Kastrup responds to my criticisms of Analytic Idealism

[@Smeegheed1963]

I'd say all questions were answered with coherence and integrity. Fair play in challenging Bernardo to explain aspects the interviewer didn't understand but in each case, a clear and rich response was given.

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Aristotle didn't ground his arguments in experimental evidence, only in Logical argument. It didn't work out well for him, or for us. It was 1300 year detour in the weeds, as a result of a flawed model of inquiry.

[@MahimAmaan]

Thank you for asking questions to Bernado which I've not seen him answer before! I love that you put in so much effort into learning his ideas, and I love how Bernado seemingly loves being asked questions that he hasn't encountered before. Great interview, can't wait for the next.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@shepherd_of_art]

One of the best if not the very best conversation with Kastrup I've seen. You challenged him in a way I haven't seen before but you also let him speak which is rare enough. Thank you!

[@donaldanderson6578]

My highest respect to BK for his willingness to engage with good-faith criticism.

[@Robb3348]

me too, that's very rare. shows intellectual and moral integrity to do so

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Yeah, I thought he was great. And he clearly enjoyed it and we have more scheduled to come.

[@JenTalks247]

great to see academic discourse that’s civil and productive

[@donaldanderson6578]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Thank you, the whole exchange was great!

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Bernardo, It took me 6 weeks to read "The idea of the world". I studied it. The same way I studied chemistry texts. It was worth. The p logical narrative is uniform across each paper. It's masterful. One criticism, organize lists visually.

[@colbymay6044]

As someone who has watched almost all the content Bernardo is a part of, I will say this is one of the better interviews with him and I can’t wait for part 2.

[@KevinsDisobedience]

I love that Bernardo is willing to engage with small YT channels.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Yes. That is a policy of his, for which I am grateful.

[@Larcey]

This is really fantastic. Thank you to both of you for making this happen.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Our pleasure!

[@29rbs]

Wow, BK has really chilled out haha. I understand him usually being on the defense because his serious scholarship is often approached in bad faith like it is a new age religion. It is important to be able to actually name the issues and address them head on. This is a fantastic discussion! Really good questions and answers. Can't wait for part 2!

[@Soundsofanetwork]

Thanks for this great conversation , it says something that idealism is making a comeback in philosophy imo.

[@FaanaMusic]

Thank you for one of the best podcasts with Bernardo, I found. Second only tonthr one with John Verveake on Theories of Everything Channel. I admire your ability to gently and accurately poke holes in a friendly spirit.

[@mp9810]

This is great. Polite, well articulated and respectful points, despite some disagreement. This is how it should be done, rather than silly mediated debates that achieve nothing.

[@29rbs]

Loved Kastrup's comments around the discussion about behaviorism and then bodies and corpses around 1:30:00-1:50:50. i felt that was the turning point for me when his explanations overcame most of my reasoned doubts. What a cool moment in philosophy this is.

[@mattikangaskoski3544]

This was great, thank you! I have seen numerous conversations with Bernardo, and they usually deal with the question whether idealism is plausible at all. This, looking at his model more closely from the inside, brought many new things to light. Looking forward to part 2.

[@mba321]

Glad to see Bernardo engaging with another idealist, rather than just treading over the same old typical physicalist objections. A sentiment I've often seen here is that Bernardo does a bang up job of refuting materialism (which I think is true), but there have been some definite holes when it comes to his defense of his own position (which I also find true). I imagine conversations like these with other idealists will only help him evolve and sharpen his arguments even further. You raised some salient objections, which I think Bernardo handled well. Thank you for this video.

[@joeleonard5345]

I think Bernardo defended his positions excellently.

[@johnhausmann2391]

Kastrup makes ridiculous arguments against physicalism. He's either intentionally mis-representing physicalism, or he is just a very poor thinker.

[@grzegkania]

@@johnhausmann2391 Anybody can say that some arguments are ridiculous but if you want to disprove you are a very poor thinker explain why they are ridiculous.

[@Deantrey]

@@grzegkania I'm also very curious to know what he misrepresents about physicalism.

[@29rbs]

​@@johnhausmann2391Care to elaborate, or can you just fling insults? I have never seen anyone name something he is misrepresenting about physicalism. Would love to hear it.

[@quemidelquemide]

He visto casi todos los vídeos de BK y hacía falta una entrevista como esta. Excelente

[@Noumena_nomad]

The clarity BK holds is akin to what philisophers hold. Really enjoyed this conversation 😊

[@LyngeKjems]

Well, he does have a PH.D. in philosophy (as well as a one in computer engineering) 😊

[@redirishmanxlt]

He is a philosopher.

[@Radpal824]

He is one 💀

[@29rbs]

Maybe that is because he is a philosopher? Lol

[@skemsen]

Wonderful and interesting conversation. I so much look forward to next part and would love to hear you challenge Bernardo on his view of Mind at Large in relation to his discussions with his friend Rupert Spira who insists that Consciousness is meta conscious and is in essense unconditional love. Bernardo agreed with Rupert in one of their last conversations on YT but it really still doesn’t sound like what Bernardo is telling us here. Thank you for making and sharing this 🙏

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

That's the plan! I think this, along with what I take to be a pure leap of epistemic faith beyond the dashboard, are the weakest points, philosophically, of his view. I pressed the first in this part, the next part will press the quality of consciousness present in mind at large. I think this part laid some good groundwork to really push it home and Kastrup has said I can begin the next part by presenting my arguments... so I'm working on formulating them.

