Does the Universe think? (with Bernardo Kastrup)

[@larrybagina]

Wake up babe, new Bernardo camera angle just dropped.

[@smhobel]

HAHAHA

[@justinamos9223]

😂😂😂

[@phantomhawk01]

😂

[@reivanen]

This is by far the most philosophical discussion with Kastrup i have seen, well done to the host for leading such a deep discussion! It's even way beyond Kastrup's doctoral dissertation video available online. I have not read his thesis, so i cannot say if this level was already there, or is it acquired over the years. But this video was one of my favorites, the one i would recommend anyone to watch after they have the basics covered.

[@chrisjudd-uc7sh]

Well done the pair of you...a debate done with love.

[@The.Watcher.2024]

Hopefully this one's better than the last!

[@FilipinaVegana]

Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of will, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my KZbin homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernado has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my KZbin accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)

[@reivanen]

@@FilipinaVegana I think it's you who have a flawed understanding of what kastrup actually says, because he and Rupert Spira have done a deep dive comparison of their views, and they turned out to be identical.

[@Raphael4722]

@@FilipinaVegana Being a monarchist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-feminist vegan who follows Advaita Vedanta is a bizarre combination of worldviews. You will find few people to be in complete agreement with you.

[@CJ-kq3oh]

I’ve never encountered a contemporary philosopher who has the breadth of knowledge that Kastrup does across multiple domains (e.g. physics, psychoanalysis, computer science, etc.). Most academics are restricted to their silos of expertise, and we need more of these cross-disciplinary intellectuals.

[@TheTheahart]

I really hope and pray the two continue a conversation because you’re headed in a direction we really need to go to bring about a real paradigm shift for humanity. It needs to go deep and have a firm foundation so it sinks into the culture as a whole. The analytic approach is in my view absolutely necessary.

[@JA-gz6cj]

lot of this is going over my head but I appreciate you going deep into Bernardo's ideas, good job. hope you 2 have more of these talks

[@NEXTMARKDESIGN]

This did not disappoint! Excellent conversation. Thanks so much for doing these interviews. Looking forward to reading your book when it comes out.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

I've been delving into absolute idealism which is very congruous with phenomena like savant syndrome. Absolute idealists would say that logic and reason are immanent from the source as opposed to qualities that are arrived at or stumbled upon. This view is also congruent with Platonic realism where this reality is only a shadow of a more complete one. So metacognition isn't necessarily something that the mind of nature discovers through us, but rather, it is already an inherent capacity that finds expression in humans; and the same goes for states of confusion and autopilot. Mind at Large already knows that the awareness of awareness, or sapiens sapiens, is possible.

[@robterry8330]

NIce to see the title has been changed! This is a wonderful discussion. Have watched several times. It’s a wonderful moment when Bernardo talks about his concession to time and space, as opposed to coming from eternity. This has been interpreted in Tao, Vedanta, Buddhism etc.

[@Distinctly_Human]

Very excited for this one! You‘re both doing important work. Thank you for that 🙏🏼

[@FilipinaVegana]

How so? 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.

[@Distinctly_Human]

Both thinkers challenge the mainstream physicalist, reductionist, and materialist accounts of the world. While their alternative worldview is not fully developed and likely contains errors, I believe they are moving in a more promising direction than the mainstream narrative. From what I understand, you follow the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. Personally, I lean toward the anthroposophical worldview. So I don’t entirely agree with everything they propose, including their metaethics. That said, I appreciate their efforts to shift the mainstream discourse in a more constructive direction. ✌️

[@rosaperfumes1862]

Wow!!! Excellent discussion!!! Thank you!!!!

[@troytice8354]

Can't wait to watch this! Thanks! I remember when Bernardo started out posting his ideas on the Skeptiko forum back in the day...

[@BrettRosenfeld]

I would listen to these two talk for 3 hours every day. What a gift this conversation is. I will surely listen to this entire thing again in a few months. PS - I respect the clickbaity title ;)

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for that! Most generous. And I think the title is fine too. It is what everyone wanted us to discuss, and it is part of what was concluded 😊

[@mathewkolakwsk]

Speaking slower and more clearly, like Bernardo does intentionally, is a big plus to being able to understand the arguments and connections between ideas. As a frequent listener to discussions like these, I would highly recommend that other idealists try this strategy and approach; it is very helpful, in many ways.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Good advice. I'll bear that in mind!

[@FilipinaVegana]

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. monism: the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought that seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”. To put it simply, whilst materialists/physicalists/naturalists believe that the ground of being is some kind of tangible form of matter (or a field of some sort), and idealists/theists/panpsychists consider some kind of mind(s) or consciousness(es) to be most fundamental, MONISTS understand that Ultimate Reality is simultaneously both the Subject and any possible object, and thus one, undivided whole (even though it may seem that objects are, in fact, divisible from a certain standpoint). The descriptive term favoured in the metaphysical framework proposed in this Holy Scripture is “Brahman”, a Sanskrit word meaning “expansion”, although similes such as “Sacchidānanda” (Eternal-Conscious-Peace), “The Tao”, and “The Monad”, are also satisfactory. Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually-exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains, both of which are necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object. The term “transjective” has been coined by contemporary scholars to account for precisely this reality. This subject-object duality, and the notion of the transjective, is foundational to a complete understanding of existence/beingness. Therefore, it seems that the necessary-contingent dichotomy often discussed by philosophers in regards to ontology, is superfluous to the concept of monism, because on this view, BOTH the subjective and the objective realities are essentially one, necessary ontological Being(ness). In other words, because you are, fundamentally, Brahman, you are a necessary being and not contingent on any external force. This concept has been termed "necessitarianism" by contemporary philosophers, in contradistinction to "contingentarianism" - the view that at least some thing could have been otherwise different - and is intimately tied to the notions of causality and determinism in Chapters 08 and 11. Advaita Vedānta (that is, dual-aspect Monism) is the only metaphysical scheme that has complete explanatory power. Hypothetically, and somewhat tangentially, one might question thus: “If it is accurate to state that both the Subject of all subjects and all possible objects, are equally ‘Brahman’ (that is, Ultimate Truth), then surely that implies that a rock is equally valuable as a human being?”. That is correct purely on the Absolute platform. Here, in the transactional world of relativity, there is no such thing as equality, except within the conceptual sphere (such as in mathematics), as already demonstrated in more than a couple of places in this Holiest of Holy Books, “F.I.S.H”, especially in the chapter regarding the spiteful, pernicious ideology of feminism (Chapter 26). Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, “object”, and “transjective”.

