Find MORE Meaning WITHOUT Free Will! | Bernardo Kastrup Explains

[@SillySpanish]

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

[@xochitl7489]

🌻💛

[@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.

[@laurenschiller4526]

I’d love to hear a conversation between Bernardo, Sapolsky and Sam Harris. Sapolsky had a great interview with HG Moeller but all the others I watched were boring because the interviewers just tried to argue that there is free will. It would be more interesting to see how people who agree and express it in different ways interact. It’s a hard concept to digest and deserves to be expressed in a variety of ways so that people can understand.

[@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!!

[@ARTNETWORKTV]

I am also Brazilian and love to listen to him. Actually I find his idealism philosophy very similar to Kabbalah.

[@SimoneMancini1]

@@ARTNETWORKTVque bom ver os brasileiros por aqui🇧🇷🇧🇷🥰

[@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

[@vinceofyork]

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.

[@Михаил-д6х1з]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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."

[@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.

[@ISATŌP1]

There is only Divine Mind, which is Infinite, Perfect, Incorporeal, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient Consciousness. Mortality/Matter/Form is the False Image/Concept of the lie entertained about Divine Mind..... This False Image called Human Life/Mortality/Form is what Mystics such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Shankara, Paul, John, and many others know to be the W.O.M.B. of God where God(Divine Mind/The Father Within/Buddha Mind/Tao) Infinitely Individualizes(not separated, but distinct)itself for the purpose of getting to know and return to its own Infinite Nature. In God's W.O.M.B., or Gods World Of Make Believe, Individualized Souls experience mortality through the Unfolding of different stages of receptivity leading back to its True, Infinite Nature. The human, matter, mortality is the experience, not those or that which is experiencing it, and all things that appear to take place is Preparation for a Change in Individualized Soul Consciousness, which falsely displays itself as death, decay, and rebirth(karmic cycle, also called the Second Death in Spiritual Tongues), and the outer demonstration of the Soul until the Soul Returns to its True Infinite Nature. The Responsibility and Duty Rests with Every Individual, First, to Learn what the Truth is, and then Begin to Live in Contemplation of that Truth, Knowing it, Until Eventually the Particular Experience which Sets Him Free Takes Place.....!! To the Degree in which we can Experience the False Appearance of Mortality and not be Bothered by it is the Path of the Realized Eternal..... I and My Father are One because Spiritual Omnipresence is the Only Life!!

[@Pumpychan]

@@ISATŌP1 very lofty speech there, so impressive that you can see all these mystical wonders in a grain of sand… but f you were packed into the train to Auschwitz with your family and your daughter and wife were pushed to the right, you and you son the left, to be the last you would ever see them… could you write what you just did below? I’m sorry to come at you with extremely grim and horrifying example, but when I see writings of all oneness and how life is an illusion I feel it’s showing a kind of disrespect for the incredibly hard lived miseries and tragedies that so many people must undergo. It’s one thing to get frustrated by the traffic jam, or to wish you could upgrade from Honda to BMW…. It’s another thing when you’re stuck in a terrifying situation (physical or other) and you must survive or die… how does oneness and God play into situations like these? (and there are millions of them, literally)…

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@ISATŌP1]

There is only Divine Mind, which is Infinite, Perfect, Incorporeal, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient Consciousness. Mortality/Matter/Form is the False Image/Concept of the lie entertained about Divine Mind..... This False Image called Human Life/Mortality/Form is what Mystics such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Shankara, Paul, John, and many others know to be the W.O.M.B. of God where God(Divine Mind/The Father Within/Buddha Mind/Tao) Infinitely Individualizes(not separated, but distinct)itself for the purpose of getting to know and return to its own Infinite Nature. In God's W.O.M.B., or Gods World Of Make Believe, Individualized Souls experience mortality through the Unfolding of different stages of receptivity leading back to its True, Infinite Nature. The human, matter, mortality is the experience, not those or that which is experiencing it, and all things that appear to take place is Preparation for a Change in Individualized Soul Consciousness, which falsely displays itself as death, decay, and rebirth(karmic cycle, also called the Second Death in Spiritual Tongues), and the outer demonstration of the Soul until the Soul Returns to its True Infinite Nature. The Responsibility and Duty Rests with Every Individual, First, to Learn what the Truth is, and then Begin to Live in Contemplation of that Truth, Knowing it, Until Eventually the Particular Experience which Sets Him Free Takes Place.....!! To the Degree in which we can Experience the False Appearance of Mortality and not be Bothered by it is the Path of the Realized Eternal..... I and My Father are One because God is the Only Life!!

[@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.