[@skemsen]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Thank you for your reply. I don't have an academic back ground and English is not my native language, so sometimes it was a bit difficult to follow your discussion, but I've also struggled somewhat regarding his dashboard metaphor. It's hard for me to put my finger on it but there is something unintuitive about it with the mix of a physical setting (airplane with no windows) to explain all being mental. On a side note I've often longed for Bernardo to offer alternative metaphors for this very theme. For a man that says "in other words" a lot it's a little "amusing" that he does this in that context :-) But I get that it's probably not that easy to come up with another well thought through metaphor for the same thing. It just puzzels me that no other interviewers have pressed him on this issue. Either way I think Bernardo has the most plausible TOE as it stands today. There is just something extremely appealing in it's elegant an non-convoluted parsimoni. I am really looking forward to your next conversation. If I had a chance to sit down and discuss the matter of Consciousness and science, I would certainly suggest that him and all his peers sat down in a filmed "world forum"/symposium over several days and hashed it out so to speak also with curious sceptics from the realm of materialists - all for the acceleration and benefit for mankind. You know as addition to the many discussions in "silos" like on yours and many other channel but in a larger forum of present and most relevant thinkers of our time. If I were a rich person I would set that up and invite a lot of interesting and relevant people :-)

[@vojins9203]

​@@skemsen an alternative metaphor to the dashboard is for example the desktop, graphical userinterface of windows, which displays maps or files/documents as icons on your screen, which is convenient for our understanding. but the reality behind it is, that there are no maps and no documents represented there, just 1s and 0s in the memory of your computer...

[@rooruffneck]

Actually, what Bernardo and Rupert discovered in that conversation is that they were using the term "meta" and "self-conscious" differently and that Rupert does not believe that fundamental reality is meta-conscious. When he says that it is self-conscious he means that it is, of course, the consciousens of The Self. So they ended up realizing that they both agree that fundamental reality is not meta-conscious. It was fascinating to listen to them get to that moment.

[@rooruffneck]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy Actually, what Bernardo and Rupert discovered in that conversation is that they were using the term "meta" and "self-conscious" differently and that Rupert does not believe that fundamental reality is meta-conscious. When he says that it is self-conscious he means that it is, of course, the consciousens of The Self. So they ended up realizing that they both agree that fundamental reality is not meta-conscious. It was fascinating to listen to them get to that moment.

[@rooruffneck]

This was great. At first I was annoyed because the host said he had at least read Nutshell but then talked as if Bernardo claimed emprical research was enough. But, as the conversation rolled on, it became a delight to hear Bernardo asked specific questions and ready to elaborate from multiple points of view. I really hope that their next conversation does start as Bernardo requested, with the host making his argument for God would be meta-conscious. Bernardo is very fun to watch when he goes into question mode. Hopefully, they've recorded it and it's dropping tomorrow :)

[@mabaker]

Thanks!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Wow, that is exceptionally generous of you! Thanks a lot.

[@naledimyabi2686]

By far the best BK interview/debate. Can’t wait for part II.

[@george5464]

The amount of people in this comment section who don’t have the foggiest idea as to what Idealism OR materialism actually entail is quite alarming

[@JH-6g5]

Idealism and materialism are two ontological philosophical presuppositions that originated in the schools of ancient Greece. Idealists were typically associated with Plato, Aristotle, and materialism has its orgins with Democritus (founder of the atom theory) Thales of Miletus and Anaximander. Other notable European philosophers who have been defined as materialists include: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and writer Francis Bacon.

[@KevinsDisobedience]

At first, I thought this was a rudely dismissive comment, but after a brief tour below I can see you’re simply stating a fact. My god, and the confidence with which these folks make these pronouncements. Of course neither of these philosophical schools are well-defined to the degree of a consensus, but there are many misconceptions and wrong things people can and do say about each-and many of them are on display here. Cheers.

[@Soundsofanetwork]

@@george5464 what is your take on idealism and materialism?

[@johnhausmann2391]

That's because Kastrup does his best to mis-represent modern physicalism so that he can easily cast it aside.

[@Soundsofanetwork]

@@johnhausmann2391 how does he misinterpret modern physicalism , give me a physicalist philosopher you think he misinterpreted?

[@canUfeelMYface]

Very few public intellectuals are balanced enough to integrate negative feedback. Props to both of you

[@clivejenkins4033]

Another masterclass from bernardo 💯👌

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

Thank you for this interview. I very much resonate with the ideas of Bernardo Kastrup and I am planning to get the book on analytic idealism. Great guest! I am also very much into Carl Jung. I would love to talk to Kastrup about Jung someday on my channel.

[@lavamom6042]

Kastrup wrote an excellent book called Decoding Jung’s Metaphysics! I’ve read most of his books and that one is my favorite by far because I’m also fascinated by Jungian psychology. I can’t recommend it enough. It’s also the book that helped me understand idealism best.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@lavamom6042 I can't wait to read it 😎

[@94Marcel94]

Amazing that you got him on! Time stamps would be amazing for this long format 🙏

[@Robb3348]

would be totally amazing and increase the usability tenfold

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Done! I always intended to and then forgot (it takes a while!).

[@Robb3348]

@@AbsolutePhilosophy u're awesome!

[@94Marcel94]

@ thanks a lot! 🙏🏼

[@lizardking1979]

You did it. Congratulations.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Yay!

[@MattGray_Chelsoph]

I love that BK did this. It means so much.

[@buzzwordy9951]

I am glad that I watched this. This clarifies somethings that I have previously misunderstood.. Part 2 yes!