[@noahghost4476]

Edit: Nathan, this is my favorite Bernardo interview of all time. I subscribed to your channel.

[@skemsen]

Wow now that’s what I call a Christmas gift! 😊 I am looking so much forward to enjoying this during my holiday 🙏

[@PMKehoe]

Totally agree... amazing Christmas present! :)

[@jmalfatto7004]

It sounded to me like Bernardo held firm to the idea that Mind at Large is *not* meta-cognitive…except insofar as evolutionarily advanced dissociated alters like us form within It. At least that’s how he sounded near the end of this long conversation, so maybe I already forgot the admission claimed in the title, in which case he contradicted himself later.

[@Raphael4722]

Well, both of them admitted to using clickbait thumbnails so this is par for the course.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

He didn't. He stated that mind at large, in its eternal state beyond the dashboard, is indeed metaconscious. Kastrup speaks _as if_ it is not metaconscious because he adopts the reality of spacetime language for purposes of argument. But the perspective of mind at large is the privileged perspective. That's why it is _absolutely_ true to say mind at large is metaconscious, but from our temporally bound perspective it is _relatively_ true to say it is not metaconscious _now_ . This links to our discussion of Parmenides. There seems to be confusion on this point so I might do a video explaining what the core points were.

[@James-ll3jb]

​@@AbsolutePhilosophy. Can you define "metaconscious", please?😊

[@tixch2000]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy I admit this was confusing and still is for me. Towards the end he explained that dissociative minds (if that exists at all..) have metaconsciousness which, by feedback to the 'source', gives her metaconsciousness.. So, my understanding is that meta is not a build-in function of MaL but is acquired during 'evolution'? Am I missing something?

[@santerisatama5409]

@@James-ll3jb Good question. I'm familiar with the term 'metacognition, which Kastrup has used on many occation, and how metacognition relates sentient awareness. In that relation metacognition is a synonym for consciousness, and "metaconscious" sounds like pleonastic "metametacognition". If some other meaning is intended, I'd also like to hear what exactly.

[@aninvisibleneophyte]

Thank you for posting. Great to see these kinds of video on my feed. Happy Holidays everyone.

[@transcendentpsych124]

I've been really looking forward to this Nathan. ❤

[@TheTheahart]

Bernardo IS doing what the one needs him to do. We need a real paradigm shift, not just the potential for it!

[@fishfrogdolphin2799]

This was the most interesting and philosophically profound Kastrup conversation I’ve listened to. Very adroitly navigated, and pertinent questions eliciting helpful elucidations, especially on the issue of the possibility of mind-at-large being metacognitive (Kastrup’s previous statements over the years that mind-at-large doesn’t possess metacognition (of some sort) is an element of his idealism that I haven’t bought into)

[@PromoMIAR]

Excellent discussion. Well done both.

[@liara8771]

Thank you for this discussion Nathan!

[@Larcey]

Such an amazing discussion. Thank you!

[@MahimAmaan]

Thanks again Nathan! I love the mutual level of respect you two have for each other, and I think its a really interesting dynamic that you both seem to agree on the idea at large (idealism) but have contentions with how this is reasoned and expressed. It reminds me of the appearance and the thing in itself, where the core idea(lism) is the thing in itself but how it manifests in your heads is what it looks like from the point of view of your own learnings. Also, most surprising fact is that you are 45! Haha, looking forward to more content :)

[@mcclue210]

Around 2:10:00-2:20:00 (mind-at-large, properties thereof), this sounds like the sublime (cf. Kant's Third Critique). Fantastic discussion. Thanks.

[@JaneCotter-o8l]

I have been pondering these questions for a lifetime. Happening upon Bernardo a few years ago has been life changing for me. I have one question still - does the universe care at all or is it simply a blind indifferent.unfolding of the unmanifest into the manifest? I wonder whether all-encompassing love could be an archetypal drive of the universe? This would be so much more 'intelligent' than our measly evolutionary achievement of metacognition. Thank you Nathan for pushing these questions with Bernardo. Thank you Bernardo for your clear, insightful, sincere intellect. What a gift this discussion is for Xmas day Granny from NZ

[@TheTheahart]

Love ❤️ what you say and I’m a granny too!

