig into, and Bryan gets full credit for that.

[@null6757]

Agreed! As much as I appreciate the host and his great energy, I would have loved to hear David and Bernardo have a lengthy discussion without the constant interuptions :)

[@TheDillberto]

🤮🤮

[@RichardCookerly]

Yeah, this was rough to listen to. Then he changes this to a debate on religion. You can tell these guys were incredibly frustrated. Bryan pretends to understand what they are saying and then keeps showing that he really has no clue. Is he actually listening to them? Lol.

[@mutavhello6654]

They can do that on their own channels, nobody is stopping them.

[@mrbwatson8081]

The interviewer made a great point, how did reality start? Bernardo said we can’t go on explaining one thing in terms of another, but that’s besides the point. It’s a simple question, if all of reality is one underlying subjective field a la Bernardo, or if all of reality is according to physics 12 quantum fields and their activity as well as 4 force fields, well how did the fields come about? Did these fields exist eternally? Well that was NOT answered. The materialist said “well I am not prepared to answer that” :) and Bernardo said his usual “we can’t go on explaining things forever we have to say at the bottom of reality there is consciousness and that’s it. Wtf 😅 how are those answers better then “god created reality “?

[@Mramidu]

Bryan let people debate. You really ruin these conversation interrupting both these intelligent individuals. Lesson learned going forward

[@paulmint1858]

A REAL SHAME, the middle person and his DESPERATE EGO… had to be so INTRUSIVE.

[@TheMrGuyver]

Right from the introduction (recorded after the debate), Bryan shows he's missing the point altogether of the debate. He especially illustrates when he asks how to argue for morality without a god. He shows he can't see through is cultural endoctrination and ask himself the question of the subject: "What is reality, measurable matter or conscious experience?". Sad he still didn't get all the way to the end.

[@dueldab2117]

Host you had a prize fight on your hands and turned it into a backyard show. You interrupted way too much.

[@dwai963]

Great talk as usual, Bernardo is awesome

[@siamkarl]

Bernardo always reveals that he has reflected more deeply and honestly on these issues at a level far higher than anyone I have seen him debate. He is always looking for debate and honest feedback, it's never an issue for him to be "put on the spot" !

[@dwai963]

@@siamkarl 100%

[@duncanmckeown1292]

He always is...but the host is a narcissistic buffoon!

[@mwesigaclement799]

To me there seems to be a lot of duality there, OBJECTIVITY is what MIND looks like when viewed from a different perspective VS the MIND is what OBJECTIVITY looks like when viewed from a different perspective. Quite a productive discussion though.

[@payt01]

Ok excellent guests, but jesus Bryan, stop intervening every 3 seconds. They were about to have an interesting talk among themselves,and here you come inserting yourself the whole time..lol. .Just let them speak! I'm about half an hour in and my blood is boiling! Not sure if I can keep listeing to this much longer. OkI somehow made it to a bit over an hour in, and the discussion has degraded from materialism vs idealism to some simpleton going on about morality. I admire the patience of the guests, but I'm out :)

[@MonisticIdealism]

Idealism is a topic that you would have a lot of fun exploring, Bryan. There's many humorous people in the idealist tradition that defended comedy like William James, who is also the father of psychology in the United States. James said that humor is a philosophic state of mind and that we should be humorous when doing philosophy because the universe doesn't take us seriously so we shouldn't take it too seriously as well.

[@thepath964]

I love your channel too, buddy. I watch it all the time! I run a society dedicated to teaching a life philosophy based in part on monistic idealism. My family started the tradition more than two thousand years ago, and now me and my 7yo daughter continue it. Part of the education of our students is to have them watch some of your videos and then talk about the ideas presented. So, great job!

[@pepedestroyer5974]

Doesn't neurocience disprove idealism? For example, brain implants, artificial limbs and computer neurons interface.

[@MonisticIdealism]

@@pepedestroyer5974 I would say no. I'm not seeing any reason to believe neuroscience is incompatible with idealism.

[@thesciencethescience7546]

@@pepedestroyer5974 A brain injury can cause one to perceive the world differently, but that's because we are part of the material world. The most profound thing is that THINKING causes the material BRAIN to change. No one knows how or why. The fact is that the mind has power over the brain, and vice versa.