[@mlife952]

So grateful, you brought this🎉

[@rooruffneck]

Crossing my fingers that Part 2 drops tomorrow

[@olbluelips]

Good interview 45:25 great question 1:07:00, 1:11:45 are good as well. The origin of mathematical qualia/physical descriptions is something Bernardo doesn't touch on too much, but it's very interesting. 1:26:25 Interesting question. It does seem like there need to be "conserved qualities" between Mind-at-large and the dashboard. Otherwise, what are we observing what we observe abstract properties? (Well, we are observing our own abstract thoughts, but where do these thoughts get their shape? From some qualitative interaction with Mind-at-large, through which some qualities should be conserved)

[@maddywilcox9012]

🎉🎉🎉 Fabulous conversation guys, clarified as always magnificently simply and beautiful as always the whole mind body medicine and wholistic supportive practices ❤❤❤

[@dionysis_]

Would be nice to have your discussions in podcast platforms 🙂

[@Kobriks1]

Great interview, really insightful questions

[@adamsharpe5517]

Great interview! I was hoping you'd press Kastrup a little more on the "How does meta-consciousness arise from phenomenal consciousness?" question, but hopefully you will do that next time. In particular, I think there are other hard problems of consciousness--the problems of intentionality and reason, at the very least, and maybe more--which, if these features of mind are also irreducible, force us by the same logic to accept these features of mind as being fundamental to reality alongside phenomenal consciousness. To appeal to "re-representation" you'd first need representation, which requires intentionality or "aboutness". And just like how I think it's impossible to get phenomenal consciousness from non-phenomenality, I think it's impossible to get intentionality from non-intentional building blocks, or rationality from non-rational building blocks. Insofar as pure phenomenality is non-intentional and non-rational, we don't get intentionality and reason for free by appealing to evolution, any more than physicalists can appeal to evolution to explain phenomenal consciousness. In other words, there's a constitutive problem, not just a "historical" one. If the underlying thing being appealed--matter, in the case of physicalism--cannot, even in principle, give rise to what we are trying to explain--phenomenal consciousness--evolution won't help us. But likewise, if pure phenomenality cannot in principle give rise to *real* intentionality or rationality, I don't think we can just say "evolution" and solve the problem. He'd first have show how phenomenality can constitute or ground intentionality/reason in the here and now, before being able to appeal to evolutionary processes. And I don't think that's possible. He could reject intentionality as an illusion and say that there's nothing more to intentional states than their phenomenality, but that brings with it a whole new set of problems (not least of all, that there is no genuine re-representation happening in meta-consciousness).

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Agreed. Will press this next time.

[@PMKehoe]

Firstly, your pod should have 500,000+ followers. Excellent inquiry into BK's a-Idealism; very much enjoyed the converstation!

[@x-b5516]

I enjoyed the back and forth, thank you ❤

[@JA-gz6cj]

ayo

[@ypey1]

I have seen many discussions, i still have no idea what Kastrup is talking about😅

[@victoriacarella3796]

I am enjoying your book. It is a refreshing read. I shared it on LinkedIn and FB.

[@transcendentpsych124]

Nathan, when is part 2 ?? :)

[@Szymciosz]

With all the explanations given in the video I'm quite curious about following mental experiment under Kastrup's theory. He mentions that physicalists would have hard time explaining any disembodied experience as for them all that exists is an arrangement of physical matter. What if we were to rearrange the matter (in the dashboard) to replicate someone's physical brain/body, would that give a rise to a new meta-conscious entity. In a sense that would be disassociated part of the mind at large modulating the external to create another disassociation, right?

[@bunberrier]

Wouldnt mating and giving birth be the same thing? We cant rearrange matter on THAT level of complexity, but we can set into action a pre-existing process that causes the matter in a womans body to arrange into new little person.

[@frankjspencejr]

Idealism, unlike physicalism or dualism, is at least logically plausible. But what is it that justifies the inference of an external “realm”? Dreams are sometimes indistinguishable from waking experience but are by definition “internal”. What guarantees that consciousness is not analogous to dreaming?

[@Ripred0219]

Hooray for Absolute Philosophy!

[@chrisgreen1514]

Excellent discussion Thanks❤ It seems the human dashboard is effectively a VR in which all our human qualia must exist. Do other species have different dashboards?

[@payt01]

The dashboard seems to be thgat which creates our experience., So depending on the sort of input a critter has available and the extent in which it can be processed, it will differ.

[@TikozoPvP]

This makes me so happy ❤

[@Pod-xk8yb]

Great conversation!

[@zmo1ndone502]

I just want to know if we say "everything happens in consciousness" and matter is what consciousness looks like then where do we go from there. Its seems yur just redefining words which sort of answers certain questions but what can be gained from this view. And does it really solve the hard problem

[@markiquark]

When is this he second part coming?

[@moesypittounikos]

Plato's dialogue's didnt have this many adverts 😢

[@KasperTura-g4m]

I quess it would make easier to understand BK if you know basics of Vedanta, inc Maya, Brahman, Atman etc. Basicly BK’s Analytic Idealism is modernized Advaita Vedata in many aspects.

[@tiborkoos188]

I feel for the host who is trying the absolute best of making sense of Kastrup. Every time he asks a precise question Kastrup answers with yet another arbitrary new declaration about the workings of his imaginary and completely undefined constructs. Zero in zero out.

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Without a causative event to disrupt the semantic and associative linkage That was created during life, upon death I see no reason why there would not be coherence after reassociation into mind At large. During obliterating ego dissolving doses of psychedelics this is what happens. To me, I think the experience of high dose psychedelics is a nuanced model of experience upon death.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Interesting point! I'm interested in understanding Kastrup's semantic model of reality more.

[@nil0355]

Thoroughly enjoyed this philosophically rigorous discussion. ... Bernado says that empirical evidence from altered states of consciousness shows that brain states may not able to adequately represent the richness of experience. I wonder whether such mental phenomenon is still represented or representable in some other dashboard. Is it that mental exitation is always represented or representable albeit not necessarily in our human dashboard. Some imprint somewhere, may be in nature, may be in some other plane of existence is still there.

[@matswessling6600]

empirical evidens of altered states of conciousness is just that, it doesnt say anything about anything else.

[@94Marcel94]

Have you heard of this KZbinr „The perfect principle“ wo is making videos against you and Bernardo? Would you consider responding to him? I find it actually pretty hard to follow his argumentation as he is spontaneously speaking a lot, but i feel he completely misses the point of idealism

[@casperdermetaphysiker]

Does he address why calls his system of thought specifically "analytic" idealism as opposed to other types of idealism?

[@davidschaffer1802]

I think he said only because it was born out of the analytic tradition in which he was trained. A more descriptive name would be something like objective idealism.