[@skemsen]

I’m so glad you made this comment as this is exactly what I have been pondering about and I asked something similar in a comment to the previous video. I find it strange that the very topic and concept of (unconditional) love was only mentioned once in a casual way in this long conversation. It seems to me that these discussions seriously lack female perspectives and tend to stay in a very cerebral masculine kind of ‘intellectual masturbation’ lacking other angles of the human experience pondering these questions - and I am saying this as a man 😅 As I mentioned I asked in my comment to the previous video about earlier talks in videos with Rupert Spira and BK where Rupert Spira always holds on to the notion that Consciousness in essence IS love and BK at some point seemed to not want to contradict Rupert but no one has pressed BK on this and his stands that M@L is instinctive which I believe would be a contradiction. Also it bothers me that BK and others interviewing him most often seem so narrow minded about the subject ‘the problem of evil’. I would love for someone (other than me) to suggest to BK a lot of past teachings like the late Danish mystic Martinus where the problem of evil is ‘easily’ understood in the model of a karmic system - where life on earth is one of many ‘schools’ to learn and grow and become more aware of love and cooporation through the experiences of suffering. To get back to the source of Love that all of this sprung from originally (the story of Eden etc. as a metaphor). “Evil” in this way would be merely a human morality judgement from a very limited perspective. Anyway I think it’s peculiar that all encompassing unconditional Love is almost entirely absent from these discussions. I guess BK has his reasons as he explained about sticking to his rigorous line of arguing. I think we need to incorporate Love as I think this interviewer kind of suggested to make all of this more salient generally more helpful to the broader public and it’s growing struggles of meaning crisis.

[@JaneCotter-o8l]

Thanks for your encouragement with this question. I guess I am looking for hard evidence/experience that all encompassing love is fundamental or archetypal and I am not just wanting it to be that way to comfort myself. I have had glimpses in certain dream states not dissimilar to what Bernardo described as 'the gift' in his psychedelic experiences but like him I am wary of imagination/ self deception/ / wishful thinking/ other explanations. If it is the case all encompassing unconditional instinctual love is archetypal I assume it would also be all knowing and all peaceful. Metacognition would be neither here nor there. I really want to get to grips with what 'The Blob' is and aware that time is running out. Love Bernardo. Hope there may be more conversations with Nathan and Bernardo. Granny from NZ

[@skemsen]

@@JaneCotter-o8l - Well I am totally with you on that. I would really like to know too preferably through some kind of evidence/proof. Not to be disrespectful or a cynic but I guess we could tell ourselves that we will know soon enough after this time around dissociating 😉 But I grant you it would feel much more settling to know and understand now. Also it might accelerate positive human development if possible. I want that too.

[@moesypittounikos]

Terrence McKenna used to talk about reality being a crystal casting off reflections of itself. This feels similar to Bernardo's crystal of eternity.

[@suhailski]

Man, just when I thought I had a grip on Bernardo’s philosophy, he sits down with Nathan and now I know I will have to spend hours and hours to try and figure out what these two are on about!

[@oliviergoethals4137]

Thx for pushing Bernardo!

[@transcendentpsych124]

Awesome interview Nathan and Bernardo. Thanks.

[@FilipinaVegana]

I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.

[@transcendentpsych124]

That feels like someone butting into a conversation with someone else. Lol.

[@Raphael4722]

@@transcendentpsych124 She is spamming this entire comment section with her monologues.

[@Raphael4722]

​@@FilipinaVegana Being a monarchist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-feminist vegan who follows Advaita Vedanta is a bizarre combination of worldviews. You will find few people to be in complete agreement with you.

[@Raphael4722]

@@FilipinaVegana Being a monarchist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-feminist vegan who follows Advaita Vedanta is a bizarre combination of worldviews. You will find few people to be in complete agreement with you.

[@qMartink]

Bernardo is a true gem

[@donaldanderson6578]

Glad you changed the title and thumbnail.

[@yadurajdas532]

Marry Christmas 🎅 to everyone here

[@FilipinaVegana]

Wedding Christmas?💍

[@yadurajdas532]

@@FilipinaVeganajajajaja yes 👍

[@ghostrecon3214]

I appreciate you pushing into Bernardos ideas. I toss around a lot of ideas, even though the depths go beyond what I have properly thought through, I like to listen to the ideas tested at depth. I tend toward an adherence to the law of logic, but I also recognize that they eventually break down. For instance the infinite potential preceded the actual, but what 'caused' the infinite potential to break symmetry for the actual to arise? It seems like something only a mind could do, but it also seems like any idea of what a mind is, would be contained in the infinite potential. So I am not sure the intuitionist is the best approach for the actual reality but I am also not sure the laws of logic can lead us to the promised land either.

[@psenodakh]

Neither rational thought, nor empirical discovery lead to the promised land. They could only hint at it.

[@Booklamp53]

This was great! Thank you!

[@FilipinaVegana]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@maddywilcox9012]

Just beautiful example of learning live, it's like watching a day in the life of Merlin and my the young Arthur. 🎉🎉🎉

[@transcendentpsych124]

Near the end now. I could watch you two all day.

[@SamC0ver]

Perhaps the answer lies in embracing the tension between logic and intuition as a key to navigating between the potential and the real, without demanding a definitive resolution. After all, the "promised land" may be more of a horizon than a final destination...

[@x-b5516]

One of the best conversations Bernardo did this year ❤🎉 And also thank you Nathan for the insights you bring, it always takes two to tango 😂

[@polymathpark]

Man I watch these because all philosophies need to be challenged, but these thumbnails are shameful. Have some integrity, don't make it look like you "got 'em!" that's gotcha journalism. But your interviews are quite cordial and nuanced otherwise, keep up the good work!

[@justinamos9223]

Gotta play the game

[@polymathpark]

@justinamos9223 not if you have integrity. Just ask Randy of Tegrity farms. Tbh I wrestle with this in my own videos critiquing kastrup and sapolsky, I just use a picture of their book in my thumbnail, but I know I'd get more views if I made a more controversial titles and imagery.

[@MartinHomberger]

I clicked it for the thumbnail and found Bernardo to be so gracious and open, helped me understand the scope of where he is coming from better. Only slightly glad for the thumbnail for that haha. But I agree with you!

