Find MORE Meaning WITHOUT Free Will! | Bernardo Kastrup Explains

We usually think that it is free will that gives meaning to life, but what if exactly the opposite is true, that the fact that we don't have free will makes life meaningful?
A couple of weeks ago Bernardo Kastrup, the executive director of the Essentia Foundation, wrote an essay (www.essentiafoundation.org/th...) arguing that, under objective idealism, the whole convulsiveness around free will is a meaningless red herring. In his opinion, the free will vs determinism debate misses the point, because fundamentally there is no distinction between nature’s will and what nature is necessitated to do. In other words: what we assume to be free will is, on a universal level, exactly the same as determinism.
In this video ,Hans Busstra sits down with Bernardo Kastrup to discuss this line of reasoning while also trying to make it personal: why do we want free will so badly on a psychological level? Why, as a culture, do we usually associate determinism with nihilism and meaninglessness? The conversation covers Laplace’s Demon, computational irreducibility, and works towards Kastrup's main point: if you can accept that, on a personal level, you don't have free will, you realize that you are being ‘played’ by a universe that-due to computational irreducibility-cannot 'see' where it's going before it goes. Instead of suffering as an effect of 'bad' free will decisions by human agents, suffering becomes part of the inevitable evolution of the universe.
00:00 Introduction
04:33 Why do we want free will so badly?
07:33 Laplace's Demon
09:09 Bernardo explaining computational irreducibility
13:22 Is there a GRAND algorithm? Bernardo on randomness...
16:17 Wa cannot NOT be what we are, therefore in a sense we are fully determined...
17:40 If we truly had free will we would be completely happy
24:04 On compatabilism, the idea that free will is somehow an emergent phenomenon
26:12 Does free will have a function, evolutionary?
32:10 On B.F.Skinner and behaviorism
35:14 How Silicon Valley likes the idea of no free will to nudge our behaviour
38:09 To model a human mind, you need to model the whole universe
38:45 On strong emergence
41:30 We are addicted to free will thinking
45:29 Is your life like a movie that you watch?
48:21 On the WILL of the universe according to Schopenhauer
51:30 If desire and necessity are the same thing, the concept of free will becomes meaningless
53:41 Can the universe WILL something completely else, that would change the regularities we see in nature?
56:03 If we would go back to the initial state, would we end up with the same universe?
57:33 Hans still wants a little bit of free will
59:53 Bernardo on the result orientedness of society
1:02:00 But what if I kick you Bernardo? On moral responsibility
1:06:28 On the ethical implications and Daniel Dennet's plea to stop telling people they don't have free will
1:07:31 Why nihilism is the wrong conclusion
1:08:46 If we would consider ourselves as chips in a computer
1:11:10 We DO have moral responsibility
1:12:52 Our suffering is valuable input for the universe
1:14:58 The two habits of thinking that obscure us
1:18:04 Conclusion by Bernardo, quoting Fred Matser: life is about being played by the universe
Films fragments as quoted in this video, in order of appearance (as a non-profit, Essentia Foundation uses fragments like these, as is common in KZbin edits, under fair use provisions; but if copyright holders do not agree, please let us know):
I Origins (2014)
Cast Away (2000)
Into the Wild (2007)
The Pursuit Of Happyness (2006)
Copyright © 2023 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.

[@discovertheherowithin3995]

I don't care what Bernardo says, he is a spiritual master. Lol. He is an awakened master disguised as a scientist and philosopher. Bravo!

[@liviuclipa]

Far from it

[@bigislandmonero2122]

It seems to me the universe knows itself clearly through him but similar to swami sarvapriyananda they know of but don't actually experience it's bliss

[@vinceofyork1757]

He's a Bodhisattva...but doesn't know it yet. Which goes perfectly with the theme of this video. It's not about "Bernardo" , nature's telos is actively working through him... impersonally. Bernardo's mind is the path of least resistance for this type of information to flow, out of.

[@user-mm8pm7ol3r]

Precisely: "LOL".

[@moesypittounikos]

The gods of synchronicity made Bernardo in the interview after this, with the quantum physics guy, get all egoity and far from the spiritual master he seems in this talk. Synchronicity also hands out these life lessons.

[@pdhansten]

This is one of the most profound discussions of free will I have ever heard, and I've been studying free will for decades. It fits perfectly with the book "Determined" by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky. I see wonderful echoes of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Spinoza. Bravo Bernardo!

[@tap1799]

Couldn't agree more. I have recently been going through Roberts lectures, on KZbin, at Stanford and the synchronicity is really astounding. And what a fantastic lecturer Robert is, he is an absolute joy to listen to.

[@Xtazieyo]

I used to be so scared of this notion of "not having free will". Yet the simple realisation that the personal and "universal" will are one on the same thing is actually endlessly freeing.

[@nzd_tv]

You can still have separate will, and universal will is realised through the "voting" process; therefore your personal will is not canceled. Your free will can be not aligned with universal free will or it can - it is up to you.