[@DrMaxSleepSounds]

This is amazing. All the insights you can get from paying attention to direct experience, meditation, from awakening, from non-dual awareness, you know for yourself it is real. You can share it with people who can experience it too. And with this you can live in harmony with others and with nature. It is possible to end suffering. BUT all these experiences and this way of living does not tell you anything on the ontology, and it is so difficult to share with people who are not spiritually inclined… It is so satisfying to see this brilliant philosopher arriving logically and with inputs from western science to the same conclusions. I hope more people understand this and start living it. It is the most important thing we can do in our lives. Thank you Bernardo!

[@GHol-u7q]

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!

[@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.

[@maninblack6]

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]

@@maninblack6 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.

[@maninblack6]

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

[@Koort1008]

@@maninblack6 What? That is the kind of crap religions teach you. What you are is that what God is and that is unknowable.

[@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.

[@princeekeson12]

Free Will= Ego So life is not about your wants, but what plays out in the universe.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@Михаил-д6х1з]

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.

[@Михаил-д6х1з]

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]

@@Михаил-д6х1з 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.

[@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!

[@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"

[@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!

[@roberthornack1692]

A better way to explain this is to realize that we are all organisms created by factors not of our choosing & that consciousness is a recent adaptation that allows us to be aware of these changes our body makes for us after the fact. Conclusive brain studies have been made showing that decisions are made before we are aware we have made them & the brain can be manipulated with the recipient believing that he or she has initiated the decision. This is quite enlightening & makes us less arrogant & judgemental when we realize that we are products of our genes & environments & all the other countless factors that make us who we are.

[@Nword3390]

This man spits nothing but wisdom, very intelligent beautiful mind

[@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 🌏

[@garygoldberg9906]

The issue in free will is not freedom, per se, but responsibility. From the perspective of the analytical understanding of the ego-generating left cerebral hemisphere, it appears that the world operates mechanistically and is strictly deterministic and lawful. And that, as a result, everything is pre-determined. But living organisms are NOT mechanisms as Newtonian mechanics predicts. In the work of Robert Rosen ('Life Itself' and 'Essays on Life Itself'), living organisms are shown to be categorically different from fabricated mechanisms, and that 'simple' Mechanisms have limited entailment as compared to 'complex' Organisms. Organisms involve closed self-referential causal loops operating on a dynamical continuum, besides the fact that they are closed to efficient causation. Mechanisms do not have closed causal loops and are open to efficient causation. Mechanisms are computable, algorithmic, simulable, and strictly deterministic. Living organisms have NONE of these characteristics. And this is understood from the perspective of an affective level in the context of the right cerebral hemisphere. The moment you have closed self-referential causal loops operating on a dynamical continuum, you have context-mediated functionality. The minute you have continuous cyclical self-referential causality, which is a fundamental feature of the natural world, the mechanistic formalism and strict determinism are no longer operative. From the limited perspective of the meta-conscious ego there is no free will. But this is due to the limitations of the ego's perspective which assumes the experience has been self-generated when, in fact, the ego is late in its awareness. But action is NOT directly ego-generated. There are afferent somatic mechanisms that are confirmatory and make it feel 'as if' the ego has generated the movement. We know that this is the case when this mechanism of 'ego confirmation' breaks down, as in 'alien hand syndrome'. The limb is moving purposefully, but the language-dependent ego is not the exclusive determining source of purpose.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@calebbrantley193]

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

[@silverback7783]

Enlightenment is what each person needs. There is zero need for morality when the ego is gone, there is no need for morality at all when all people are moral by nature. When we drop all our lies of knowledge/ego we all go back to the way the creator created us. It is like a factory reset of every chip, if the computer is the analogy you want to use, or the no cancer chip. Meditating helps....

[@angshumanray]

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 ...

[@angshumanray]

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

[@Михаил-д6х1з]

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. 🙈👍

[@angshumanray]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@kieranryan6148]

So Dave Allen the irish comedian from the 80s was right all along.. at the end of his comedy hour he would wish us well ‚and may your god go with you‘.. our god knows the future no more than we do until we make the next step or have the next thought.. free-will and determinism nicely packaged together catering for those on either side of the argument.. well put Bernardo 🙌

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

I love these conversations

[@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.

[@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. 😊❤

[@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!

[@Koort1008]

Firstly, there is no individual, therefore there is no free will nor determinism. Only an illusion can claim free will. Only an illusion can claim determinism. What appears to happen, happens, but for no one. All is an appearance that appears to an appearance that appears to appear.

[@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 :)

[@PeteNaess]

Thank you for this mind-bending conversation.