[@le_rayon_vert]

I think it’s to do with Jung being a big influence on his thinking

[@twinblessings2125]

It is a combination of the two commenters above: analytic tradition + Jungian psychology

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@le_rayon_vert no, it refers to analytic philosophy. Not jungian analysis

[@29rbs]

Because his/its methodology is rooted in the analytic philosophical tradition; it does not directly describe the framework itself

[@TheWayofFairness]

I say there is a fact to this matter and it won't go away.

[@compellingpeople]

oh wow, I listened to your original video, didn't understand it, looked at Bernardo's work, sort of understood it, and now I look forward to sort of not understanding this video.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

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.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda That's a decent analysis. Is that from a particular book? I know that Vedic schools are extremely diverse. The idealistic variety of advaita has become so widespread on Internet these days people don't even recognize it is just a miniscule variety among Vedic schools. Even advaita itself is merely a variety among many others.

[@RelationalismWeavingALoveStory]

@compellingpeople Best comment ever. It gave me a belly laugh. I think you are easily the smartest person here, and by far my friend. I don’t care if you’re a bot. You are funny :)

[@compellingpeople]

@@RelationalismWeavingALoveStory I'm not a bot , and not that smart

[@joeleonard5345]

​@@JagadguruSvamiVeganandatalking shit on maharshi is absurd

[@chrisjudd-uc7sh]

I was one that advocated this meet up between 2 obviously talented thinkers. Now obviously it takes something extra to drive someone to create a platform which invites criticism and if a part of that is arrogance or even being slightly unhinged we are all benefitting from it so don't knock these guys to harshly even if you disagree. For my part I think Nathan is right to challenge Bernardo on several grounds and like him I do not sit well with the use of metaphors used as evidence. Bernardo has the habit of referring to biblical stories as metaphors which on one hand they certainly could be used for but in doing so it gives the bible credence which by association undermines his very philosophy. It would be great at some time for Nathan and Bernardo to do something Thomas Hofweber fails to do and explain as if talking to a 6 year old his theory of conceptual idealism. I have spent a few moments on researching his work and can see the link between thoughts, language and our 'reality' certainly is metaphysical. Hofweber advocates thoughts constrain rather than construct, this may need straightening out to possibly filtering? All in all both Nathan and Bernardo have looked good in this interview. I have a lot of empathy with Bernardo being of similar temperament and know how hard it can be to hold your tongue as emotion takes its grip, something we both must work on. As a summary I am with Bernardo generally but always suspect of detail, Federico Faggin has to date stayed more crude in his theory but both taken together are where I am to date. Many thanks Guys

[@Jakelefleur]

2:03:00 I wonder if this lack of communication between phenomenal consciousness and meta-conciousnrss might also explain how one could be an eliminativist. Its like blind-sight but with concious experience as a whole!

[@goodquestion7915]

@Jakelefleur wonderful what imagination can achieve, right? I guess Materialism is boring, too real and too factual, just like a nagging mom lecturing her couch potato 34 years old son.

[@devos3212]

You should get Richard Carrier on.

[@Sebastian_S_Azar]

there are like 20 commercials in the video? wtf?

[@CJ-kq3oh]

The life of an academic ain’t easy these days.

[@integralsun]

Buy an ad free subscription😊 ….so worth it.

[@BubbleGendut]

@sebation a azar use “Brave” browser

[@Robb3348]

they're all in your mind

[@michel-jeantailleur]

Get an adblocker.

[@tommoody728]

One question I have is why Kastrup seems to assume that our observations and models of the universe on the largest scales are an accurate reflection of “mind at large”. As he keeps pointing out, we are bipedal apes who evolved to perceive certain types of phenomena in detail, but we did not evolve to be able to accurately perceive the universe at a large scale. It holds no adaptive advantage to be able to do this, so I have doubts as to whether we can accurately infer anything about the age and size of the universe. Our observations of the cosmos may just be how it appears to us based on the specific nature of our minds. Of course, this applies to everything to some degree, but the further out we look and the larger the scale we try to conceptualise, the less likely it becomes that our observations have any reason to be accurate.

[@robertoalexandre4250]

The Idealist difficulty: how does mind/experience/consciousness (maybe something like the dreamer and dreamworlds) produce the hard stuff of reality? The Physicalist: how does stuff produce mind/experience/consciousness (here they posit emergence or epiphenomenon)? Whatever the universe is, it is first a first-person experience: and that experience is what constitites reality...we only find later fields, particles, electrochemical neural firings, etc. So obviously physicalism pervades our everyday life but if we meditate or take certain drugs (i.e. Huxley's account in "The Portals of Perception"), we become idealists as we experience reality as just fluctuations of our own perspective. Hence, it seems that experientalism (the variety and range of our experiences) or perspectivism (reality is always 1st-person...always from the point if view of w. what's it like to be something...and we are looking at reality from the human, which is sensorily and cognitively limited and no guarantee reality IS or ISN'T just matter or just mind. There is a relationship between mind and matter which neither of these philisophies is able to imagine, let alone express without gaps. Great discussion and Q&A!

[@rooruffneck]

When I dream, I often experience the 'hard stuff of reality'. The other night, I was thrown into a brick wall and it felt like my back broke. The mind has no problem with generating intensities.

[@KevinsDisobedience]

No realist living today thinks that our senses or intuition gives us direct, unmediated access to the world as it is. We just believe that there is a state of reality that exists independently from our existence, and it is a dynamic, entropic entity with real-patterns that is, to our best knowledge, made of quantum fields. I prefer the term “model-dependent realist.”

[@Professor_Pink]

On the contrary, most realists are direct realists. That's because most people are unthinking. Among intellectuals who are realists, they are indirect realists because the idealists destroyed their previous illusions and made their position untenable.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

Are you familiar at all with non-dualism? That will have a dramatic effect on how you see/what you get out of the idea of MAL.

