Is The Universe Made Up Of Mind?

TOEmail: Sign Up at www.curtjaimungal.org
Main Episode with Bernardo Kastrup and Susan Blackmore (June 2023): • Bernardo Kastrup Λ Sus...
Bernardo Kastrup and Susan Blackmore discuss idealism, the self, consciousness and the nature of reality.
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
#consciousness

[@TheoriesofEverything]

TOEmail: Sign Up at www.curtjaimungal.org Main Episode with Bernardo Kastrup and Susan Blackmore (June 2023): kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKO5n3SNhZeLe9U

[@NuanceOverDogma]

The best way to understand reality is to open your mind outside of your predetermined mindset & meditate on how things are, how they relate to their alternatives, how they came to be & then ponder on whether it has is an ideal form which points towards higher understanding or determine if it's a detriment to it. I believe this is how emergent ideas can reveal itself to see things in a whole new way to see things, they are emergent because no one is considering it. I have experienced this myself many times but have no one to bounce them off. Like how you can deduce Reality to 3 aspects of Divine Qualia & how it is mirrored onto humans (made in God's image for a purpose), or how the meaning of life is a 3-fold answer pointing to one ultimate goal 1. To become self aware 2. Grow / Evolve 3. Commune w/ others to do step 1 & 2 in relationship & as a community. The Ultimate Goal is to "Reverse Entropy Towards Perfect Unity"

[@ChristianSt97]

imagine studying all your life, having 2000 years of past philosophical thinking and science as a background to build your own knowledge and arriving at the conclusion that your own experience is nonexistent.

[@Mikeduffey_]

😅

[@CJ-cd5cd]

Your experience is non-existent, but somehow that doesn’t apply to your experience of the brain. That’s an exception, per the illusionists.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.

[@mrbwatson8081]

How do you know you exist? What if you, what you call me, is actually non existent? How would you know?

[@ChristianSt97]

@@mrbwatson8081 the me/ego could be an illusion. but subjective experience itself is not.

[@Dropthebeatonit]

i have n o o o idea what this brotha is talking about. and i've tried. but i'm loving it.

[@caffeinatedkat3]

Lmao right!

[@spinz7]

He’s talking about non duality

[@Dropthebeatonit]

@@spinz7 cool story bro

[@Dropthebeatonit]

@@spinz7 sorry for the dumb joke. yea it's very interesting. i understand very little but am fascinated by his brain and how he talks. and that he is a jungian.

[@spinz7]

@@Dropthebeatonit absolutely. I can barely keep up with him, but sure do like how he thinks

[@theplenum]

The best analogy I have found to understand the 'emptiness' of self is the Chinese Room. I have a video on my channel called the Quantum Chinese Room that shows how as perceivers, even though we appear to be associated with a locality, we are never actually associated with any of the components of our bodies, and that 'sentience' is an assigned quality, recognized and then invoked into others. This is why we are so naturally driven to anthropomorphise. Observation creates reality at the most fundamental level, and sentience is relative to the observer - any point in spacetime is potentially capable of expressing it in a way that elicits recognition in you; consciousness is always, already present there, and everywhere. It is inherent.

[@gireeshneroth7127]

It's not your world. It's consciousness' world. Consciousness is the world in itself.

[@nordkm5464]

This was hard to watch. To see someone that confused and clueless with someone like Bernardo who has so much clarity and sharpness of mind

[@user-wn1kq8jx5q]

Oof. We must’ve watched different videos lol

[@backwardthoughts1022]

every 7 - 10yo ive asked where their thoughts come from without exception has responded 'from my brain'. neural correlates ie. biology is important data, but she needs to get a grip and stop offering up the inadequecies of folk introspection as evidence. you dont tell galileo to stop trying to develop methods of rigorously observing the phenomenon we seek to understand.

[@ReynaSingh]

Interesting perspectives, great episode

[@scotland_from_up_high7440]

Great to see your own channel gaining momentum. Your content is awesome

[@marinorodriguez255]

Great interview very informative, thank you, I'm agreed with BERNARDO, the world we see is mental, reality is not as it seems, we are the universe experience itself, consciousness is fundamental, reality is merely an illusion, we live in a cosmic hologram.