[@MrQuadcity]

Free will is an illusion and here is the argumentation: From the lense of neuroscience: Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science) participates in an experiment conducted by John-Dylan Haynes (Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin) that attempts to find the neurological basis for decision making. Short summary: The experiment explores the relationship between free will, decision-making, and brain activity. Marcus Du Sautoy participates in an experiment in Berlin where they have to randomly decide to press either a left or right button. Brain scans and computer records track when the decision is made in the brain and when the button is physically pressed. The results reveal that up to six seconds before Marcus Du Sautoy consciously makes a decision, their brain has already made that choice. Specific patterns of brain activity can even predict which button will be pressed. This finding challenges the notion of free will, suggesting that unconscious brain activity significantly shapes our decisions before we become consciously aware of them. The experiment also delves into the nature of consciousness. It argues against dualism-the idea that the mind and brain are separate entities. Instead, it posits that consciousness is an aspect of brain activity. The unconscious brain activity is in harmony with a person's beliefs and desires, so it's not forcing you to do something against your will. Marcus Du Sautoy finds the results shocking, especially the idea that someone else can predict their decision six seconds before they are consciously aware of making it. The experiment raises profound questions about the nature of free will, consciousness, and the deterministic mechanisms that may govern our decisions. From the lense of pysics: In order to question the belief in free will, one can conduct experiments and contemplations. Take an action you are convinced you performed and reverse-engineer it until you realize you had no control over it. This leads to the conclusion that all actions in life are the same, and the notion of claiming ownership falls away, so free will is non-existent. By 'reverse-engineering an action,' I mean tracing back the steps that led you to make a specific decision. Upon close examination, you'll find that your choice was influenced by a series of past events and conditions over which you had no control, and that your choice didn't originate from a single point. One could argue that everything originates from the Big Bang, making us essentially biological robots. This realization may prompt you to reconsider how much 'free will' you actually possess, as your actions are shaped by factors beyond your control, both in the past and likely in the future as well. So you can summarize everything is a happening according to cosmic laws.

[@Koort1008]

@@nzd_tv That is bs. All is undivided. There is no separate you and no universal. Both are appearances. If you can name, perceive, or conceive it, it is not.

[@nzd_tv]

@@Koort1008nope, God divided himself into souls (not everything) and souls participate in creation

[@Koort1008]

@@nzd_tv What? That is the kind of crap religions teach you. What you are is that what God is and that is unknowable.

[@loveyourketo1433]

Gotta love KZbin and this time and space to be able to witness these kind of conversations ❤🙏

[@Mr00000111]

Bernardo, please dont stop doing what you are doing. You have had a considerable impact on my life and i'm sure on thousands' else. You are a modern prophet. Every epoch needs its prophets. Thanks!

[@xrp589baby]

is it just me or does he have really tiny arms?..like a t rex

[@zak2659]

@@xrp589baby its cuz his shirt sleeves are so long lol

[@SimoneMancini1]

I am a psychiatrist, Jungian analyst from Brazil and I would like to congratulates Bernardo for his amazing ideas and great explanations about this theme! I particularly appreciate Bernardo Kastrup’s books and it would be great to have them translated into Portuguese. I would love if I could contribute in some way to spread Analytical Idealism’ ideas here in Brazil.

[@jeff4797]

E legal ver brasileiros que acompanham o bernardo. Nao sou psicologo, nem perto disso, mas tenho um grande interesse pelo tema.

[@SimoneMancini1]

@@jeff4797 Sim, acho muito legal que brasileiros conheçam o Bernardo Kastrup (nascido no Brasil, inclusive). As ideias de Jung são muito bem cuidadas no trabalho dele.. Bernardo é um grande pensador!!

[@waynzwhirled6181]

I have been contemplating the free will conundrum for a long time. This is the best, most honest, most interesting discussion I have heard on the subject. It is excellent. Thank you. I will be listening to it again, and probably again.

[@craigwillms61]

Though you may choose not to listen again. Your choice, you are free to choose after all.

[@susanmcdonald9088]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHLOfYeNhrqVfZosi=LbMMVs_3cEX_2psg The ancients explored it, long ago.

[@stevenpham6734]

@@craigwillms61 NO. Whatever his choosing eventually is, at the same time, it has also been in the calculation of nature. In other words, his choosing is, has always been and always will be, part of the only doing through which nature unfolds itself.

[@craigwillms61]

@@stevenpham6734 hmmm, clear as mud then...

[@heinzgassner1057]

The best method of avoiding to get ‘derailed’ by misunderstanding such ‘philosophical discussions’ is to apply the beautiful Mahayana Buddhism approach of deeply focusing on loving kindness and compassion. Even if it might not be my free will to chose this approach, it is a powerful antidote against all kinds of ‘dark sides’ along the pathless path.

[@powerandpresence5290]

If you choose that path, that's free will. The idea that introspection grants no agency over choice is a complete contradiction. There is a no introspection if there is no free will. You can't look inward if there is no agent to look there.

[@heinzgassner1057]

@@powerandpresence5290 I guess that we have a very different understanding of 'determinism' and 'free will'. This would require very precise definitions. Mahayana Buddhism invests years of studies into the required clarity of words and at the same time to understand the limitation of words. Determinism does (to 'me') not mean that we are functioning like mechanistic machines. 'I' am able to apply introspection because 'I' have created the causes and conditions for this and introspection can create the causes and conditions for recognizing that which has always been there. Very difficult to discuss by using words and concepts embedded in space and time. I very much like the approach, Baruch Spinoza has applied to explain this subtle dilemma.

[@Jac0bIAm]

It's all a misunderstanding of the word free will and how people define it. Of course free will exists, but that will is directly intertwined with the Cosmos. Free will is not doing whatever you want from a personal perspective, because that would imply complete separation from the rest of reality. Ultimately, it is understanding that free will is not something you have, but something you are. You are Freedom, you are Creativity and you are Will - and because you are a unique expression of the One reality, the flow of that reality will manifest "through you", as you in a unique way. The being and doing are ultimately one. And yes of course this is relational to the degree you feel separate from the rest of reality (and how much of this will is personal to you VS. what is currently perceived in this game to be separate from you temporarily) , since in this Cosmos, perception of reality creates reality. This is the simple explanation.

[@total_leftie]

That you freddo?

[@PeaceWorks108]

I like how you worded your comment but feel it simply restates what this conversation presented.