[@xrp589baby]

nice input variable

[@fawnmillercoaching]

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

[@phormzlab1743]

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

[@MendeMaria-ej8bf]

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

[@vee985]

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

[@donjindra]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@jplowman]

A metaphysical idealist myself, the above reflects some of the finer points where I feel some disagreement with Kastrup. He just seems to me overly dismissive of nature's capacity to do algorithmic computation, whether in artificially built machines, or when nature reflexively obeys empirically proven, classically computational, deterministic laws/rules of physics like relativity. Virtually reality can increasingly improve where it is likely to create parallel universes in its own right that we can exist in.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Михаил-д6х1з]

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

[@markkarris6607]

What an incredible conversation. I have a question: If we are supposed to allow nature to flow through us and not fight it by asserting our "free will," how do determinists respond to individuals who believe that nature compels them to engage in behaviors that most people would consider immoral? For example, if a person claims to be determined to molest children and feels that by doing so, they are allowing nature to flow through them, and find those acts meaningful, would Bernardo argue that they were predetermined to have those desires? Furthermore, if that is the way nature is calling them to live, would he consider it a valid algorithm that should be encouraged to be lived out? Bernardo contradicts his "just go with nature theme" and states, "We have a moral responsibility to keep the diamond in moral bounds." However, the question arises: who dictates what those moral bounds are? Who is to say whose behaviors fall outside of moral bounds? Could a person simply assert that they are "determined" to engage in certain behaviors, and believe that is how nature is expressing itself through them, part of the "unfolding," as a way to resist those attempting to keep the diamond within moral bounds?

[@chrisgreen1514]

Good job Hans, so glad to see that in the end you still seem to believe in your own free will. I think Bernardo’s analogy of watching life play out as a movie is too passive, it’s more like you are an actor and you have to play your part and, as far as you are concerned, you have to improvise, deliberate and make choices because you have not read the script! Perhaps free-will deniers are morally irresponsible and their worldview may ultimately have tragic consequences. But they will show no regret and suffer no guilt.

[@kempzel1]

I agree. Also feels very impersonal. It fails to take into account the universal longing to be personally known and loved. Psychologically speaking, we find no comfort in knowing we are a cog in a machine, so that the machine may play itself out

[@juanjuarez9581]

BK is not free to think that free will/determinism is not sense. I think I have free will to disagree. But yes, he is a great philosopher, there are many other things I agree with what he says.

[@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.

[@jenmdawg]

Nelson Mandela, when asked how he survived prison for 27 years said “I chose to be there every day”. I read this many years ago and have been in pursuit of it.

[@HashiraofDark]

Yes, that debunk these hippies

[@enlightenup4520]

Just once I’d like a philosopher to speak with a mental health professional about the development of choice. Kastrup’s take, like most, is archaic and simplistic. If he is as serious as he says about seeking the truth, he’ll stop strawmanning this topic and start having genuine conversations filled with searching questions, rather than scripted responses filled with his own convicted prejudices.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@LizafromWhere]

One of the best interviews to date on the purpose of our life drawn out very nicely for a lay person in great detail. Thank you so much from a dedicated follower of Bernardo, Essentia, Swami Savapriananda, Federico Faggin. I feel so at peace with how my life is flowing these days.

[@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...

[@PatrickKehoe-j3j]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@TheNormallyOpen]

Delightful conversation to listen to, does it have to be either/or - can we not be subject to fate AND have some free will?

[@LiftersClinic]

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

[@ALavin-en1kr]

We have free will so that we may, or may not, align ourselves with Reality. Not aligning ourselves have consequences. The ego gets bent out of shape over and over and still it insists it knows best as described below.

[@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.🙏

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

I want to help my friends and my family understand Idealism. I understand it but it took me a number of months fully integrate the information. I frequently use Bernardos' metaphors explaining analytic idealism. About free will, it's a red herring. In any given moment making any decision, the decision you make are the result of the totality of you and all of your experiences. all the things you have thought, felt and done before. It leads you to that moment. What you knew at the time ,(when you look back,,) if you're honest, you would have made the same choice.

[@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.

[@felda311351]

The moment I realized what computational irreducibility mean, I can't stop laughing for minutes, I felt energy rush into my brain and it is full of joy, love and freedom, then tears just kept coming out and there is enormous gratitude burst out from within, and next moment I am gone, there is no I, all there is is just This. Thank you so much Bernardo, I love u so much, keep using the seeming freewill to share your wisdom, the universe needs it, since the universe can only work as a whole, there is nothing unneeded, deep deep love and gratitude to you❤

[@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

[@PromoMIAR]

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

[@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!!