[@e-t-y237]

We created the airplane which does not have consciousness, so we gave it a dashboard form of sensors. In effect, a second hand artificial type of consciousness.

[@clivejenkins4033]

"Consciousness is the canvas on which the material universe is painted" Schrodinger.

[@RevolutionGamingShorts]

The thought 'I'. I am hungry, I am sad etc.. that is the Ego, your sense of self which is of course important, without it we wouldnt survive. But the Ego puts the truth of things behind a curtain. This meditation is an effective way to look behind the curtain. You cannot remove the Ego, but you can push it aside to glimpse the peace, the truth beyond it. The Ego however evolved for a reason and resists this. You may feel anxiety but remember that it is all within, the ego, your sense of self will not go anywhere. push past the anxiety. -Close your eyes -Imagine you are an infant in the womb. *you happen to be an infant that is blind *you happen to be an infant that is deaf *you happen to have no sense of touch on the surface of your skin *you happen to have no sense of smell *you happen to have no sense of taste *other than a lack of senses you are a perfectly healthy infant. -Imagine yourself being born. freeze the moment you are out of the womb. -Ask yourself 'what am i experiencing?' -Are you experiencing sight in the hoapital room? no because you are blind. But you are still there, so sight is not fundamental to what you are. -Are you experiencing sound? No, because you are deaf, but you are still there. So hearing is not fundamental to what you are. -Are you experiencing the sensation of the doctors pulling you from your mother's womb? No because you dont have the sensation of touch, but you are still there. So touch is not fundamental to what you are. -Are you experiencing smell in the hospital room? No, because you have no sense of smell, so smell is not fundamental to what you are. -Are you experiencing taste? No because you have no sense of taste, so taste is not fundamental to what you are. -What is left to experience? Your inner states. Thoughts, representing emptions etc..Now, knowing that you are an infant with no senses, frozen in time just after birth. No one has been able to tell you your name. No one has been able to tell you your age No one has been able to tell you that you are even human. Now ask yourself the following: -What am I? -What is my name? Am i still there if i don't know? -How old am I? Does what i am change if i dont know? -Am i anxious? does what i am change if i dont know? -Am I Sad? Does what i am change if i don't know? -Am I happy? Does what i am change if i don't know? -Am i angry? does what i am change if i dont know? -Do i have thoughts? does what i am change if i dont have a thought. -If the thought 'I' doesn't happen because i have no input from the outside, does what i am change? -What is left after these questions and when there is no 'I' thought? DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS YOU ARE EXPERIENCING AS BEST YOU CAN

[@lukegranata7154]

27:23 now you’re cooking. Really wish Bernardo had seen your video critique. Big fan of both of you guys. Thanks for this. Looking forward to the next 2 hours.

[@rooruffneck]

Why? Did they not cover the criticism from that video?

[@oliviergoethals4137]

Very good questions. Thx. I personally also sense MAL is metaconscious since we are and we are part of it, we are one of its sensors in order to invest itself. Anyway thx!

[@PromoMIAR]

Frustrating amount of adds on this but thanks to you both for discussion.

[@frankjspencejr]

Experience - thoughts, feelings, and sensations - is inherently “passive input”, a one-way street of impressions of mysterious origin. Apparently temporal but not spatial. The idea of separate subjects communicating, passing information back and forth, seems to violate the nature of experience. But I appreciate the attempt to explain separate subjects, which I so hope is real even if only as temporary ripples in the river of reality.

[@2tehnik]

I think the stuff about the universe seeming disorganized sounds like it could easily put pressure on his monism. Sure, he can say that mind at large is in some kind of delirium, but I think that then makes it mysterious how or why there is any order in Nature (as perceived by us) at all. The singleness of mind at large explains the commonality of the world (quite neatly to be fair) but I’m not sure the same idea would explain its order/lawfulness. A pluralistic idealism wouldn’t have this issue because it doesn’t say there is any mind for the whole world (not yet at least).

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Excellent comment as usual. I expect nothing less from you sir.

[@antoniofiorentinodistefano2940]

I had problems with Bernardo before some years ago. Mainly with his attitudes and his way to converse with an interlocutor. But the Bernardo hear now is quite different and comes across as more willing to be understood and to understand. If so, it is a good change. Difficult to have such conversations without a presence of some common vision of a an underlying reality.

[@attic42]

I wonder if Rupert Spira chilled him out

[@davidschaffer1802]

@@attic42mushrooms...

[@CJ-cd5cd]

@@attic42or maybe his interlocutor here is just respectful and not condescending. Makes a big difference.

[@Mandibil]

Does not change validity of arguments whether one likes or dislike the fashion

[@transcendentpsych124]

Good interview and seems like he appreciated your understanding of his position. Looking forward to the next one. One bit of feedback: it felt a bit stiff in places (maybe nerves or concentration?) but it could do with some increased warmth in the interactions so it sounds a bit less like he's on trial. But otherwise wonderful.... Really. Very much looking forward to next one and you're the man for the job. Great stuff!

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Thanks for the comment. Before we began he told me not to hold back or sugarcoat things. He didn't want me to be too 'British' as he was Dutch and would talk straight, haha :). But in all honesty, I'm used to productive cut and thrust like this, its very Cambridge.

[@transcendentpsych124]

​@@AbsolutePhilosophy Oh really! How funny. Yes the Dutch are direct. Your challenge for next time: make BK laugh out loud ;)

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

@@transcendentpsych124 Haha, I'll try. I got him to chuckle once in this video :).