[@gkannon77]

See, Martin is the reason I have just excepted those type of thumbnails. It reaches people that would not watch the video otherwise, spreading good content (and good YTers). Otherwise, it would just be crappy content that uses these marketing techniques. And I agree, I initially thought that YTers should rise above the need to employ clickbait, but as I realized the benefits of it, and that theres a level of it that I find acceptable (as well as a level I find repulsive which is usually a claim that is not at all demonstrated in the video) I’ve become much more comfortable with it.

[@huntertony56]

This one was great!!!❤

[@SamC0ver]

Our mind is the one that tries to divide things into "before" and "after", or "cause" and "effect", because that's how we can think. Ultimately, I think the important thing is not so much to find a definitive answer, but to keep questioning and exploring. Perhaps the "meaning" of it all is exactly this: to live in doubt and discovery, without waiting for all the pieces to fit perfectly.

[@James-ll3jb]

I think the mind notes regularities e.g. "before/after", "cause/effect", and the division within these dichotomies exist as apprehended, not created. I wish Kastrup and the academic dude here would honestly confront these vital issues directly.❤ It's nice to think we will go on doubting and exploring 'ad infinitum', as no doubt we will, even AFTER defibitive answers to questions of ultimate meaning are reached!

[@rooruffneck]

Outstanding

[@Raptorel]

Bernardo said that the Universe most likely isn't metacognitive because there can't be universe-wide closed cognitive re-entrant loops that are usually associated with metacognition and metarepresentation, but I think you only come to this conclusion if you look from within the universe, if you're a dissociation inside the universe and you observe it. Then you will see classically looking things that aren't causally connected, from your point of view. The same can be said about entanglement - you can't send information through entangled particles, but that's only if you're already in the environment where the entangled particles live - ie, inside the universe. But the universe as a whole, as a "quantum object", must be viewed holistically - as a whole, not as parts. In this sense, even if the universe is expanding and parts of it are causally disconnected (because information would need to travel faster than the speed of light to connect them), from its first-person experience it is still a whole. So I think it can still be metacognitive. I also don't think it needs to be put under the pressures of evolution to be metacognitive - it could be from the get-go (always was metacognitive) and only its dissociations evolve to re-discover the metacognition that was always there in Mind-at-Large (it would be like the dissociations re-discovering who they really are).

[@Soundsofanetwork]

Wow been looking forward to this thanks.

[@yadurajdas532]

What a title !… looking forward to see this

[@realcygnus]

one of the best yet

[@TimC-Cambridge]

If we imagine all the tools in a workshop as words and ourselves as the one who crafts, then we can see we are a witness, an observer of our creativity, one who produces within uncertainty. Something like that.

[@Soundsofanetwork]

I’m curious do you hold any religious beliefs , curious if this supports your take on a meta cognitive absolute.

[@mr.ferg0112]

Read "More than allegory" by him

[@Soundsofanetwork]

@ thanks for that suggestion. :) I should of been more specific it was directed at Nathan not Bernado.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

@Soundsofanetwork Yes and yes. Although I keep they philosophical language and argument distinct from religious language as much as possible, and I leave the question of whether the Absolute is God independent of metaphysics.

[@CGMaat]

Real illumination for Christmas Eve- thanks for clearing the expression about we being monkeys around a rock - today i get it - but gods looking out through our eyes- wow❤

[@colquest]

It's here!

[@robterry8330]

When doe’s Bernardo say the universe is meta cognitive?

[@skemsen]

I still think Bernardo and others interested in this topic should give them selves a chance to familiarize themselves with the teachings of the late Danish mystic Martinus. Explained here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWeph3mYaNJrqdEsi=9zYlxkAvzfr9dJeT

[@amanuel.m4575]

wow ....... great!!!!!!!

[@Mandibil]

36:46 theist. That is a deal breaker. Philosophy is just used to excuse the mental child abuse of religion. Mommy power.

[@innerlight617]

Why this misleading title???

[@jgarciajr82]

Truth is a little bit more simpler than that. It's based off of trust.

[@juanmanuelgonzalez9341]

When you mention the relation between facism and materialism it reminded me a lot to Pius XI’s encyclical called Quadragesimo Anno. The project of that encyclical is precisely to attach both extremes of socialism and liberalism as consecuences of a materialistic perspective. All written in 1931

[@colquest]

I wonder if Bernado would endorse 'following the evidence wherever it leads' to politics and history (I understand he couldn't afford to do that himself)

[@saxassaxas6916]

thank you

[@tiborkoos188]

The thought experiment of the previous comment about peripheral nerve stimulation provides an objective means for determining whether conscious experiences or the physical world is more fundamental. What the experiment shows is taking the physical or mental as fundamental is not equally workable, because there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two. Each experience can arise from a huge variety of different molecular configurations of the brain and therefore the experiences simply cannot be the determinants of what the physical world is. The more fundamental level is obviously the one with the higher information content. This forces (at least Kastrup's version of) idealism to invent ever more arbitrary and bizarre things like experiences that we do not know we are having and the like.

[@goran586]

Why are "experiences that we do not know we are having" bizarre?.

[@CJ-kq3oh]

There are scientific experiments demonstrating we have experiences outside awareness. This is hardly arbitrary.

[@richardatkinson4710]

@@tiborkoos188 It’s more subtle that that. The brain and its processes are discrete, or digital. The perceptions, memories and ideas in the mind are continuous. We extract patterns from the information and join the dots. As Quine wrote, the continuous objects of perception and the continuum of real numbers are “convenient myths” which fill out discrete reality but contain it as scattered fragments. Since the cardinality of the continuum is higher than that of the natural numbers, the ideas in the mind may be considered as infinitely more complex than the stimuli in the external world.