[@total_leftie]

@@PeaceWorks108 i turned it off after the first statement: 'if we had....' i don't see how kastrup can start with that, and also agree with what nietzsche argued, as stated by the guy above.... that we just are, and what we are includes the will to do or not to do things. i don't fancy sitting through an hour of chin-stroking either. if you have some moments to highlight i'd be happy to watch and discuss.

[@IanMiller]

Bernardo and Hans are a great example of a whole being greater than the sum of its parts….a gestalt! Such great conversations.

[@juanitoviejo2121]

Bernardo is beyond my ability to follow, but he says it very well. I really appreciate Hans--obviously a guy smart enough to sense the limits of verbal--intuitive "knowledge."

[@heinzgassner1057]

“Determinism versus free will is like debating if the number 5 is married or not”. I like that. Spinoza (if I understood him right) had a beautiful approach to this: Even though deeply positing ‘determinism’, he outlines that (by applying consequent reasoning) it makes sense to work on oneself’s causes and conditions to become open for ‘intuition’, his third type of generating knowledge. To some extent, this discussion is still on the ground of this reasoning, applying concepts of space and time, of cause and effect - being ‘tools’ of our limited conventional reality, while describing something (that is no a thing) about unspeakable and unthinkable ultimate reality.

[@rubberguard83]

KZbin: "jay dyer free will."

[@Sambasue]

The individual as a separate ego is a convincing illusion with the feeling that it actually is and that it has free will. Sometimes this illusion collapses.

[@Grief2Growth]

Beautifully mind-bending. Thank you both. I see a lot of comments showing people aren’t hearing what Bernardo is saying. It’s subtle.

[@jameswaterhouse-brown6646]

It’s a beautiful message indeed.

[@huntertony56]

What is he saying?

[@AngelicaChristi]

What a great conversation. I love how Bernardo makes me, not so much think, but know something that seems to be so obvious. I remember about 15 years ago in my meditation room asking 'The Nameless One' why It needed us as it was every Omni- possible. The answer that came was 'I expand Through you, Consciousness cannot expand and experience 'Self' otherwise" So when Bernardo spoke about 'It playing itself out through our eyes... I loved that.

[@peteraddison4371]

... Essentias' Foundationally serendipitasamally timely appearence, comes now, at the squidgy-fudgey, cross-over-mid-point, ending-beginning of, not only decades & centuries or milenial eons, but of actual astronomical & astrological ages, end of Piscies, start of Aquarius. This no time-timely-moment is a rarety for almost all of those alive & living through it. Bernados' hard-won philosophical views & presentations are what every previous civilization has had to deal with. Age after age, since time immemorial, has had to face & go through much the same crisis of meaning that we are fa😮cing, where nothing is certain or seemly concrete, but rather fluid & unsetalingly indeterminatable ...

[@AngelicaChristi]

@@peteraddison4371 I love every interview Bernardo has done (that I have been able to find) It was interesting to see the dreams that played out last night and the insights from those. Wonderful time of deep-deep self discovery and joy. Thank you for interviewing him

[@morphixnm]

But if everything is strictly determined then this applies to all that Bernardo said and to how you loved what he said. Thinking that this is ok and better than wasting time worrying about free will becomes just another case of strictly determined thoughts and feelings. If everything we feel and think and do is strictly determined, then we can actually not determine anything, including whether or not we are strictly determined. No more choosing things as being true or false, good or bad, just strictly determined perceptions and conceptions, aversions and conclusions, with strictly determined feelings about all those states and experiences. If you are lucky then by chance it will be xeh case that you are determined to be OK with this. I am apparently not lucky in that way and so will continue pointing out the fallacy of proposing something that undermines the possibility of freely evaluating what has been proposed.

[@peteraddison4371]

@@morphixnm ... One partickely vexingly sticky view comes with a strangerly isolatingly tap of the spirit. Ones sense of self being cut out and away from the falsety premise of herd snuggely safety securitynesesity, and throwing in your lot aquiesent acknowledgy relieving trust, and-just, letting-go ...

[@filip5]

@@morphixnm if you truly have the experience of freely evaluating what has been proposed, why should thre be any doubt as to the status of that experience? Do you need permission to freely evaluate it? Can somebody take that experience away? Do you have to defend that experience against some fallacy? You see, there is nothing else but free evaluation. Even the idea that there could be something else, throws a shadow on the sincerity of the experience of it. Remark that Bernardo, throughout the interview has said that he is neither a believer of free will nor of determinism, because he finds the question of which is true, nonsensical. There is only one thing, the will of nature, which is by necessity the experience of it. So, in that experience, you will find some ideas nonsensical and others very sensible. The idea that all there is, is experience of what is, could be found to be very sensible. It is sensible only when it is a pure expression of what is, but totally powerless to replace the experience it is an expression of. Truth is not an idea. All ideas that are meant to replace truth are nonsensical. You could ask yourself, if your experience needs any validation to be true? If you do that, be sure that you include in your investigation any (subtle or hidden) validation (or lack thereof) already going on. If you do this, you are bound to open up to being OK with this. There is no choice. To even think that we have the choice between finding something functional (like free will) and truth, is an illusion already. We cannot not want the truth. That brings peace and happiness. Which makes you forget all about free will and determinism. It is inconsequential. But of course, in the global debate on it, you cannot not play a role, and so you talk about it, expressing that the debate is nonsensical. And just that little point, the point that Bernardo expressed throughout the interview, at different moments, is missed. It is the most consequential point, and yet it is considered inconsequential.

[@namero999]

Great video as usual. Also loving how Hans is stepping up EF's reach with these formats. Cool addition to the already excellent blog series!

[@rishabhthakur8773]

There is something within us that want to become infinite in all possible ways. That do not want any kind of limitations. That is why we want freewill.

[@kristinejustine3615]

When an awakened human is also a brilliant philosopher with an authentic heart this is a conversation we inevitably receive. As for me, I thank you.