[@thesciencethescience7546]

Material objects are bound by both SPACE and TIME (a cup of coffee is both in space and time). And that's fine, as the material world is beautiful for what it is, and physics describes the quantitative aspect of the QUALITATIVE objects we perceive. But the cup doesn't think, thus it is in a lower stratum in the cosmos than say a mouse or a human. This stratum of non-thinking entities (molecules, coffee cups, galaxies), which is the lowest level, is shockingly what the materialist thinks is the highest! The materialist is utterly upside down, and so it shouldn't surprise us that David (the materialist) insists to Callen that, "By seeking something higher than yourself, you belittle yourself!" Upside down, indeed. As Bernardo pointed out, materialism has no real meaning, and yet the materialist thinks that materialism (that which lacks meaning) is what is most meaningful! Moreover, the materialist thinks that we are ultimately nothing more than quantum particles, and yet the Nobel in Physics from just a few months ago, shows us that quantum particles aren't even real! (they're not locally real, meaning "they're not local and they're not real"). And so, yet another inversion from materialism is seen when they say that that which isn't real (quantum particles) is the only things that "really" exist. In light of quantum mechanics, materialism is a walking contradiction. Idealism (Bernardo's) is a LITTLE better because by accounting for mind, it accounts for qualities, something materialism could never do (there can never be a single quality in an infinity of a materialist's physics). Thoughts (consciousness) are not bound by space, as there is no thought in centimeters or in grams. Thoughts, therefore, transcend space. Thoughts, however, happen IN TIME (thoughts/consciousness change in time), therefore thoughts (consciousness) ARE BOUND by time. And so, though Idealism is better than materialism because idealism has transcended matter (the spatial) to recognize the mind (temporal), idealism still lacks an essential ingredient. Idealists need to grasp the fact that consciousness is a PROCESS and all processes happen IN TIME. This means that consciousness (mind, thoughts, experience) is BOUND/LIMITED BY TIME. This requires then that consciousness is NOT fundamental, and that's because the foundation of all being cannot have such a limit. Idealism is therefore false. We need more. Idealism cannot make an account of itself, it cannot answer to its beginning. Because consciousness is a process isomorphic with time, it is required that something outside of time caused it. Materialism restricts itself to space and idealism is relegated to time and so as a fundamental theory, they're both wrong (though idealism is closer). We need a "fixed point" that is bound by NEITHER space OR time, the thing that causes the first moment in the PROCESS of consciousness. That thing caused time itself. We are fish who do not know we're wet, and so it's difficult to consider something that is not in time. Thanks to the latest Nobel in Physics, we now know that effects happen outside of time, instantaneously in fact, despite billions of light years of separation. Quantum mechanics and neuroscience are pointing in the direction of the dimensionless point causing all dimensions (the point in geometry has no dimensions yet from it comes the line and circle, all dimensions). If the fish wants to convey the concept of fire, he will need to account for it in a way transcendent of his watery abode. Similarly, if the idealist wants to account for the beginning of time and consciousness, he can't appeal to time or consciousness. The idealist is the fish that doesn't know it's wet.

[@LatinxMatt]

How am I just finding this? This is phenomenal and we need more people like all of these great men.

[@Dabba23]

I ended up skipping most of the parts where Bryan interrupted and broke the flow of the conversation. Imagine having two PhD philosophers on for a debate and then interrupting them and spending most of the time debating them yourself.

[@youtubecharlie1]

This is clearly not a formal debate. So, anyone can interrupt at any time for whatever reason. Plus, you wouldn’t be listening to two philosophers discussing in front of a 100K+ audience if it wasn’t for Callen… This is coming from a philosophy student. That said, I don’t mind technical terms, but Callen’s role was important for bringing things back to laymen terms: this is something I’m always concerned about as a philosopher.

[@DiogenesNephew]

​@@youtubecharlie1We didn't get to hear them discuss anything at length BECAUSE of Callen as well. And, frankly, these are things a layperson can wrap their head around if you unpack things correctly. Zero space was given for that. But even worse, Callen moved on to talk about utterly irrelevant things (morality) rather than letting these guys hash out their ontological differences (the whole damn point). It's like a waiter bringing you your food then dropping it on the floor. Then you come along and say, well you wouldn’t have gotten your food if it weren't for the waiter, as if thats some kind of consolation.