[@tiborkoos188]

@@richardatkinson4710 HI RIchard, Are you the Atkinson I know ? As for the comment. My first reaction was that if the ides of the mind are states of the brain than the total information content would be, at the maximum, equal to the integral of the p*log2(p) over the (continuous) probability distribution density over all degrees of freedom of all particles while for the world it would the same for all particles of the world, which of course would mu much larger. But then I realized that you may be right because the information content of the "world" for a human observed is limited by sensory resolution and the collection of distinct inputs (sensory experiences). This is quite interesting actually. Maybe what it means is that we can always create more through imagination then what we will ever perceive ? Cheers!

[@tiborkoos188]

@@goran586 The world "experience" refers to the things that I find in my my subjective internal landscape (sounds, sights, feelings in my body, thoughts, emotions) when I use introspection to examine what's happening in my mind. Too say that I have an experience that I don;t know that I am having would obviously mean that I would not be able to find this "experience" within my inner world by introspection. But then how can I be possibly "experiencing" it ? He confuses unconscious processes of the brain with experiences. The very point of an experience is that I am conscious of it. He is trying to desperately protect his incoherent story by inventing nonsensical and arbitrary definitions like experiences that we are not experiencing. I can easly demonstrate why his idea is incoherent. Since these activities are not experienced by me - I cannot locate them in my mind, cannot identify or describe them, cannot even say WHEN they are happening - then what basis do we have for saying that these are "experiences" ? Why not unconscious brain processes ? What's more, Kastrup wants to argue that on the one hand, brain activity is not the cause of experience, but on the other, that brain activity proves that there is an "experience". So which one is it ? His whole story is completely incoherent.

[@Mandibil]

So the original thumbnail went away. I guess BK had enough free will to complain

[@squatch545]

I think Bernardo's cat is meta-conscious.

[@RighteousMonk-m1m]

You nailed it! 😮

[@stevenpham6734]

Well jokes aside, it would be very hard to prove otherwise. Cats are mamalian animals just like us, their brain structure and function are of the same blueprint as us. If we grant ourselves meta/access-consciousness, then our default assumption about cats' cognition should be the same, and NOT the other way around.

[@bavingeter423]

I agree

[@swerremdjee2769]

I think his cat is more conscious than him meta or not

[@stevenpham6734]

@@swerremdjee2769 There goes mister hippie. Without disagreeing, what do you mean by 'conscious' here sir?

[@adamsharpe5517]

Hi Nathan. At some point in this discussion you mention that you think "truth is the ultimate thought, goodness is the ultimate act, and beauty is the ultimate feeling". I'm very interested in exploring this idea. Do you have any recommendations where I can read more about this?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I didn't lift that from anywhere specific, but there is a long tradition in taking values to be the ultimate constituents of reality, dating back to Plato. The true, the good, and the beautiful often being seen to have special status. But it is FH Bradley that sees truth as being what our thought attempts to become as we comprehend reality "in the whole". And he also breaks with Hegel by thinking that feeling is something other than thought, and reality includes feeling. So I suggest reading Bradley, and if you want to you can become a member of the channel because I'm going through Bradley's great metaphysical work "Appearance and Reality" in members only videos, both reading and then explaining it. (Lots more on that is planned).

[@grzegorz4636]

Fine tuning: the problem here is the arbitrary assumption of time arrow from bing bang to now. Leave this conservative assumption and think of big bang as result of the conscious now backwards. Fine tuning solved. This is first step. Now go one step further and give up causality all together. Big bang is happening now, the only now there is. Fine tuning is red herring.

[@Achrononmaster]

While I like Nathan's framing from the intro., you are getting into dodgy territory when you start talking about what _you_ *_want_* God to Be. Like you have a choice in the matter? The beginning of all genuine philosophy is humility before The Absolute. If you don't have that then there's not going to be a lot of good coming from your fanciful ideas. What you _could_ do is start with the Absolute as the _actual_ Absolute, admit It is Unknowable, and then work downwards, which means, as in mathematical Set Theory, you are humble and abandon all pretensions to say anything about God (or even "the universe"), but you can reflect attributes that could be universals on existence at lower grades of the spirit. Then you can say useful things about normal daily practicalities like how we treat each other, macroeconomic justice, the funding in sciences, the banal evils of neoliberalism, the needlessness of war - you know, the moral and spiritual dimensions that matter a heck of a lot and justify giving public university philosophers a decent salaried job.

[@tiborkoos188]

I really like the channel! The question posed around 43 was great I have an more direct challenge . According to Kastrup the nervous systemic is a projection of our experiences on the "screen of perception". Suppose that I take a microelectrode and stimulate a peripheral sensory nerve in my leg. That leads to some experience, a sensation. It is a fact that (barring technical details) I will get the same sensation regardless of (i) where along the nerve I apply the stimulus, (ii) what metal the electrode is made of, or (iii) what shape the electrode has. Since there is only one experience how does the screen of perception "know" which one of these physical realities to "project" ? Moreover, what is the electrode a projection of before the experience starts?

[@rooruffneck]

That subtle music in the background is troubling for me, but the conversation is outstanding:)

[@moussaadem7933]

it's subtle enough that it doesn't bother me

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I know! It was playing in the background of Bernardo's house.