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

I actually agree with Kastrup overall but man -- the more I've listened to him the more I think he really needs to learn respectful and gentle discourse. The guy is kind of an ass. Maybe he just that egotistical, but for the longest time materialists treated idealists like this and it was quite effective, and I'm fundamentally against shaming people into agreement. Shaming may not work on the people he speaks to, but it can for your everyday average folks. It's probably effective culturally speaking, but it's immoral imo and causes a deeper issue to take hold.

[@theotormon]

It is immoral. That's a good point and we should all try to avoid that trap. In this clip it seemed like she was going for conversation and he was going for debate.

[@Necris-ql2py]

I agree, however, one can notice that people who hold strictly materialistic views also have absolutely no respect for their religious or philosophical opponents, ridicule them and take an arrogant position as if they understood everything. Some materialists are tactful and polite, but if the Cerberus of materialism and the horsemen of atheism fight on their side, then the anti-physicalists must also have a radical counterweight for balance

[@jonathanbutler3833]

Would love to see one of these people explain how the solstices/equinox works off the top of their head

[@audiodead7302]

I have huge respect for both Bernado and Susan. They are both seekers of the truth. They are both getting close(r) to the truth. Personally, I think both views have strong arguments in favour of them. I think the hard problem of consciousness is seriously hard (i.e. unsolvable in purely materialist terms - i.e. you can't explain it in terms of atoms, molecules, proteins, etc). But I also think a naturalist (rather than spiritual) account will be found. The confusion must lie in the limited capability of the human brain to understand itself (which is where Susan is coming from).

[@theotormon]

We don't understand what material reality is. Material is always described by its interactions. For example, we describe atoms by the qualities that we are able to discern by bumping them around. We don't discuss what material may be to itself, and a big part of the picture might be lurking there.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

tukdam destroyed physicalism a long time ago, and has been heavily researched by neuroscientists etc now for a decade in what is called 'the tukdam project'. its findings completely demolish physicalism empirically. see richard davidson tukdam project lecture on here.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@theotormon maas they can argue in terms of compounded structures which lead to higher structure. energy on the other hand is synonymous with magic, and all that can be said about it is its observable aftereffects with mass. structures could be argued to be physical. energy can be regarded as physical about as much as the curvature of space can be conceived of as physical ie. not even slightly.

[@troygoss6400]

Much gratitude for this dialog. I find it fascinating. Consciousness is a strangeloop. Nada,nada,nada🕉

[@rmschindler144]

I love it! . of course it is all mind! . oh, how sweet to know . if you would like to know, the way to that knowing is through love, love, love

[@daveadcock9128]

Bernado is the nuts, fantastic intellect could listen to him all day

[@sergeyromanov5560]

just nuts

[@MrSimonw58]

Bro ... don't over think it

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Stuff-side of Life, is a Motion-Ocean, Heat and Freeze, is the Basics, in all Stuff, Consciousness is 100% electric.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

Her illusion theory: We need to rethink some stuff and think about some other stuff.

[@KaliFissure]

Mind requires a structure which is both lasting and modifiable Everything is both mind and matter. The mind is the energy flow The structure guides the shape of the flow Much like the mass and gravity Co dependence

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[@SmilingAzaleaFlower-uh9wi]

Lol

[@futures2247]

we haven't actually for a clue

[@nenirouvelliv]

While I mostly disagree with Susan on the core points, I think she makes a good point about there not being unconscious and conscious brain processes. Most neural processes probably have a quality of consciousness to them, as long as there's some temporal continuity and flow of structured information. One of the big questions but often sidelined, is that what it actually is that allows us to talk about our conscious experience and verbalize it. And if there really is no subjective experience (which I'm not proposing, but a lot of reductive materialists do), then what is the exact neural process in the brain which makes almost all humans make the claim - even after a lengthy analysis and rigorous critical thinking - that they have a subjective experience. I can easily imagine the reason why someone would make the claim that there is no consciousness or subjective experience, since it jeopardizes their rather safe and simple atomistic, neo-atheist and reductive materialist worldview.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Consciousness can be explained as the most advanced part of a universal process, this is a process of energy exchange formed by electromagnetic activity with the movement of charge. Charge is an innate part of all matter; therefore, the electromagnetic activity in the brain that forms consciousness is universal. Look at Hodgkin and Huxley model. Light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The dynamic geometry of this process forms an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future continuously unfolding relative to the electron probability cloud of the atoms and the wavelength of the light. The wave particle duality of light and matter (electrons) is forming a blank canvas that we interact with relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This forms a constant of action in space and time that we see mathematically as the Planck constant h/2π.