[@addammadd]

For my own notes, not useful to anyone. 18:29 “why i think empirical evidence is so neutral… it’s not completely neutral (as Kuhn explained) but it’s more neutral than a priori syllogisms.” Let’s not even get into whether such a thing as modal neutrality makes any sense (especially from an empiricist’s perspective which he presumably has). Let’s dive into this appeal to neutrality itself. Here’s Alenka Zupančič summarizing pretty neatly why certain kinds of people like to appeal to neutrality (modal or other): “In any social conflict, a “neutral” position is always and necessarily the position of the ruling class: it seems “neutral” because it has achieved the status of the dominant ideology, which always strikes us as self-evident. The criterion of objectivity in such a case is thus not neutrality, but the capacity of theory to occupy a singular, specific point of view within the situation. In this sense, the objectivity is linked here to the very capacity of being “partial” or “partisan.” In short, the appeal to neutrality is always a discursive ploy to elide-to mask-one’s partisanship which is to say the actual appeal (to status quo). It’s intellectually insincere.

[@SimonJacobson-e4n]

Very similar to Chomsky's philosophy. All we have are best theories.

[@ReflectiveJourney]

54:37 my issue here is that idealism just seems sementic at this point. If MAL is just cosmos and we are on just pale blue dot. Calling it "mental in essence" but same as empty space is just desk thumping without any difference. My pragmatist radar is way off the charts in this dialectic what different inferences can we make here (excluding all the in essence stuff)?

[@Sam-hh3ry]

Obviously not. Idealism says there’s something it’s like to be the universe. It’s not any more semantic than the claims "there is something it’s like to be me and probably nothing it’s like to be my chair."

[@kgrandchamp]

I don't know if Bernardo answered Nathan's question on why the same emotion in a human or an octopus would have such different appearences in the brain and metabolism of a human versus the brain and metabolism of an octopus! Thanks for this great discussion I am struggling to understand! 🌿

[@george5464]

I feel if you are going to have such an ostensibly critical perspective of someone’s work, you should have read more than two of his books

[@Raptorel]

I adhere to Bernardo's metaphysics but my main gripe is regarding the Markov blanket - it's not clear to me where it really is. Imagine that I study your brain and I see the neural correlates of different experiences. I can then remove your brain from your body and stimulate the brain exactly like that body was doing and your experiences would be the same. So the body is also a sort of "external" thing to you - it's also a representation, and the same are your inner feelings - they are representations of the state of the body, but "you" can exist without your body (by keeping the brain alive metabolically and feeding the same signals artificially, in a brain-in-a-vat fashion). And even if I mess around with the brain, "you" are not changed - the narrative, the context of experience changes, but you don't. That's why I think there's a single Self experiencing all of our lives, so here I think Bernardo is right. I just think that the body is not necessary, it's just how evolution sculpted minds on this planet but mentality can exist without them, in principle. So it's not clear where the Markov blanket is - is it at the periphery of the nervous system? Is it just the next synapse away from whatever the metacognitive structure is (say, the Default Mode Network)? And so on.

[@rodcameron7140]

Interesting. I am curious about your definition of "you" that does not change. ...I wonder because I am not the same person I was when I was 5, 25, 45, and so on. So the idea of "you" not changing even though the experiences change seems a derivative of a spiritual teaching, like the concept of a soul. Unless the "you" refers to the process of the mind that incorporates all the various sense data, memory, and current prediction to create an updated prediction that it then uses to make changes in the body to deal with that prediction. Either way, I would be interested in knowing.

[@Raptorel]

@@rodcameron7140 The real "you" is the Self of Nature. Basically, the only Subject. Call it "Self", "Subject", "Nature", "God", it doesn't matter. It's the same subject just as it's the same subject when you dream each night - it's always "you" witnessing and living each dream, each night. In this case, it's the same Self in me and you and every living being that ever existed, it's just that the narrative is different - the Self has a different context of experiences and memories and reference frames in what we call spacetime (where spacetime is the relationship with all the other dissociated alters). It's this dissociation that Bernardo is talking about the reason why we think we are separate individuals, but it's the same Self in each and every one of us, we are the same being. So nobody really dies, you're indestructible. The narrative of this particular self dissapears but that is all. In fact, I think the Self lives all of its dissociations at the present tense of all of them - in the "present" moment for all of them, in a superposition. As it makes observations from each of its dissociations, it observes classical worlds with energy, positions, momenta, curvature of spacetime and so on, but these are all perceptions of the self in the "dream" of dissociation. Fundamentally, Mind-at-Large (including its dissociations) lives in a superposition which can be mathematically modeled as the wave function of the universe.

[@Raptorel]

@@rodcameron7140 The real "you" is the Self of Nature. Basically, the only Subject. Call it "Self," "Subject," "Nature," "God," it doesn't matter. It's the same subject just as it's the same subject when you dream each night - it's always "you" witnessing and living each dream, each night. In this case, it's the same Self in me and you and every living being that ever existed, it's just that the narrative is different - the Self has a different context of experiences and memories and reference frames in what we call spacetime (where spacetime is the relationship with all the other dissociated alters). It's this dissociation that Bernardo is talking about, the reason why we think we are separate individuals, but it's the same Self in each and every one of us; we are the same being. So nobody really dies, you're indestructible. The narrative of this particular self disappears, but that is all. In fact, I think the Self lives all of its dissociations at the present tense of all of them - in the "present" moment for all of them, in a superposition. As it makes observations from each of its dissociations, it observes classical worlds with energy, positions, momenta, curvature of spacetime, and so on, but these are all perceptions of the Self in the "dream" of dissociation. Fundamentally, Mind-at-Large (including its dissociations) lives in a superposition which can be mathematically modeled as the wave function of the universe.

[@BrettRosenfeld]

@@Raptorel you’re thinking about it like a physicalist. The question isn’t where the markov blanket is. First of all, the markov blanket is a MODEL for the dissociative boundary. And the question still isn’t “where is the dissociative boundary?” The dissociative boundary is a mental complex; a mental process. The question I *think* you’re getting at is what does the boundary look like? Yes, it looks like the surface of the skin, eyes, tongue, nasal airways, etc. Now.. Where are you getting this idea that you could have a brain in a vat would have the results you’re claiming it would? That seems like ungrounded speculation. But even if I grant you that, you must remember that “removing the brain from the body” is what a certain mental process (of altering/changing the boundary) *looks like!* If the surface of the body is the boundary, and you remove it… then you’ve removed, or at least changed the process that represents the boundary. So I don’t see how that’s a problem for analytic idealism.