[@youtubecharlie1]

@@DiogenesNephew ok

[@MW-wq1ex]

This is legit my dream come true, Callen hosting and having REAL conversations. Don’t get me wrong, I love the goofy shit but goofy shit seems like a waste of time to listen to if it doesn’t have some substance and adult conversation. Love it!

[@ZalexMusic]

Awful host, ruined any chance at a good discussion. Couldn't stay quiet for even the five minutes he was asked for. Recognize when you don't have a handle on the fundamentals and let the guests lead the discussion for the love of god. Infuriating to watch.

[@RichardCookerly]

My thoughts exactly. Incredibly tough to listen to.

[@cashglobe]

Bryan you’re very passionate and clearly very well read and intelligent. However, If you’re hosting a debate between two people, pleeassseeee let them talk!!

[@paulpulaski]

Please turn on the closed captioning for this video CC. It makes a big difference for those who are hard of hearing (or deaf). Thank you!

[@rauxmedia]

The host is interjecting way too much. Let them talk! It made me turn it off after 30 minutes , frankly

[@johnstotts2131]

Thank you for posting this, but I felt they were never able to have a back and forth due to interruptions.

[@cheesdog]

Formal debates can actually be huge on YT. You might consider a more structured format: Opening, rebuttal, cross exam, etc. Tailor it to fit how much you want to interact.

[@LesliePhillips-x9t]

I enjoyed hearing a debate where people actually listened to each other respectfully. Bernardo Kastrup impressed me with his clarity in explaining himself also his ability to really listen carefully. I could tell he actually listened carefully to both of the others because he could share specifically what he agreed with and where he disagreed by repeating what they said and then explaining his views. He was also very careful to point out when something was fact, a theory or a speculation. Very consistent and clear. I liked his compliments to his counterpart as well. It made me really interested to learn more and see more debates. All three views were sincere and passionate .

[@naturalegion]

The guests are delightful. The host is soooooo annoying, constantly jumping into the conversation to argue with the guests.

[@cloudoftime]

Callen doesn't know what an argument is. Expressing how amazed you are at the human species, from the perspective of a limited human mind, is not an argument. Speculating wildly about what you hope the progress of humanity will be in the future, is not an argument. Wanting there to be some objective higher purpose, which you can't even explain the fundamental ontic properties of, is not an argument. And you will never be able to understand what it is like to be somebody else. That's a contradiction in terms. It's analytically impossible. For you to be you, understanding what it's like to be somebody else; that would mean that you can't be them, because you are you. You can't understand what it's like to be somebody else if you are you, because then you wouldn't be them. It makes no sense. This Joe Rogan-esque "I'm going to be a comedian and smoke pot and imagine all the ways the world could be, so that must make me a philosopher," mentality among these podcasters is getting really old.

[@JohnMilller]

one last thought - I cannot understand why (it seems to me) so many metaphysics academics are not thoroughly versed and knowledgeble about Bernardo's postulates in particular and metaphysical idealism in general. Because he always seems (to me) to be the one with the better argument once it dawns on the person he's debating with that his arguments are very sound and difficult to refute.

[@samrowbotham8914]

I have all of Bernardo's books and a couple of David's books so I was pleased to see them together participating in this interesting polemic. One of my claims to fame is that I am the one who got Bernardo onto the podcast circuit and I have said to him on occasions please write a book exploring the idealism of Bishop Berkeley. Since then I have taken a deep dive into the philosophy of Plotinus who was another idealist and would like to see Bernardo explore his ideas. I find Bernardo's books to be intellectual pabulum for my soul and if you are new to his work a gentle dip into his book 'Dreamed up Reality' is the best place to start. In my humble opinion, Thanatology supports idealism, especially around the NDE case studies.