[@Erik-V]

Here we are witnessing materialism in its death throes

[@danielrobertson2132]

Blue haired person says "no I am not a materialst!" And then the thumbnail has her position as "we are only atoms" when exactly did she say humans are only atoms?

[@InnerLuminosity]

Spacetime is DOOMED ❤

[@03stmlax]

Think of the *'Double-Slit experiment'* --- particles change their state based on whether or not someone(or any consciousness) is observing it. Does that mean when no one/no consciousness is present to observe any given aspect of the universe, that particular aspect of the universe doesn't exist during that time no consciousness is observing it?

[@HeavyMetal45]

There’s major issues with the double split experiment, Penrose offers an explanation.

[@daveadcock9128]

…yes.

[@hn6187]

Maybe consciousness is the interaction of quantum scale electromagnetic forces, as Penrose/ Hameroff suggest, and as experiments have recently suggested are possible within the brain - see "superradiance". This would explain why our subjective experience is so hard to describe, in both science and philosophy... We don't have the language to talk about networks of force geometries that somehow allow us to orchestrate ourselves across n length scales and reflect on what we experience. Maybe we need to give up on natural language and talk in pictures...

[@jonatech0]

Both and not at the same time reaility is an qwantum superposition thats mind and not mind at the same time

[@Mikeduffey_]

👏

[@BrendanTietz]

I will say while I side more with Bernardo, many of the non dual practitioners who claim to reach the state sound a lot like what this lady is saying. They essentially say all labels go away and that the mind can’t explain anything. Similar to what the Buddha said.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

thats not what the buddha said. he claimed empirical direct perception of billion-fold inhabited world systems in billion sized clusters of such systems. and based on successfully rigorously observing his mind became able to observe the entirety of his mental continuum and the continuum of every inhabitant in those world systems.

[@user-ok5hh7lg2x]

Ms. Blackmore seems vague (rather than obtuse), not quite lost within her discursive rhetoric but, close enough - to a kind of functional rationalization, which comes out (goodness, I hate this word buttt...) performative? Don't mean to be so hard on her... yet, that's my 'reading' of her 'takes' here.

[@willemgroen8710]

Have you then deciphered the beginning, that you ask about the end

[@septopus3516]

All conjecture

[@fritmore]

TOE clipping?!

[@towerofresonance4877]

Wow. Cool kid with sticker.

[@wulphstein]

More and more I'm starting to think that the benefit of the physics community is an illusion.

[@charlesp7504]

This is a circle jerk that could last aeons. From Bernardo’s perspective he is speaking from that direct knowing of that Self that calls itself awareness or consciousness and it is the absolute finality of what the truth of being is, as, it only is. Nothing and everything nowhere yet ever present. From there it cannot be imagined that mind is anything more that neuronal functioning. And almost all who rest in this freedom have no interest of ever knowing anything deeper. As, the inherent truths accepted with waking to the truth of “Self” and being are ancient timeless delusions that are part of the package of “rememberance”. There is a knowing of Mind prior to “Self”/“Awareness”/“Consciousness”/“Being”. From that perspective the power of the creator of the illusion is known. And it is a power..Instantaneous “it is done” power. The forces of this power can be observed. Walter Russell explained it for man better than any other “so far”. The self realized are children playing with themselves until they grow up. And it’s still only one child playing. …and talking and rambling and pretending

[@Timothyleepowers]

Kudos to Bernardo for holding it together. 😂😂 After trying desperately to get “specifics” he finally had enough. I must agree with Bernardo, shit show indeed.

[@vapormissile]

Sheesh. Next

[@mrbwatson8081]

How do you know you exist? What if you, what you call me, is actually non existent? How would you know?