[@richardatkinson4710]

BK’s analytic idealism is a great aspiration. There are a few things I think he gets wrong. I just listened to his use of the example of Conway’s Game of Life, where he seems to think the two rules of the Game generate great complexity. I think the Game is a really important (even unique) example for demonstrating the potential of Zuse’s “Calculating Space” (the universe as a cellular automaton). But the complexity has to be put in. A sole live cell (or bit) disappears in the first “generation”, after which nothing happens. By contrast, Paul Rendell’s fully complete universal Turing machine starts with several million live cells, each one exactly placed in a huge field of dead cells. This is an extremely exciting invention/discovery, but there’s no easy route there from any simpler pattern.

[@robterry8330]

“The language of God is silence, all else is poor translation.” - Rumi

[@CrawlingAxle]

Was the original image a click bait? Does BK concede metacognition or not?

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

I'm my opinion, yes he does at the level of eternity, which, since time is not ultimately real, means M@L is metacognitive, especially if this level of speaking concerns absolute truths, which Kastrup seems to admit. But concerns were raised by Kastrup that the claim should only be presented within the context of the discussion, not in the title. So I changed it. Was it click bait? Yes and no. I thought it was the most interesting aspect of the discussion, so the most likely to get a click. But it was not misrepresentation.

[@CrawlingAxle]

@AbsolutePhilosophy thanks!

[@CrawlingAxle]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Was the concept of Mind at Large discussed in the previous video?

[@goran586]

1:50:00 The fruit is always older Than the tree from where it grows Like the dream in every creature And the mind from where it flows

[@CGMaat]

Really Nobel and intelligent and respectful decent contrary and agreement dialogue - thank you - we are in the spiral becoming ordering principle in continuous complexity evolution ……Schrödinger said that our chromosomes are more a quasicrystal than a periodic that though beautiful repeats the same pattern as a quasi crystal exhibits ordered parts but also with freedom of expression but also respects the golden rato- but for ever new arrangements of complexity compared to masterpiece of embroidery to a tapestry of Raphael which shows no dull repetition . Merry christmas - so appreciate your respect and decency to each other- not like some others who seem to come on to show their ego and how much they know. We love Bernardo & Nathan

[@richardatkinson4710]

I think BK is right to discuss Wigner’s “Unreasonable Effectiveness…” paper when trying to include mathematics in his metaphysics. But my own view is that Wigner’s view of mathematics as a miraculous windfall for scientists is quite wrong. The laws of physics - as Exner taught, and as his student Schrödinger believed all his life, are all statistical. Any statistical pattern can be approximated to any degree of accuracy by a range of analytic functions. Weinberg suggested as much in his “Dreams of a Final Theory”, I think (all physical laws may be approximate).

[@anteodedi8937]

1:03:00 So Kastrup cannot run an argument without affirming what he aims to deny? Brilliant! This is a paradigmatic case of self-refutation. If anything he admitted his position is inconsistent.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

What a dumb and incorrect takeaway. the limits of language and human cognition hold for literally all attempts at explaining the world.

[@anteodedi8937]

@Sam-hh3ry This is a call for all Kastrup fanboys. If you have something worth bringing, go ahead. If not, stop throwing rants under my comment!

[@masticloxpoker1006]

@@anteodedi8937 @Sam-hh3ry πριν από 1 ώρα What a dumb and incorrect takeaway. the limits of language and human cognition hold for literally all attempts at explaining the world.

[@PMKehoe]

​@@masticloxpoker1006I agree with Kastrup characterization of mind at large as non-higher ordering, non-meta-consciousness monism, what Schopenhauer call the (entailing) eye of nature, which does infinitely extrapolate as primary coherence, appearing to our meta-conscious reporting as developmental, thee primacy of first and ultimate, ‘as if’ spontaneous causation, etc.

[@Raphael4722]

There are layers to this.

[@copaito2008]

I don't seem to see a significant difference between what Castrup proposes and any theoretical subtrate that gives rise to fundamental physics, like String Theory.

[@tommoody728]

Kastrup actually made me realise that I’m an idealist and that I’m far from alone in that, so I’m forever in his debt. However, the more I’ve contemplated idealism the more problems I see with Kastrup’s “analytic” version. The main problem I have with it, is that if everything is “experience”, it does not mean that every experience has to belong to a corresponding “experiencer”. I feel this is a neat trick to let AI correspond on a 1 to 1 basis with physicalist scientific explanations, and to avoid the black hole of solipsism, but it stretched my credulity to the limit. Are we supposed to really believe that every thing observed apart from living organisms belongs to one singular “mind at large” that somehow holds the entire universe together at once? It honestly just seems absurd. To me it seems much more likely that many things are “just observed”, they are mere representation, and they do not have their own corresponding inner existing consciousness, of any kind. Think of a dream. It would be very strange to claim that a character that you imagined in your dream had their own inner life, that they effectively are born, live, and die within the confines of your short dream.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

This is literally one of the first things covered in his dissertation/his main paper on analytic idealism. The relationship between subject and object. It also comes up in the last interview he did on this channel.

[@tommoody728]

@ he wouldn’t be much of a philosopher if he hadn’t covered it. I do have respect for him for actually putting forward a positive metaphysical explanation and backing it, it’s much more than most theorists are willing to do, and I wish more would act with this conviction.

[@Raphael4722]

'many things are “just observed”, they are mere representation' - representation of what? If you believe there are objects that don't correspond to any mind, you are not an Idealist. (of course if you choose not to be an idealist, that's okay)

[@tommoody728]

@ I believe that the base of all reality is experience. That is, that “physical” objects only exists as experiences. A conscience being can be regarded as a centre of experience, and reality is a tapestry where many such centres overlap. Our dreams and imagination are places where our experience doesn’t need to overlap with others, which is why they are far more flexible, whereas reality is a shared experience built up by millions of minds over millions of years. I don’t believe that each and every physical object in the universe is somehow held together by a singular “mind at large” though. In fact it can be seriously questioned whether the cosmos actually exists at all; the only thing we can really say is that it appears to exists from our perspective. Maybe that’s a version of idealism or maybe not, as I don’t care for labels.