[@davide724]

I think it's very important to properly understand what anyone means by "free will." Especially the "free" part. I believe that not everyone will use the term "free will" in the same way. So to avoid problems influenced by a misunderstanding about such a subject, be precise about what you mean. Personally, I believe that I have free will, but a _limited_ freedom or _limited_ power of will that is influenced or determined by realities that are beyond the domain of my will.

[@gkannon77]

Great dynamic between you two. Hans asks the questions I would ask, and Bernardo answers them the way I need them answered. I garnered a few new anti-freewill inputs there, lol.

[@Nword3390]

This man spits nothing but wisdom, very intelligent beautiful mind

[@maryammajdiyazdi2344]

I’m totally amazed with this podcast. Well done. Thank you! Bernard explained so well everything is so connected. Such a brilliant and compassionate human being.

[@kkandthegirls6363]

Wow! Bernardo is a visionary. He may be one of the most important teachers on the planet. I can't believe I listened to this whole thing and didn't get bored. He may be very far ahead of his time, but it is so exciting to learn about.

[@calebbrantley193]

I love both of you ❤ looking forward to this episode!!🎉

[@fawnmillercoaching6380]

Great intro production and - always - EXTRAORDINARY insights from Bernardo🙏

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

I cannot express how grateful I am to KZbin's algorithm for suggesting to me that I might be interested in this channel, which it did last week with the video on Bernardo's choice of the ten books that smash materialism. (I got my copy of book #1 - Jung's Answer to Job - today.) Since discovering Bernardo, I make a habit of spending one or two hours a day watching his many videos on analytic idealism. His ideas give me great pleasure, even a sense of joy. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on what might happen to universal consciousness when the universe has played itself out as far as it can go, which I suppose would be when it has achieved maximum entropy.

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

And I'll stay away from Christopher Janaway.

[@user-mm8pm7ol3r]

Entropy would start to go down until in the process of contraction of the Universe it collapses to the initial singularity it all started with. Then - boom - the story repeats all over again. It's been happening forever.

[@user-mm8pm7ol3r]

The Universal consciousness would not be bothered, because it is in the state of Sat-Chit-Ananda, Being-Consciousness-Bliss, and any transformation happens to the Maya. Think of relative reality - our Universe - and absolute reality - the eternal Brahman who is dreaming of it all.

[@Koort1008]

@@user-mm8pm7ol3r And I would add that in all of that, nothing happens. What Is is untouched because it is everything and nothing. Nothing ever ends, because nothing ever started.

[@albundy9597]

Determinism comes through causality. Every person comes into the world as a causal event with a rule book ( genetical make up, status of parents, country of birth, education, religion, circle of friends, career, neiboughhood etc.). The path is now laid out, causal events will happen and your reaction to those events is already predetermined due to what has been laid out in brackets. "There are paths that guide our way rough hew them how we may"

[@carolyncarson1671]

What comes to mind in part is in Christianity where it is asked that Thy will not mine be done. It is a wish or prayer that an individual be guided to be that instrument for the greater good or toward the whole and to orient themselves in this perspective.

[@CampingforCool41]

Wow it’s so nice to hear someone articulate the thoughts I’ve had about free will for years. I even had a similar analogy to illustrate how the question of free will is nonsensical- his version was “it’s like asking the number 5 if it’s married or single”- the version I’ve always used is “it’s like asking if the color red runs fast” but I think his version is easier to understand what he’s getting at. I think in future videos you could explain more about exactly why the concept is nonsensical because I suspect a lot of people have trouble understanding that point. The idea of free will seems intuitive because our imagination so easily allows to imagine what “could have been if we had chosen different” but not realizing that “could have been” is impossible. What is, is all there is.

[@MsCjansen]

so good that you are doing this series...very helpful

[@deb4610]

I’m really enjoying these conversations, thank you!

[@robertharrelson5024]

If I identify as a separate self I seem to have free will. If I identify as consciousness itself (loving awareness eternal life) there is no free will.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

18:48 Sam Harris isn't a materialist, he's metaphysically agnostic. I really think he and Bernardo could have an amazing dialogue. I'd pay money to make it happen. I should add, it's wonderful to see Bernardo express the same ideas that I've been having myself for a long while now. No regrets, no guilt, but still personal responsibility.

[@andriy123]

Basically ,computational irreducibility is in the nutshell of it ,in this sence novelty and the illusion of free will are closely intertwined. This concept is truly fascinating. In this context, when physicists claim that they can theoretically compute the position of every particle forward and backward in time (it was often said by some physicists as determinism theory)even knowing it may not be practically feasible, shows some of the shortcomings of the physics

[@tomleguerroyant2231]

Allow yourself to be played by life in the universe which is an organism where each contribution is important. Thank you for this profound thought!

[@BSpoormans]

Jai Jai Bernardo 🎉 Sometimes a video just makes me want to press the like button not once, but 20 times..! Bernardo's 'variable inputs' is like nature speaking it's own essence. It hits powerfully. Thanks for all you do. 🙏🏼

[@ZiplineShazam]

Lucky Number 7

[@lauramariamusic]

I experienced loving this talk and feeling even more at peace, thanks for the input even though there was no way I would not get the input :)

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

I love these conversations

[@pedalstrkrmtb7716]

Thanks for the input variables!!

[@daveherron5514]

Incredibly valuable conversation. Thank you for putting this out. Essentia is doing such important work in the world. Looking forward to what comes next!

[@phormzlab1743]

Best 80 minutes of conversation I’ve ever seen be played through me. ✨🙏🏼✨

[@PeteNaess]

Thank you for this mind-bending conversation.