[@thesciencethescience7546]

Material objects are bound by both SPACE and TIME (a cup of coffee is both in space and time). And that's fine, as the material world is beautiful for what it is, and physics describes the quantitative aspect of the QUALITATIVE objects we perceive. But the cup doesn't think, thus it is in a lower stratum in the cosmos than say a mouse or a human. This stratum of non-thinking entities (molecules, coffee cups, galaxies), which is the lowest level, is shockingly what the materialist thinks is the highest! The materialist is utterly upside down, and so it shouldn't surprise us that David (the materialist) insists to Callen that, "By seeking something higher than yourself, you belittle yourself!" Upside down, indeed. As Bernardo pointed out, materialism has no real meaning, and yet the materialist thinks that materialism (that which lacks meaning) is what is most meaningful! Moreover, the materialist thinks that we are ultimately nothing more than quantum particles, and yet the Nobel in Physics from just a few months ago, shows us that quantum particles aren't even real! (they're not locally real, meaning "they're not local and they're not real"). And so, yet another inversion from materialism is seen when they say that that which isn't real (quantum particles) is the only things that "really" exist. In light of quantum mechanics, materialism is a walking contradiction. Idealism (Bernardo's) is a LITTLE better because by accounting for mind, it accounts for qualities, something materialism could never do (there can never be a single quality in an infinity of a materialist's physics). Thoughts (consciousness) are not bound by space, as there is no thought in centimeters or in grams. Thoughts, therefore, transcend space. Thoughts, however, happen IN TIME (thoughts/consciousness change in time), therefore thoughts (consciousness) ARE BOUND by time. And so, though Idealism is better than materialism because idealism has transcended matter (the spatial) to recognize the mind (temporal), idealism still lacks an essential ingredient. Idealists need to grasp the fact that consciousness is a PROCESS and all processes happen IN TIME. This means that consciousness (mind, thoughts, experience) is BOUND/LIMITED BY TIME. This requires then that consciousness is NOT fundamental, and that's because the foundation of all being cannot have such a limit. Idealism is therefore false. We need more. Idealism cannot make an account of itself, it cannot answer to its beginning. Because consciousness is a process isomorphic with time, it is required that something outside of time caused it. Materialism restricts itself to space and idealism is relegated to time and so as a fundamental theory, they're both wrong (though idealism is closer). We need a "fixed point" that is bound by NEITHER space OR time, the thing that causes the first moment in the PROCESS of consciousness. That thing caused time itself. We are fish who do not know we're wet, and so it's difficult to consider something that is not in time. Thanks to the latest Nobel in Physics, we now know that effects happen outside of time, instantaneously in fact, despite billions of light years of separation. Quantum mechanics and neuroscience are pointing in the direction of the dimensionless point causing all dimensions (the point in geometry has no dimensions yet from it comes the line and circle, all dimensions). If the fish wants to convey the concept of fire, he will need to account for it in a way transcendent of his watery abode. Similarly, if the idealist wants to account for the beginning of time and consciousness, he can't appeal to time or consciousness. The idealist is the fish that doesn't know it's wet.

[@namero999]

​@@thesciencethescience7546try to introspect a bit more and see where time goes

[@fahad56297]

The host is disrupting the flow of the debate

[@RichardCookerly]

Brian, this was rough to listen to. You need to do more research on your guests and concepts. You interrupt way too much and go into tangents that make it obvious you don’t understand what they are saying. They asked for 5 minutes to debate within themselves to fully understand each other’s viewpoints, then you say they have floor and can have as much time as they want. Then you interrupt again 2 minutes later lol. I’m a fan of you, but you should watch some really good debates and learn how to host these better. You will get there, I understand this is your first one. Keep at it, excited to see how your podcast evolves.

[@dukesofapollo]

Loving the format. 🍻

[@teachedteach]

The host spoiled it all. Irritating to see this guy talk over guests. Totally obsessed with morality. Please leave your moralism behind.

[@quinnwilson9916]

I'm almost 40 and find myself liking this podcast a lot I learn things that I'm interested in. Been watching TFATK for 5,6 years but after that's over I can't keep watching what the algorithm gives me. Waist of time . So Bry ur doing good with this. U make me smile then make me think . Long story short keep doing

[@troypruitt8442]

WOW! INCREDIBLE! Love Bernardo Kastrup's debate style!!

[@llttrr]

I haven't even finished the intro yet but I wanna say.. This is one I'm really excited for. It's very interesting and important in todays climate to have accessible discussions between multiple parties.

[@llttrr]

Interesting but goo technical for me. I think one one politics is more constructive.