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

I stopped existing after I reached middle age, so over the course of a life time the net effect is neither existing or unexisting.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@@nathanaelsmith3553 “neither existing or non existing “ maybe that’s the answer

[@00TheD]

Does a river exist? Do you ever see the same river twice ? Is the river the water flowing through it? It's shores ? The fish in it ? Or a concept of man?

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

@@mrbwatson8081 existence is temporary, so technically that's correct

[@mrbwatson8081]

@@nathanaelsmith3553 if existence is temporary, how did it start?

[@davethebrahman9870]

I’d love to hear a discussion with Alex Rosenberg and Kastrup.

[@bavingeter423]

Rosenberg is a pitiful human being. William Lane Craig (whether you agree with him or not) I think did a good job of shining a light on his absolutely incoherent and dismal “philosophy”

[@Mandibil]

Is mind a phenomena ?

[@towerofresonance4877]

Susan is leo... I don't know what the other two guys are. I always wanted to do an experiment if you would take philosophers of every sign of the zodiac and see how harmoniously it works together.

[@Pietari55]

Cognitive dissonance is impended into dictionaries. It is the wind wheel of opinions.

[@Northwind82]

😮

[@TheWizard10008]

Bernardo for the win 🏆

[@KinseiSensei]

Something about blue hair seems to suck all the logic out of the brain

[@robertdiehl1281]

Hubris…I think.

[@KaiseruSoze]

You are the software running in your hardware - your brain. If you are an illusion, then it's a Russian doll of illusions. (Where's my source code!!??)

[@00TheD]

Question why you have to relate to computers in order to understand the things that produced them. You aren't software. The brain isn't hardware. View the brain as a receiver of information, not the source. Let it go.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

software is just hardware. software is not the pixels on your screen. youre essentially just saying, hardware is running on itself by itself.

[@darthjarwood7943]

Sorry but anybody over the age of 12 with rainbow colored hair is not someone you should take too seriously.

[@danielrobertson2132]

Both of them are wrong. materialism and idealism are both wrong. Dialectical monism is the right metaphysical position. + Panpyschism.

[@Michael_X313]

Lolism

[@danielrobertson2132]

@@Michael_X313 ? Didn't really address my statement. Do you believe dialectical monism is incorrect ? If so please derive the entailment for that position.

[@Michael_X313]

@@danielrobertson2132 what are the duelistic terms of dielectic monism?

[@danielrobertson2132]

@@Michael_X313 ? This is a neutral monism ontological framework therefore your question doesn't make sense.

[@Michael_X313]

@@danielrobertson2132 wouldn't that just be.."monism"?

[@jessjmanns]

Its hard for me to take an older lady with blue hair seriously.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

[@Duelweb]

She is clueless 😂

[@oliviatorres5906]

there are a lot of reasons not to take her seriously, misogyny is not one of them

[@00TheD]

There is no misogyny here. You are the oppressor you've been battling against. Stop assuming you know other people's views based off trigger words and thoughts you don't like. People aren't one thing. It's very simple minded.

[@oliviatorres5906]

@@00TheD hey baby girl, given you aren’t the commenter and have no insight into their motives or intentions, kindly step away from this discussion. This is not the time or place to vent your anger or anxieties, keep that for close friends or your therapist. If you want to engage in a rational conversation between two adults, take a breather and come back with an argument. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

[@Romegyptian]

blue hairs being blue hairs

[@Yo_Uncle_Phil]

I was gonna say, given their track record (the blue hairs), I now am confident that reality is all mind. 😅

[@bavingeter423]

Blackmore is a complete grifter

[@artelc]

Bernardo has such a nasty attitude. Pan whatever. Magic thinking

[@user-iy4fc7ov7b]

80 yr old women with blue hair ?/lmao

[@ninjafukwan7]

Yet you're watching her and she probably has never heard of you or even know you exist.

[@jb-qi8fz]

Kastrup is so completely wacked out that he would be a perfect addition to Biden's Cabinet.

[@ChristianSt97]

typical 200IQ statement of a Trump voter

[@carlavela7106]

Only through your own experience it can be understood....

[@DanHowardMtl]

The best was when Peterson pwned Blackmore.