[@Raptorel]

@@BrettRosenfeld Yes, that sounds correct. I think it's pretty safe to speculate that if I were to remove your central nervous system but artificially continued to stimulate it just like the regular body does then your perception wouldn't change - you would still think you have a body. So the body can't be the Markov blanket, that was the point, even if you adopt analytic idealism and the body is just the image of a mental process. Yes, you have replaced the body with artificial neuronal signaling, but this only shows that it was the central nervous system (or a part of it, its periphery) that was the whole deal, that's the Markov blanket which delineates between your dissociation and Mind-at-Large.

[@Omnis-Determinatio-Est-Negatio]

I really like Bernardo, but he did not give sufficiently satisfying answers to some of your worries. Nonetheless it is amazing to see an exchange of sharp questions and answers.

[@Achrononmaster]

@50: BK is hanging way too much there on "quantum fields". Does he even realize they are fictional accounting tools? (He should, since he denies scientific concepts reality before, no?) QFT is a lovely theory, but it is not fundamental. Hilbert space is also a fiction, another "accounting tool" (Has massive irremovable gauge redundancy, so cannot be physical). The spinor fields are mathematical objects, not physical objects, we use them in QM and QFT to transform (rotate, boost and dilate mostly) the frame defining the observables to the co-moving frame of an elementary particle. The elementary particles are what are real, and they're not fields. We describe them using fields. The only real field needed in physics (to date) is 4D spacetime. If you want, also fibre bundles attached, but we don't even need fibre bundles, since 4D nontrivial topology is sufficient to account for the fibers in at least the Standard Model, and account for non-local effects as needed in entangled systems. If there really is supersymmetry, or strings, than yeah, we'd need more than 4D Riemannian spacetime.

[@OuroboricIdealism]

It is ironic that Kastrup identifies theoretical entities as convenient fictions when his “mind at large” concept, too, is a theoretical entity, cannot be given in a possible experience, and eo ipso is a convenient fiction. Kastrup’s position is more than naive, it is inconsistent.

[@rooruffneck]

Yes, he realizes they are temporary fictions, but useful ones for now, good analogies.

[@OuroboricIdealism]

@@rooruffneck As I wrote in my critique of analytic idealism: “Nor can Kastrup insist on the mere regulative validity of the mind at large-a regulative principle is in no position to dissociate into alters-such that Kastrupian analytic idealism is dogmatic or nothing at all”.

[@mechannel7046]

15:00 some scientists think science is part of metaphysics 16:40 doubtful humans can know the truth. We are only ranking hypotheses

[@extavwudda]

I wonder why, at 1h12m0s, something was cut from the video. I can't help but wonder if maybe Kastrup was fumbling and stumbling for an initial answer and then insisted it be cut.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

No, nothing sinister. Kastrup didn't have an OS that could handle my usual platform so we had to do it on zoom and restart the meeting/recording every 40 minutes.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

What a strange conclusion to jump to based on nothing

[@extavwudda]

​@@Sam-hh3ry My assumption was wrong, but I stand by it, as I based it on Kastrup's sometimes fragile ego, often palpable need to be right and obvious anger issues.

[@Sam-hh3ry]

@@extavwudda sounds like projection to me

[@BrettRosenfeld]

Bernardo Kastrup is the smartest and clearest person most people have never heard of.

[@moussaadem7933]

he doesn't seem consistent and a lot of his metaphysics seems speculative without good argument

[@BrettRosenfeld]

@ He’s actually impeccably consistent. I don’t think you’ve understood the claim if that’s your vague criticism.

[@Professor_Pink]

​@@BrettRosenfeldWhat's his best argument for idealism in this video?

[@goodquestion7915]

@Professor_Pink @BrettRossenfeld Bernie's best argument is "It's obvious that Mind is first because I feel so".

[@TatTvamAsi0101]

​@@moussaadem7933it's obvious that two and a half hours of this did absolutely nothing for you because you were looking at it through your rose colored materialist glasses.. there's just no hope for some of y'all I guess.

[@Achrononmaster]

@34:00 our _physical body_ has an upper bound on information processing capacity. Not our soul, at least not if you understand the human soul is non-physical. The _physical expression_ of the soul's Mind is what is limited, not necessarily the Mind itself. There is no theory of the limits of the mind (imagination, insight, creativity) that anyone knows of, since there is no information theoretic theory of subjective mind. Friston's is not a theory of mind, his is a theory of brain, or brain+, which is only the _physical_ expressive power of the mind. The brain has already extraordinary capacity to express our Mind's thoughts, our souls are not spiritually aware enough yet to really saturate our brain capacity, plus we have hard drives these days. Pretty useful when the brain gets too hot.

[@BrianLopez-r6l]

Appreciate the detailed breakdown! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

[@alriktyrving5051]

If MAL is the only thing that exists, and nothing exists outside of of it, then the only thing it can be conscious or aware of is itself. It has to think of itself, because there is nothing else to be thought of. Thus it is necessearily self aware , self conscious.

[@AbsolutePhilosophy]

Sounds right to me. I'll press this in the next part, along with other similar arguments. Thanks!

[@ryanashfyre464]

Yup. The reality of moral and value-oriented considerations are also a strong indicator of this. If MAL is just a field of mentation, where does the orientation around which we base these considerations come from?

[@Raptorel]

I wonder if MAL is alone. There could be other "MAL" that don't know about each other, like multiple universes which are ontologically mental, but separate.

[@Mandibil]

Is there something beyond mind at large ?

[@Sam-hh3ry]

That is not what meta cognition is.