[@victorjans3771]

Congrats on the 100k subs Bry! And it took you only what, 10 years?

[@stoicat_]

The title should read: "DEBATE: Materialist vs. Comedian - mediated by an immaterialist".

[@cletusrathbone7679]

From reading these other post, I realize I’m a little behind on this. But I want to thank you for doing this debate. This is not the same old crap that we’ve been listening to for years where it’s an atheist aand a religious person, so to see this material and anti material view is refreshing. This is fascinating to me and it makes more sense than the other stuff. It’s weird I find biology very interesting as I get older. The downside is the more that I learn the more questions I have and I’m running out of time. I had to rewind this video probably 25 times and I’m still not sure if I got it all so I’m gonna continue to rewind this over and over again. Thank you Brian.

[@THDYoung]

great conversation & well chaired

[@huntertony56]

Great interview, but please let them speak. There were about to discuss some wonderful topics. Also, usually, the moderator doesn't "disagree." " lol

[@ahmednasser9962]

Holy shit. Bryan. I didn’t know u we’re into this stuff. Seeing kastrup on ur podcast just blew my mind. Wow

[@michealwalli7324]

you're making good choices Bryan Callen

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

Awesome debate! Thank you for posting it!

[@Naglis91]

perfect

[@Music-gz5pz]

Excellent! Thought provoking meaningful dialogue. Thank you.

[@Sheeeeshack]

Amazin, refreshing dialogue. Though-provoking and captivating.

[@pawelvono]

Bernardo is a beast

[@casenied]

Bernardo won, I wish Bryan had talked less

[@NoThing-ec9km]

😅

[@Recoil_Adventures]

someone should forward this to The Golden Hour for a review, it would be brutal

[@oliviergoethals4137]

Dude. Let the people talk. Be open to learn.

[@1axe5]

You and Crowder teaming up is pretty fire, same humor style, they go equal levels deep, ignorantly thinking their both well informed. Callen, should blow up on social media, a decent % of Crowders following will love it. Great business move

[@Stan.S9]

I love that materialism is being peeld layer by layer and disproven more and more in our time.

[@michaeldillon3113]

It is one of the things I find compelling about Bernardo is that the he rather wishes his own ' theory ' wasn't true . For any one with any type of existential anxiety about existence itself , oblivion is our consolation. Bernardo works again his own consolation 🕊️

[@cloudoftime]

Why would we not arrive at concepts like "kindness is good" from materialism? We are a social species. Our material needs are met through material function of neurobiological processes, nutrition, shelter, etc. We have developed the ability to work together to acquire these things, just like a pack of wolves works together to acquire the material things they require. Kindness is just another property of the social cooperation that is present within a social species. Through experience, it is found that kindness creates a kind of response which tends toward benefit for yourself in return. It's just a pro-social behavior which would be expected of a social species, and all to acquire material needs. This is not complicated.

[@elishle1275]

Good for Bryan that he’s able to find himself in situations like this where he can benefit from those well above his own mental skill. I don’t mean that pejoratively, but just that Bernardo and David just have their views much more clearly hashed out and their ability to communicate them clearly is pretty extraordinary. It seems like Bryan’s really invested in his quest for truth and from that vantage point and his passion is wonderful. However, he was completely unequipped to facilitate a meaningful debate on metaphysics between these two intellectual giants. So perhaps he should have been a lot clearer to us (or maybe first to himself) that this was more a chance for him to try to validate himself and his personal conception of truth rather than investigate what the truth might be. It felt more like a ridiculous game show where Bernardo and David are tasked to duke it out while Bryan is on the sidelines trying to distract them and just chucking stuffed animals and otherwise trying to prevent them from accomplishing the task they were set to do. Doesn’t feel like a whole lot was accomplished. As a debate, awful. But I think it did bring out cool conceptual collisions worth exploring and elements of Bernardo and David that probably would never come out with a qualified mediator. What patience they have, and I especially admire Bernardo’s amusement with it all 😂 Hard to listen to, but when I could step back and let go of my own expectations, a worthwhile watch, FWIW. And I just want to add, it seems like Bryan has labeled himself a nonmaterialist, and yet his conception of reality seems to be founded on very materialistic beliefs lol. How confusing.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

I love how Bernardo eloquently formulates and translates Bryan's impulses 😆

[@plafar7887]

The moderator completely derailed this debate when he started going into the absolutely orthogonal topic of Morality, which has nothing to do with Materialism vs Non-materialism.