[@xrp589baby]

nice input variable

[@vee985]

Some really cutting edge philosophical ideas being discussed here. Thank You!

[@donjindra]

It's not philosophy. It's a religion.

[@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt]

Which edges did it cut for you?

[@sheepshearer2705]

Sounds like, sit back, relax and watch the movie of your own life play out in front of you. All the while feeling like you made all the decisions, whether you did or did not. Very interesting video indeed. ❤🙏

[@mrkcioffi]

Good point. We can only function on the data we have gathered. The more we listen, the more input we can play better.

[@segoiii]

i don´t like that at all and i highly doubt that this is within univeral laws. There is a universal law of free will.

[@srenbro916]

thanks, so many good thoughts, and dear Hans, it is liberating to see you struggle to follow Bernados thought and how it exhaust you, bc then I am not the only one...

[@malunachow]

allowing Nature/Source/God to manifest itself through us... allowing ourselves, letting go of the habitual resistance to the majesty of Life, and therefore - also our own majesty... recognizing our origins. Source, one Being. Thank you for the interview, gentlemen!

[@user-ok5hh7lg2x]

I would love to hear Dr. Kastrup talk on Heidegger for 4-5 minutes (a sustained block) and really address Heidegger's thought.

[@josejrtuti]

I heard once a quote that goes something like this “hell is a place where everything you want happens” and it always struck me as paradoxically truthful.

[@user-mm8pm7ol3r]

Because there would be nothing left to want and you start wanting to want, but can't?

[@CoranceLChandler]

This is the way I have received it for years, it is astounding to see someone else put it this way so articulately I call it ontological determinism. What anything is determines what it does

[@angelotuteao6758]

Just so grateful for the podcasters who feature Bernardo- a rare member of the Academy who has profound humanity, humility and generosity. The vast scope of his ideas are like rain on parched earth 🌏

[@susansmiles2630]

Thank you for a beautiful conversation!

[@christopherswanson3317]

These input variables were deeply meaningful to me. Thank you both ♥️

[@johnnytass2111]

Free Will does not mean we get to choose the circumstances we are living through, nor that we would be happy. Free Will means we get to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, whether to place our faith in God or in some form of human philosophy... and all those choices are about the inner life of our soul. The circumstances we must endure are beyond our control, in fact how we endure life's circumstances, especially in the face of other people's evil, is what our Free Will is all about. Also, Death is the separation of the soul from the body. Thus, the purpose of life is to prepare one's soul for eternal union with God. Be blessed on your journey fellow truth seekers.

[@Anders01]

I got an idea when listening to this presentation! That the sense of free will is like training wheels for human development. That it's needed for us to form individual selves and a society with things like laws and money. And then the next step in human development is the realization of free will as an illusion and it can be dropped when we have reached a certain level of individual and societal development.

[@davidchartrand1033]

I really like this video format. You are doing a good job!

[@gregoryarutyunyan5361]

I have been "meditating" on this question a lot. And at some point I saw the answer to it. The thing is that people assume/believe that the universe is objective(consists of objects). Whereas it really is subjective. The big difference between object and subject(or rather the only difference), is that the object is done to, whereas the subject does. Or in other words, object is the receiver of the action, whereas subject is the doer of the action. The consensus of the humanity currently is that people are ultimately objects, even though people do use first person linguistically in relation to themselves. The caveat is that to understand and realize subjective nature of reality, one has to be spiritually awake, and to the extent to which one is awake, he realizes this subjectivity. This subjectivity is actually what really word spirituality means. But the issue is that people are largely self unaware. And the free will is one of those "things' that one can only see for himself, but that cannot really be understood logically. P.S: I put many words here to describe what opened to me, but after reading it I am not sure that I was wable to really describe it accurately.

[@MadMallory]

I had my spiritual awakening in 2022. I guess law of assumption could sum it up? Although that’s still playing the character that god created.. but assuming the best version of it? The more I search for the truth the more amazed/mad I get 😂

[@SurrealMcCoy]

Subject and object are not two, my friend.

[@stian.t]

Love it! Alot because it resonates with me (even without the ability to ever have manged to hav eput a lot of these things in to words, fare less in to coherent 'arguments'). A lot of it obviously I don't manage to get my head around, at least not yet. But still, after about 50 years on this planet, and about the 30 last years (atleast) ruminating thru, and diving into, some times head on and other times suncken into weird mind-tunnels of my own existensial curiosity,,,, and wondering and pondering on such things as: is there a border somewhere to cross..... Sorry about this rambeling here..... I just love listening to Bernardo telling about this, all sorts of other things, cause it DO resonate much... even though I have no way of putting in to 'logical' sentenses what, or how.... Thanks to You all! Essentia Foundation, Kastrup, and all of Your Near & Dear. Thanx again & again ♥ 🍷

[@samirjulka]

Beautiful conversation. Thank you Bernardo for your wisdom and Hans for your questions. If understood deeply, this can be totally transformative on how one approaches life going forward. I do intellectually get the no free will idea, however I also give good credence to Vedic astrology. Not sure how to reconcile the two. Any insights will be welcome!!

[@1sanremy]

Thanx for this interview. Yes, from meditation practice i can confirm that : We even don't know our next thought ! Very humbling. Peace & love

[@mariekuijkenhistoricallyaw2598]

Very intense and meaningful contribution to the overall being/becoming/playing out" of nature Looking forward to part 2!!

[@constancewalsh3646]

"I thought I was making decisions and all along I was being carried by a Great Wind." Native American proverb. We do keep re-inventing the wheel, in a casing that fits the generational language and understanding. I love this generously windowed house!

[@internetmail3888]

Everyone has an internal moral dialog. To deny this is to deny the evident reality. We always have a choice.

[@humbleinthejungle.]

Fantastic conversation, awesome content. Thank you.