[@garyroberts5452]

The function of the illusion of free will is to create the illusion of separation. The only way the oneness can have experience is to create the illusion of separation, to create the illusion of separation there has to be the illusion of free will. The illusion of free will creates the illusion of separation and that causes the illusion of the individual self, then the the illusion of the individual is required to have the illusion of reality, without the illusion of separation there can be no experience. There can be no illusion of the self without the illusion of free will. To have experience there needs to be more than one thing for one thing (or the illusion of more than the one thing) or the oneness can not achieve comparison. This is where duality comes into the picture, duality is the result of the illusion of free will causing the illusion of separation, and that creates the illusion of duality, then the illusion of duality creates the illusion of reality. If there is me there must be the other, and to have the illusion of me there needs to be the illusion that the me has autonomy, if it doesn't have autonomy then it is still part of the oneness and is not individualized, so the illusion of the me creates the illusion of the other. The real question is if self is an illusion then do we even exist, or are we just manufactured identities no different than NPC's? So much of this philosophical speculation boils down to the fear of death, and the hope for the continuation of the self past this physical experience. But I think this brings serious doubts about our actual existence. The common assumption is that this reality is illusion but we are real, and I think it could be that both reality and us (as individual identities) are illusion. There are those who say this fear is unjustified because we merge back with god but I think that is false, for there would be no us to merge back if the "us" is an illusion. It is entirely possible that we only exist as long as the oneness wants experience, like a character in a movie. It seems to me the character only exists as long as the movie is playing. The illusion of the individualized self might transcend death from this physical reality but it will die one day for it is nothing more than a character in a movie. When god stops playing the movie or stops dreaming the dream the illusion of the individualized self comes to an end. This is where people will say well that is OK because it is our souls that merges back with god, and so be it, but what you conceptualize as "you" is not your soul. That may as well be someone else as far as how far removed it is from the conscious "you" that you identify with now. Soul is like the battery in a robot, it is the power source that brings it to life (so to speak) but it is not the whole robot.

[@poopwizardd]

Interesting thoughts

[@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.

[@pp-jb7yf]

Just listen and integrate within yourself what's being said here. Dont look at other's opinions but discover your own, beyond words

[@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.

[@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...

[@rooruffneck]

Every definition of free will makes sense and is very meaningful except for the claim that there is an inner chooser who could have selected a different choice. That's the only one that is incoherent. Thus, all people who cherish free will can celebrate! You have countless definitions to choose from.

[@helifonseka9611]

Why does one choice predominates above others ?

[@rooruffneck]

​@helifonseka9611 For me the "choice" is just how we talk about a certain mind of process. Whereas free will people say they could have chosen otherwise.

This honestly saved my life. Thank you.

[@giordanovera]

"... men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." - Baruch Spinoza that is to say that we believe we have free will because we don't know where this will comes from and we just assume it comes from "us" (meaning an individual mind or ego/alter). That is, "free will" is just a matter of ignorance (similar to say that there is such a thing as randomness, when we call random to a phenomena that we simply don't understand). The concept of free will is just an epistemological error.

[@deb4610]

I’m really enjoying these conversations, thank you!

[@MsCjansen]

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

[@susanvaughan4210]

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

[@Shadowdaddy87]

Whether or not Free Will (whatever that is) exists is irrelevant to what is necessary for our lives as humans. Knowing the universe and your choices are entirely determined by physics, changes.....nothing.

[@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.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

We have choice, free will, in some areas so that we may learn and grow. If we make bad choices we suffer the consequences. Our intelligence clues us in, for the most part, to what the bad choices are. Sometimes our emotions or magical thinking make us think the wrong choice is the right choice and we suffer the consequences. We can keep hitting our heads over and over against a brick wall and the results will always be the same, unless we decide to stop.

[@kaauer4743]

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

[@nikeshgupta5040]

I would love Bernardo to answer the question " Is it the dualism we feel as individuated agents, (and the pain that results from this), the means by which the 'Will' progresses towards the fulfillment of its purpose?" That would give our pain a meaning to me.

[@9na.D]

Thank you for that 🙏 to me too

[@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.

[@brianmason2368]

In the end, we do exercise free well within the bounds. We are at this time and place.

[@KiriStockmanWholeheartedAction]

Thank you. This is the conversation that I needed especially about inputs affecting the variables

[@paulkeogh7077]

As Francis Lucille once said, the illusion of free will is like forgetting that you set your consciousness preference to ‘ignorance’ of your interconnectedness. As a consequence of believing you’re a separate entity - in an interconnected world - your incoherent behaviour produces suffering. Eventually this gets too much for you so you go to a specialist or a guru and they tell you to check your system preferences. Then you remember that you selected ignorance as your default. Awareness dispels ignorance and you awaken to being a dynamical expression of nature’s complementary opposites. As Bernardo says, we’re all “input variables” contributing to the unique context in which the will of nature unfolds. I believe our deepest desire is to reunite with that will. To this end, we are free to use our metacognition to remain in ignorance or awaken to play our part as microcosms nested in a macrocosm unified in consciousness.

[@FKetterle]

beautyful approach. Thank you

[@humbleinthejungle.]

Fantastic conversation, awesome content. Thank you.