[@MsCjansen]

so uplifting towitnes. disagreement so polite and respectful...a great example of good will and respect...thank you

[@tiborkoos188]

Papineau makes a perfect point @44 min. Going from the consciousness substance to individual consciousness is the same problem as going from matter to consciousness.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

You'll never see Kastrup address this.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@Loddfafnisodr looool Kastrup's entire work is focused on addressing this. He proposes dissociation as the mechanism for individual consciousness. It's literally one of the key points of his philosophy.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

It's not because a single mind can split off into multiple ones, as per people with DID.

[@Loddfafnisodr]

@@Sam-hh3ry He denies any higher order to the mind at large. How can there be dissociation in what isn't even consciousness by any measure? What even _is_ the non-dissociated mind? Is it even a mind? Kastrup doesn't address this, and so his "dissociation" is as magical as matter-into-consciousness.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@Loddfafnisodr "Higher order" doesn't mean anything within the context of his philosophy. Mind at large is conscious, so no clue what you mean there. Maybe you're confusing phenomenal consciousness with meta-consciousness. Mind at large has the former, not the latter. A mind that is not experiencing dissociation is still a mind and still is conscious, so no clue what you mean there either. Also not sure how your final statement falls from anything else you said. Dissociation isn't magic, it's a real thing that has been empirically shown to occur as with DID patients.

[@VenusLover17]

Very entertaining and illuminating ❤❤

[@christopherbetancourt8007]

Bryan, I am so excited you are going to be working with crowder. I truly feel you as an individual, and the "crowder company", will both benefit from eachother exponentially. More than u can imagine. I'm loving it!!

[@1axe5]

Brilliant business move, Crowder audience will eat up Callens humor and he provides just a slightly more liberal approach. He could be the next Bill Maher.... and I'm not even remotely a fan of Crowder. Callens cool and he has great Pods, but I don't respect his world paradigm

[@ianyoung6706]

57:30 “you don’t want to be doing it because it’s morally right, you want to be doing it because this person needs your help.” -this is a non-distinction. They’re the same thing, and there have been plenty of cultures and individuals who view the world in such a way that they don’t think it’s their responsibility at all to hazard themselves for someone else exactly because we’re all just animals making our way.

[@jonathansolero7]

Wow never thought I’d see the goat BK in this forum 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

[@christopherbetancourt8007]

Great pod bry

[@MichaelJComedy]

Bryan! I’m a huge fan of yours, I’m an ICU Travel Nurse and aspiring comedian. I just recently started my own podcast and would be so honored to be able to talk with you! Always learning from you Wrinks. It’s tough talking solo but you kill it.

[@jopo7996]

These two are good, but Bryan is clearly a master debater.

[@nickd8313]

Wow still at it huh jo po

[@nickd8313]

Times are tough now without JRE to comment on I bet…

[@hareshsingh8168]

This was fabulous. Thank you.

[@RichardCookerly]

Love the topic, but Brian, bro, you gotta let them go into more detail and let the conversation evolve. You keep stopping them and you go into random tangents that break the flow of the conversation.

[@JemmaJames3]

Too much interruption!

[@Stoiction]

In the grand tapestry of philosophical discourse, idealism emerges as the profound counterforce that dismantles the rigid foundations of materialism. While materialism asserts that only the physical realm exists, idealism boldly proclaims that consciousness and experience shape our reality, unveiling the profound interconnectedness of mind and matter. As we delve into the realms illuminated by quantum physics, we see that the very fabric of reality is not merely a collection of particles but a dynamic interplay of consciousness and perception. This awakening shatters materialism’s claims to absoluteness, revealing it as a mere shadow of a deeper truth. In embracing idealism, we recognize that reality is not an external construct to be measured and quantified, but a rich, subjective experience that invites us to explore the depths of our own consciousness. Thus, materialism, unable to withstand the transformative power of idealism, crumbles under the weight of its own limitations, paving the way for a more holistic understanding of existence.