[@zuzkadrillet373]

Beautiful and profound variables shared 👏 Thank you !!

[@MendeMaria-ej8bf]

Bernardo Kastrup is a highly intelligent and knowledgeable personality and I need to know more about his thoughts.

[@provocativehypnosis843]

Great conversation. Thanks guys

[@Xtazieyo]

I really love those - keep em comming! :)

[@paulgarrett3608]

🙏🙏. I just love this and something has resonated so deep. Some years ago I was guided in understanding ‘ unconditional acceptance ‘ of every moment and implementing with every breath. ‘Allow yourself to be played by nature’ has suddenly brought me into even deeper peace with this. 😊❤

[@LiftersClinic]

What gathered is that we are free to experience the outcomes of our prior experiences.

[@Pallasathena-hv4kp]

Bravo. Years ago I had the idea that it is not possible for people to do less than their “best.” It is always their best. Even the worst criminals or underachievers are always at their best.

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

It's more like their only. People can only do what their inputs demand of them by the universe. Three universe and nothing else knows what those inputs are until they are. The next instant again and again... there is a deeper level here when he says that's but deterministic but that's the gist of it. I suppose you can say that's their best, but it's more like their only

[@birgithaan1036]

Pallasathena, I live by exactly that idea. Everyone just does their "best". Though it seems a very simplistic idea, I think it is deep and true. Nice to hear you formulating it like I do.

[@lambertzijp6649]

@@UsmanKhan-coolmf I totally agree. How can it be otherwise: we are carbohydrate machines. I found it strange that Mr Kastrup has no problem holding people accountable (kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKCymmpvo7asrac). It makes no sense if people could not have done otherwise. Except for practical reasons: deterrents like heavy fines or jail are not effective if such punishments are not imposed. Yet the perpetrators could not do otherwise; very sad...

[@user-gh3su9nt7l]

This is so awesome and Bernardo is my virtual Guru and God ... He is so sublime and he touches every chord of my spiritual intuition. Our great sages Ramana Maharshi and Swami Vivekanada alsways said free will is a misnomer and it is just an illusion at a relative level

[@peteraddison4371]

... the exercise of free will is an unesesary burden that must, necessarily, be played out ...

[@user-gh3su9nt7l]

I guess the point may be without the illusion of free will sins might get doubled and unaccountable so may be that's the reason for this relative illusion ....More importantly I feel thoughts are beyond our control but what which thought we associate with might be in our control for the sake of Karma to play out

[@user-mm8pm7ol3r]

Free will is an illusion because any "we" that can have it are illusory.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Jesus Christ was quoted as saying something similar in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St John. Rev. 1-5 I am the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead. Jesus also gave us the reminder, Our Father who are in heaven...thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven... The Father represents the Universal mind, Christ is universal awareness, Jesus is the body including thoughts of man in my opinion. From what I've seen all the major religions including science have the same fundamental truth in them with the Upanishads being the easiest to understand just by reading but many still believe Hinduism is about worshipping idols. I thought they worshipped cows and rats for many years because that's what I heard. 🙈👍

[@user-gh3su9nt7l]

I don't have any belief system but I do believe we all should introspect deeply on the nature of consciousness or so to say the mind body problem .... and if we had free will nobody would have ever been depressed or anxious thats just what I think....@@imaginaryuniverse632

[@AwareLife]

There is a lot of zen thinking that accords with the immediacy aspect, and that living "gap" between deterministic life and supposed free will life. Neither is right, neither is wrong. Trying to make life's meaning work out is enacting Sysiphus. Our actions and choices (includng ethical decision making) contribute, but along with a lot of other stuff (incomputable). Meaning is utlimately in what is experienced and enacted. The idea of an experiential universe discovering itself ("I" and "Other") is delightfully freeing. But not so free as we can pretend or ignore we are a part of a whole that will react to us too. Very stimulating exploring going on. Thank you.🙏

[@Corteum]

"Why we want free-will so badly in the first place" That's not where im coming from. I just noticed that i have free will and started using it more consciously. So, for me, it's not a matter of "wanting it so badly," as you've assumed. It was just a matter of observation and conscious application... repetition...experimentation... and realizing that free-will is actually extremely useful in a world where choices count.

[@Reienroute]

Think the best way of condensing our wanting of free will is to view it as a desire for ownership over will so that, by extension, we also own the outcome. It's why this desire tends to also lead people who cave to it to a fear that giving it up will lead to immorality. They're already placing personal value on consequences and that is their motivation for doing "good", but they don't realize that that motivation can stand on its own if that is truly what they want. And the tendency to sacrifice this self honesty for an outcome shows that its their perceived ownership of it which is still taking precedent. Yet that attachment to ownership is the precise thing which leads to things like punitive justice over reform, pride for achievements over gratitude for the experience of being an organism driven towards its goals, blame and eventual demonization over compassion and eventual understanding... The most fundamentally moral thing that a metacognitive organism can do, in all cases, is to know itself. This includes the phenomenological practice of noticing what our desire for free will actually implies about our current priorities.

[@SubliminalD-pm1wy]

I like determinism because it simplifies everything. You dont even need to ask why about anything because the answer is always because it has been determined. Who or what determined and whether they exercised free will to determine it is anyones guess.

[@jeroenvanvlietpiano]

It's so wonderful how you both lead me to a new perspective in a confusing and frustrating debate within myself on the topic of free will. Thank you for the clarity and the poetic conclusion - so far - 'allowing to be the violin in God's hands' / to allow to be played by the will of nature. Great, looking forward to this apparent small window of choice and your thoughts on that.

[@mrkcioffi]

Yes, a kind of surrender. The music is in God's hands. Prayer is asking God for something, Meditation is listening to what God wants. And I am an Atheist to traditional religion.