[@Raphael4722]

​@@tommoody728 So you believe in overlapping experiences between different people i.e. if you can see a tree, I will also be able to see a tree in the same location. But you don't believe those overlapping experiences are grounded in anything, neither a Universal Mind nor a physical world. Idk, that seems like a worldview that doesn't explain anything.

[@extavwudda]

Bernardo should have a chat with Edward Frenkel

[@djazz393]

Part 3: The Universe is the Trinity Lol This is exactly what I wanted to see someone push Bernardo on. Haven’t finished the whole thing yet, but seems to be what Sheldrake was criticizing Bernardo for but not nearly as fleshed out and rigorous as you’ve done. Thank you 🙏

[@richardatkinson4710]

Round about 44mins BK says that the world - the ideal or mental world - calculates what comes next (or what to do next). I think that’s wrong. Mathematicians choose the model to fit the data, but the data are just statistics.

[@detodounpoco37]

Of course it is, I am metacognitive

[@anteodedi8937]

2:23:00 That's the only thing I respect Kastrup for, tbh. At least his moral sensitivities are not muddled, and he recognizes how much of a severe problem evil is for theists. I was also surprised to see you brought up one of my questions to him 😂 Regarding dualism being in line with our basic intuitions, he simply dismissed intuition as unreliable. The issue is that fundamentally everything relies on intuitions. He even brings some examples of scientific theories to make his point, but what are those theories based on? All process of reasoning at various point relies on intuitions. We don't believe a scientific theory because it is counterintuitive. We believe it because it is the most intuitive thing that actually explains the evidence. Kastrup is not really that great when it comes to epistemology. Somewhere along the video he even defends his view on the basis of intuition, lol.

[@muhammadhassanaliiqbal1117]

So, say we have fundamental intuitions, and less fundamental intuitions. One of, if not the most, fundamental intuition would be "Reason can give us truth, and that which goes against reason, such as a logical contradiction, is false" From reason we get "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity" Dualism seems to multiply entities beyond necessity While dualism may be intuitive, the reliability of reason is far more intuitive Or "Reason feels a lot more true than dualism" Hence, dualism is rejected. Also, the trinity is really unintuitive, and Alexander Pruss also stresses upon the limits of the human mind and such to assuage our concerns. So if you're a Christian, and you know who Alexander Pruss is, then I suppose that is something worth considering if you want to make this particular of criticism of Bernardo. Bit of an appeal to authority, but I don't either of the PhDs in philosophy in that video made this criticism so maybe that's worth considering. Because the internet is such a toxic place, I have to add: I mean no ill will.

[@anteodedi8937]

@muhammadhassanaliiqbal1117 Thanks, I really appreciate your comment. “One of the fundamental intuitions…reason can give us truth and that which goes against reason…is false” With that, I agree. That's why it makes no sense to dismiss intuition as unreliable, as you cannot escape it. At some level, you will rely on intuition. I think the idealist has to deny that dualism is more intuitive. Instead of doing that, Kastrup went right for the trap of dismissing intuition. That made my day! It was something along the lines of Robert Sapolsky when he dismisses our intuitions about free will. And Sapolsky is known for being a philosophical failure. Now make your calculations about Kastrup! “From reason we get not to multiply entities beyond necessity” Actually, someone can argue that such principle has pragmatic grounds rather than rational grounds. But leaving that aside, I don't think dualism falls for that. It multiplies entities, but it does so out of necessity. When it comes to parsimony, simplicity is one criterion, but another criterion is explanatory power. And that's where I think a sort of dualism succeeds, being it a dualism of properties or a dualism of substances. Just like materialism fails to explain mind, idealism fails to explain matter. It is the same when it comes to pluralistic idealism vs. monistic idealism. Pluralistic idealism is best suited to explain and predict phenomenologically centered indivuduals. I am not a Christian (ex Orthodox Christian if that matters) and I haven't actually read anything from Pruss but I have heard he is scary smart and a top-notch philosopher. I would appreciate any recommendation in particular.

[@evan7391]

The "physical positivity of suffering" is not a good argument against privation theory of evil. Suffering is only bad because it is a movement away from an ideal state, not because of its inherited positivity or existence.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@evan7391 “I therefore know of no greater absurdity than that absurdity which characterizes almost all metaphysical systems: that of explaining evil as something negative. For evil is precisely that which is positive, that which makes itself palpable; and good, on the other hand, i.e., all happiness and all gratification, is that which is negative, the mere abolition of a desire and extinction of a pain.” Do you see that? It is what Schopenhauer used to believe, that good is the privation of evil i.e. privation theory of good. Do you see something wrong there? Because I definitely see something. Logically, it is no more absurd than its opposite i.e. privation theory of evil.

[@Raphael4722]

@@anteodedi8937 If you are closed to the possibility of anything in reality being counter-intuitive, then why engage with philosophy at all? Just follow your intuition. I'd rather be agnostic to my intuition - sometimes it can be right, other times wrong. Additionally, intuition varies to some extent between different people. And because I suspect there to be an objective truth, I have no choice but to be sceptical.

[@siestabluell8374]

1:54:24 Canine dissociation. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aICUZneOq5iJrck

[@FR-yr2lo]

The other guy talks SO MUCH

[@BBeu-i6t]

Hey Bernardo, I have embodied metacognition meta memory. If you have questions let me know 😊

[@BBeu-i6t]

Oh also I’m on Bluesky I’ll message you if you want. I emailed Michael because you said savants don’t have it. I’m autistic savant. Lmk if you want me to message you.