[@FieldVisit]

Bryan my brother, Laugh Boston needs you ❤ I’m a bartender at Laugh and I would absolutely love if you’d come spend some time with us! Come on baba

[@VitorSantos-ib5dn]

Hi Bryan! I am Portuguese. This is the second time I've seen this show. I loved the interviewees and the interviewer. Neither one nor the other provides us with evidence that gives us a high degree of certainty that the metaphysical models they defend can be taken as true. I agree that defending metaphysical materialism or metaphysical idealism, or spiritualism are signs that these are better or worse people. Both interviewees do not believe in life after the death of the body of this subject who observes and experiences my subjective experience of being alive. In other words, the consciousness that I am. I believe that each of us is a consciousness like me. If this consciousness, this subject that observes and experiences my subjective experience, in my case, does not survive the death of the body, my life would have no meaning. I would just be a future corpse, and nothing more. After the death of the body I would just be a decomposing corpse and nothing more. This is what both interviewees said. We and the people we love, for them, are just future corpses and nothing more. If so, for me it makes no difference whether there is a God or not. The materialist is more authentic. Bernardo is a materialist disguised as an idealist, for the purpose that matters to human beings. Without life after life, the existence of God or not would be indifferent to us. At least for me.

[@jordanedgeley6601]

I only know you from joes podcast but i really appreciate this, we really need to bring these duscussions to everyone

[@Earthad23]

The hardest problem is if we wanted to find out if something was conscious how would we ever find out? Consciousness seems to be confined to the first person experiential reality.

[@DiogenesNephew]

That's why this problem is really really important to nail down now. If people are largely convinced that it isn't matter that gives rise to consciousness, then we'll sidestep the insane potential future where AI ethics, AI rights, etc. will become an enormous sociopolitical nightmare. But if we don’t get to that point of understanding, it's gonna be a downright moronic time in history to behold.

[@Jagombe1]

This is a bad host! He wants to take centre stage without allowing the debaters to give their views freely!!!!

[@grassrunner7983]

Callen did great!

[@jcinaz]

“Free will” is simply a Human ability to choose. It does not imply that a choice will result in a desired outcome. To assert free will as a God-given freedom to do as we please is to negate that there are obvious acts that are detrimental not only to self, but to the community at large. To imply that one’s choice is better than someone else’s choice amounts to tyranny. The community at large is responsible for establishing rules of behavior, notwithstanding one’s right to behave in the privacy of one’s personal domain where such behavior does not adversely affect or impinge upon another’s right to privacy. In other words, I can be nude at home, but my wife may not agree that my nudity is appropriate in her presence.

[@36cmbr]

A car wreck looking for a car.

[@jordanedgeley6601]

Im looking forward to the table conversation on shrooms, i think mr table could have interesting ideas

[@lasselasse5215]

It seems they are 50% in agreement. 1. Agree: Materia is a manifestation of a configuration, physical. 2. Disagree: Consciousness is the part that implements the manifestation. And in not even sure they disagree on #2, it seems its just a matter of different scope where the materialist doesn't care about anything beyond the material while the idealist goes the extra mile in that domain.

[@zeitgeistrat]

Honestly, not taking to others ‘beat’ is going to show more of the positive side to who “you are”.

[@buridah328]

Never thought I’d live to say I like Bryan

[@cloudoftime]

Kastrup says, "it's _our_ responsibility. The buck stops with us." This presupposes free will and culpability. He did not substantiate these foundational implied premises.

[@YawnGod]

I don't what grift angle Bryan is going for...but I like it.

[@calebbrantley193]

loved the raw emotion in this talk! Thanks!

[@user-cg3tx8zv1h]

Dr. Papineau is an exceptional gentleman, and clearly a brilliant thinker. I am deeply sorry that his intellectual contributions have ended up on the wrong side of history. Mentalism became obsolete a while ago, long before the latest Nobel prize.

[@ivannogolica364]

David Deutsch vs Bernardo Kastrup would be the best debate that ever happened.

[@chriscurry2496]

since Kastrup literally melted in front of Tim Maudlin, I very much doubt he could handle being destroyed by David

[@mmor7380]

Materialism is wrong, we have ideas ,that's abstract,

[@amberlynn147]

A moderator should never speak more than 2.7% of the time that the participants in the (actual) debate speak.