[@FKetterle]

beautyful approach. Thank you

[@kaauer4743]

I am really thankful that I got to hear this discussion. ❤ So great!

[@rogermarin1712]

What if the universe wants to experience what its like to be tortured, murdered, a drug addict, constant struggle or just terrible life experiences over and over again through me should I just accept that even if i don't want it? Should i just ignore my own suffering for the sake of another input feature to the model of the universe...

[@SG-uu7qu]

What you are experiencing is resistance to your current experience. You want something different then what you have right now. Just because life is deterministic, does not mean you should not try to make changes. Look at what is important to you, ask yourself is this really true and do some sellf exploring. Create some space in your thinking, leaning into being, have a broader vision then just your personal experiences and interpretations, widen your horizon. Is this going to make you happier, less suffering? Maybe, maybe not, you will not find out, unless you try

[@rhyothemisprinceps1617]

Had very similar thoughts watching this. My open letter to The Universe: Dear Universe, Despite the apparent computational irreducibility problem, I can tell you where you are going - nowhere. You keep going in circles. You are like a toddler at a stove, placing one hand on a hot burner, only to put the other hand on as well since you are too stupid to learn that suffering sucks. It's not that I think that my life is about me - I have suffered a lot, but I know it could be worse, as it has been for billions of lives before me. You don't seem to be able to learn anything, so why don't us do us all (thence, yourself) a favor and f 0 @ d already. - Yours Truly, just another Job

[@rogermarin1712]

​@@SG-uu7quwhy should I? I resist any unsatisfactory life experiences WE ALL SHOULD, fuck the universe.

[@johnryan2193]

He has a profound understanding of this mystery. I feel that I could only get a glimpse of what lies beneath the veil with a long time in a Buddhist temple with a vow of silence. Dependant origination was my first understanding of this universe .

[@youtubers7254]

Great inputs and my heartfelt thanks to Bernardo for unfolding his thoughts on these topics of freewill and deterministic theories. Very Grateful !! Beautiful questions put by Hans, thanks alot!! But one question remained is - what inputs could he leave to others or to this world if Bernardo doesnt ever get and opportunity to express himself? I mean, inspite of having ocean of understanding, what if no body ever asks his opinion in his whole life on these topics..

[@sallyjenko2315]

I would love to see a discussion between Bernardo and Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche on analytical idealism and Madhyamaka.

[@craigwillms61]

I'm a big fan of Bernardo but remain unconvinced about his assertion that we have no free will. I just reject it on the basis of choices I have made in my life that could have gone a different way and led to drastically different outcomes. I'd literally be dead had I made different choices. One obvious choice is MY choice to actually watch this video - I passed on it many times but this time I clicked on it. And... I'm still unconvinced. I'm not talking about the universe, I'm talking personally - the universe is not choosing for me - whether I get out of bed in the morning or sleep in, whether I step on a bug or let it live. Whether I believe in God or not. My attitude, my choice. My truth. No one and nowhere does anyone ever contend that we have absolute free will. Chuck that benign argument out the window.

[@renubhalla9005]

The essence of the discussion seems that ,one’s choices and decisions are determined but one experiences as if one has made the choices and decisions ,that is an illusion.Free will is an illusion.

[@leviastrohumdes]

Wonderful conversation. Thank you. I’m very curious about what Bernardo thinks about Astrology.

[@user-mm8pm7ol3r]

LOL

[@real_pattern]

there is only one idea that bernardo mentioned that i am not sure i understand the motivation for, which is that the 'universe' or any subsystem, or just maximally generally, anything whatsoever *isn't* mechanistic. so, a few conceptualisations of mechanism are: Carl Gustav Hempel (Philosopher of Science): "A mechanism is a systematic configuration of parts and operations that produces a specific outcome or phenomenon." Nancy Cartwright (Philosopher of Science): "Mechanisms are composed of entities and activities organized in such a way that they are responsible for the phenomenon in question." Ernst Mach (Physicist and Philosopher): "A mechanism is a set of interconnected components that work together to produce a particular physical effect." Stuart Kauffman (Complexity Scientist): "Mechanisms are networks of interacting components where the behavior of one component can influence the behavior of others, leading to emergent properties." Herbert A. Simon (Cognitive Scientist and Nobel Laureate): "A mechanism is a structured process or set of processes that can produce certain outcomes or behaviors, often involving information processing." William Bechtel (Philosopher of Science): "Mechanisms consist of entities, activities, and their organization, which together explain how a system produces a particular phenomenon." Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl F. Craver (Philosophers of Science): "Mechanisms are entities and activities organized such that they produce regular changes from start or input conditions to finish or output conditions." so the idea that anything is not mechanistic, is expressing that reality is somehow in some unintelligible sense non-structural, isn't explainable, or that whatever happens, whatever *just is* , doesn't somehow exist in a comprehensible, explainable, at least approximately trackable way. but further, to decouple from our comprehension, from the limited epistemic activity of dissociated alters, why suppose that mind at large isn't mechanistic? why this inference? it's just gesturing at unknown-ness, or inability to imagine, but that doesn't seem to me to motivate the inference that whatever can be/is not mechanistic. same with experientiality. bernardo infers after theory comparison that mind at large is experiential because experientiality is the only datum, and it's poorly motivated to postulate some non-experiential category of existents. mechanism seems to be just doubling down on the idea that reality exists independently of dissociative subjectivity, reality *just is as it is* , with the added flair that however reality is, there is always a fact of the matter about how reality is, and its structure can be at least approximately discovered/experienced/comprehended by/...well, 'itself', but through the dissociated perspectives. non-mechanism seems as incomprehensible to me as 'matter' as a transcendental category in analytic idealism. so i take the idea of mechanism to just mean that there is structure, *difference* , configuration, *distinguishability* , in *some* sense. regardless of 'substrate', or intrinsic properties (if such properties exist whenever, whatsoever). this is as general and abstract as i can comprehend. if there's any existent without distinguishability, difference, structure *in any sense* - then that's unintelligible & i don't think that there's any motivation to make positive claims about that reality. quietism, if not dismissal due to unintelligibility. as long as there's structure, difference, distinguishability-in any sense, it's mechanistic in my opinion.