[@mohitoautomaciek801]

🤝👍spokojnie - nikt nie musi kopiować 1do1 i tylko moja droga jest idealna... wszyscy to nie ja ani ja to nie wszyscy... ja wiedziałem że musiałem zejść na dno samego siebie i zatrzymać się w swoim postępowaniu bo to nic dobrego nie wnosi do mojego życia... to powstaje pytanie - to co będzie dobre dla mnie? dalej brnąć w szukanie gdzie niżej jest granica upadku a może zmienić podejście do życia i ZiENiAĆ na lepsze swoje życie... odpowiedź jest prosta - zmiana na lepsze (metanoia - zmiana, przemiana (meta) umysłu (nous)👍nikt nie musi niżej upadać czy sprawdzać czy może jest podwójne dno... ale rozpocząć rozmyślania nad zmianą na lepsze a receptę wszyscy macie podaną👍jak mi sie udało nie upaść na duchu i zrobić jakiejśą wiekszą głupotę tylko zmienić swoje zachowanie i dalej żyć👍każdy ma jakiś problem którego chce sie pozbyć bo wie że jeszcze bardziej pogrąża sie w wieksze bagno👍warto takie zachowania zmienić a jak sami widzicie to DZiAŁA🤝

[@achyuthcn2555]

Do an interview with Swami Sarvapriyananda... Advaita is more facinating and positively life changing ideology.

[@The.Watcher.2024]

Does the interview ever get good? So far ive just heard ... nothing chatter... Like in the first interview

[@edzardpiltz6348]

Too much thinking too little direct experience. Instead of more western philosophy a bit more eastern influence would serve Bernardo more.

[@Aaron-bd9sj]

First

[@santerisatama5409]

Even though Brouwer spoke of solipsistic intuitionism, I think it is better to comprehend solipsism as a common phase and struggle in our processes of spiritual growth, Much wiser was Brouwer's realization that primary ontology of mathematics is pre-linguistic, and empirically it is very true that mathematical intuitions unfolding from the Nous/MaL/Holomovement are prelinguistic. This prelinguistic/apophatic ontology can be even extremely and overwhelmingly pregnant with meaning, including the kinds of meaning that inspire poets to generate poems and mathematical poets to generate the poetry of constructing mathematical languages. The holistic potential unfolds into creative distinction generation by mereological participation. Mathematically the deepest mereological archetype we can currently cognize is the inequivalence relation symbolized by relational operators. As Euclid said in his 5th Common Notion: "The whole is greater than the part", expressing fundamental inequivalence relation of living in a world, belonging to a world. It's very curious, then, that Kastrup supports Correspondence theory of truth while claiming to have Intuitionist position in philosophy of mathematics. The main target of Brouwer's revolution was mathematical Platonism miscomprehended as timeless eternalism of "Platonia", That is not the insider report of mathematical philosophy and methodology of Plato's Academy that Proclus gave 800 years after Euclid. For Greek pure mathematics (as well as for Brouwer), the truth theory from which mathematical truths unfold is Coherence theory of truth. Cosmic Nous is the archetype of fully interconnected organic whole, and IMHO mathematical truth emanates from coherent participation in cosmic scale organic whole(s). Organic participation means participation in organic Heraclitean flux, not in Parmenidean abstract stasis. "Real numbers" are not foundationally coherent mathematics. They are at best a speculative heuristic, but really they are just another absuridity of Zeno-paradox created by playing the Formalist game of arbitrary language games which as a form of logical Explosion are truth nihilistic sophistry. In our current duration (see Bergson) any true mathematical statement needs to be coherent with undecidability of the Halting problem, of which Gödel's incompleteness theorems are specific cases. Through "programs as proofs" aka Curry-Howard correspondence this implies that mathematical proof events to do not have eternally infinite duration, even though proof events spreads towards both past and future at the speed of mathematics. Proof events have "only" globally undecidable duration, which of course can be also bigger than a universe, multiverse etc. potential infinities. Principia Mathematica was a failure, and after the failure (having been debunked by Gödel) Whitehead felt revealed and moved onto relational process ontology, which by definition is not either kind of monism of Cartesian substance metaphysics. If Kastrup likes to give Brouwer's apophatic Silence (in Greek: mystery) the value of "ultimate truth" that can be imagined also as glass house of unfiltered sentience, that's OK, keeping in mind that that is his value judgement from his extensional perspective as a unique organic being.

[@VenusLover17]

❤❤❤

[@mmc577]

Advaita vedanta basically

[@clivejenkins4033]

I dont believe the universe started, i believe the universe is timeless and infinite, JWST is showing data that questions the big bang

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

"The Universe is Metastupid" - Bernardo Kastrup

[@jnew9403]

I was really looking forward to this but that background music is super distracting.

[@davidrandell2224]

100,000 years and 20 billion brains later one brain- Mark McCutcheon:” The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, - discovered/ published the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. Start at start. “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation for the end of “what is possible.” So again,no.

[@clivejenkins4033]

The mind of God

[@wozgp79]

When your body dies and you enter pure consciousness you will realize that what you thought was deep philosophy while embodied was merely the pesky thoughts of an inferior human mind, trying to understand what is not available to a mortal soul. Then you will know, so all this is just argument.

[@copaito2008]

If by "mind at large" you are referring to a basic set of rules and axioms, then that's not a "mind"...be my guest in calling it whatever you will, but the tag doesn't describe the thing accurately.

[@remani7540]

What's setting and holding the rules?

[@LoneRanger.801]

Excellent discussion. But whats with this juvenile thumbnail? It’s terrible man.