[@capobello]

fantastic video! Thank you for sharing!!!

[@VenusLover17]

This is fantastic! Thanks so much❤❤

[@user-rk2fg1hw1m]

I see during this interview that Hans appears to struggle with accepting the concept that we don't have free will, especially when discussing the negative aspects of "nature playing itself out". I personally went from being an atheist, to "spiritual" over the course of around 5 years, culminating in acceptance of what Kastrup is saying, although reaching that conclusion long before I knew who Kastrup was. You only have to listen to the NDE experiencers and their true accounts of what is outside of this "system" we are playing our roles in. In summary, I found the best way to accept the darker sides of nature, is to think of it as a simulation, a game. When you play a game and do something morally wrong, like shoot a team mate for example, you do so with the knowledge that the recipient is just another fellow human playing a game. They signed up to the game, and they understood the possibilities within the game. Outside of the game, all is well. I've also heard pre-birth memories and NDE accounts whereby they chose their paths, see their whole lives played out ahead of them and still decide to "take on the role". I know of one account where a archaeologist was blown up by an IED in Iraq, and as time froze and she went to the "other side" she then proceeded to view various life paths, to conclusion, based on the injuries she would assign herself before returning! I understand some of this may be a stretch to believe, depending where you are in your journey, but the credible evidence is out there if your capable of open minded thinking. That is my Input Variable!

[@jmholthuysen]

Great discussion. Thanks 🙏

[@PromoMIAR]

This helps me understand what the great Alan Wats meant by "Man HAS free will but only in the sense of knowing himself" 💙

[@cranewoodgreen]

A wonderful conversation. So many potential links to Advaita philosophy, which could be explored in another video? Please continue to share these important discussions. Thank you!

[@richtomlinson7090]

I've been thinking about this subject seemingly forever, and I have noticed that many people don't really understand the idea. One of the biggest misunderstandings is that it doesn't mean that you are a fatalist, that just sits there and waits for things to happen, but fatalism is included in this universe, and some people need the belief in a God given Freewill, because they seem to gravitate towards negative thoughts, and they need to be told they are special and in control, otherwise they get depressed and gravitate towards a negative fatalistic belief, like all the doomsday prophecies. One of the interesting parts is that theoretically, prophecies are potentially and partially true, because we have the gift of being able to predict what may happen, even though it isn't possible to have a perfect foreknowledge of what is going to happen. I like to remind myself, that !!It's All Included!!, and we are all here for the ride, and nothing is truly outside of it all. I only have a real problem with people pushing the God given Freewill crap, because it really is not logical at all, but we can still feel the experience of being the agent of change, even though as we look back on bad decisions, we can only learn from them, and or ignore them, but it is somewhat of a relief that I couldn't have done otherwise at that precise moment in time, so I shouldn't keep punishing myself, but it's hard not too.

[@susanvaughan4210]

This discussion is a gift of tremendous worth. Thank you!

[@patricksee10]

Bernard, you say we don’t choose to angry or upset but I think we do often in fact choose as we do so because we feel that we are justified in being offended or personal integrity has been infringed. We can choose to not be offended if we have a different concept of ourselves. For example, in a king’s court, the lower status of the servants is not a cause for anger or resentment.

This honestly saved my life. Thank you.

[@TheJosh12694]

It seems the difficulty in accepting determinism begins to dissolve if you can reconcile two ideas: 1) That things could never have been any other way. 2) That the things we do can have an impact on the future. Bernardo's talk of generating other peoples input variables, thereby contributing to preventing another Hitler was a beautiful reconciliation of these two things.

[@intothevortexwithdatorsapi4192]

I've been thinking this and saying this for 2 years now:- "Bernado is a Mystic speaking through the lenses of a scientist."

[@petershelton7367]

One of the best conversations I have heard with Bernard. Is it not the case that the same line of logic that disproves free will also disproves determinism. Determinism is no more probable than free will is and further it’s easy to prove the impact of my free will. I think determinism is impossible to prove. Whatever is calculated to occur can be intervened by unforeseeable forces. The denial of free will is the denial of independent mind. 😂 woops there goes gravity

[@UsmanKhan-coolmf]

Not disagreeing with you but a counter argument... how come a human can't decide to like something they don't like? Like if you get served some food that doesn't taste good to you, why can't you decide it tastes good and eat it? Or decide you don't want to be sad at something?

[@roguebeastwarriorrbw5314]

I believe that free will is the choice being described here as acceptance. More to the point that we regard (or rather confuse) ‘free will’ with master control. We regain control when we are reminded of parameters. Exercise is free will, the free will to exercise. The body that is being exercised is again an organ of the [singular/all-pervading] mind.

[@stp9729]

There are many interesting observations and angles in this talk, but one of the most interesting to me is that you could reduce Bernardo's very technical and innovative message down to a very simple and ancient one. Namely, "life is the journey, not the destination." Or something similar. No? Toward the end when they were talking about the violin, I was reminded of Joseph Campbell saying something like "life is a guy walking down 5th avenue trying to play Mozart on a violin... but he doesn't know Mozart or what a violin is." But now I'm seeing... maybe I am the violin. "Let the universe play you." Fascinating.

[@mariekuijkenhistoricallyaw2598]

or: the journey (life) is the destination