[@GiedriusMisiukas]

1:16:00 again on mathematics

[@ReflectiveJourney]

1:25:14 i think i am just stupid to not get this but this is just sounds plain incoherent like hoffman stuff which is not a "bonafide" theory. I really liked your objection here as well. If you can know that dashboard is of "monkey" well then you know something outside the dashboard. So the claims of evolution are either outside or inside the dashboard and if it is inside why doesn't it simply undercut the initial justification motivating the dashboard metaphor.

[@ElMois872]

The "dashboard" is still a representation of something that exists in reality, therefore evolution can be used to figure out things about reality. Just because it is a dashboard or a representation doesn't mean it has no correlation to an objective reality, if it was the other way around, we would be dreaming and the laws of physics would be inconsistent

[@ReflectiveJourney]

@ElMois872 i am afraid in the MAL framework you are not entitled to make claims about things in the objective reality. Don't forget space and time itself are dials on the dashboard. I see this as a fork: if you have a standard representationalist picture where representations are giving us an approximate picture of reality then physical representations are also giving us an accurate picture (unless you just want to be arbitrary) so why go idealism over physicalism. On the other hand, objective reality is completely different from our representations, then it undercuts the empirical justifications like evolution.

[@ReflectiveJourney]

@@ElMois872Also, if you can appeal to laws of physics, i can do the same and that just is physicalism ( ie being committed to the claims/theory of natural sciences).

[@crushinnihilism]

At least you're aware that you're not capable

[@crushinnihilism]

​​@@ReflectiveJourneywhat is the object reality beyond the dashboard? Kinda begging the question

[@ryanashfyre464]

I'm not entirely sure why Kastrup is taking Jonathan Schooler's work (good as it sounds for its limited scope) and projecting it onto the universe at large. After all, presumably there has to be some orienting mechanism by which our minds do this at all, otherwise it seems like one is just grasping at straws to explain how it is that this occurs in the first place. If that mechanism isn't Mind-at-Large, (which is to say that it itself is meta-conscious), then how has one not ventured into outright absurd territory? How is it that our minds know how to do this in the first place? And why would evolution be structured in such a way as to allow this to occur when Kastrup himself, as you noted in your original critique, has openly leaned strongly towards the idea that Mind-at-Large doesn't itself evolve? You were far kinder to Kastrup than I would've been on this issue. I found his explanation here quite weak.

[@sbenkimmie9579]

what it's like to bbb like mind at large.... mystery....

[@sbenkimmie9579]

what am i doing? ....

[@anteodedi8937]

Around 1:25:00 the objection you put forward absolutely rocks. The dude is caught in a self referentially defeating position, as he cannot validate his metaphysics. All goes back to Kantian assumptions which suffer from the problem of self-refutation because they exclude the possibility of knowledge about things in themselves, including your own cognitive faculties. Kant himself later shored up his theory in a non-epistemic way to avoid such unpalatable effects. He makes an exception to self-knowledge but that's totally an arbitrary exception. After all, wouldn't his alleged self-knowledge be a dashboard as well? The Kantian assumptions under which he operates don't allow that. Only by learning about the world as it truly is can we validate those faculties that allow us to learn in the first place, and thus it is theories that allow for this kind of knowledge that we must concern ourselves with.

[@donaldanderson6578]

All axioms are de-facto self-referential and are necessitated for ANY truth claims.

[@ryanashfyre464]

Indeed. Although I would submit such a problem is entirely one of Kastrup's own making, not one intrinsic to Idealism itself. For instance, one can entirely circumvent it by simply regarding one's experiences as genuine without appealing to an unverifiable metaphysics like Materialism. Simply regarding this particular world as a dream (in other words a mental creation) is much simpler and doesn't require us to invalidate the reality of our own experiences

[@pandawandas]

Why would the dashboard metaphor apply to self knowledge? It only applies to perception under kastrups metaphysics

[@anteodedi8937]

@@ryanashfyre464 I think that's possible, but with the cost of being a solipsist. For you to know reality as it truly is and for reality to be a mental creation, the only option is for reality to be your mental creation/your dream. Since solipsism is false (I think we all agree on that), and we know reality as it truly is, then reality is not a mental creation.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@pandawandas He is not consistent.

[@e-t-y237]

It seemed an embarrassed bluff to defend his sci-fi speculation. I like the dashboard idea to describe the incredible extent to which our brain transduces/interprets/creates a "reality" out of the quantum soup, but I think he's making a cult out of it. Interesting that last question, hashed out and hashed out then seemingly resolved as definitional to his model, whether correct or not. It was great the way Kastrup approached that. Hmmm.

[@huntertony56]

Man i really respect BK but holy shit he didnt answer alot of questions.

[@dmi3kno]

Kastrup's recent interview on [his] Daemonic possession OMG kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqSzYXZsqcmEf6M 😱

[@tiborkoos188]

Kastrup keeps making the claim that intrinsic physical properties don't exists because (some of these) do not become definite until we measure them. This is a false conclusion. First, there are intrinsic properties that are independent of measurement. The charge of the electron never becomes positive no matter how I measure it But the main problem is that the ability to perform a measurement, and that we can give precisely defined quantitate predictions on the probability distribution of the results means that physical things DO have physical properties -including the probabilistic nature of the observations. Most importantly, whatever the measurement problem implies it does not imply that everything is "mental" or "mind". That's sci fi.

[@mahasamatman12]

Kudos to Bernardo for engaging with someone who seems to lack the intellectual ability to fully understand what this is about, and produced some pretty silly "criticisms" in an earlier video. I mean, this so-called philosopher apparently hadn't even realized that Bernardo is a convinced monist !

[@OuroboricIdealism]

30:00 It is ironic that Kastrup identifies theoretical entities as convenient fictions when his “mind at large” concept, too, is a theoretical entity, cannot be given in a possible experience, and eo ipso is a convenient fiction. Kastrup’s position is more than naive, it is inconsistent. Furthermore, Kastrup’s insistence that representations definitely correspond to a thing-in-itself tacitly implies the very same transcendental realism that Kant showed inevitably is vulnerable to Cartesian skepticism (hence, why Kant developed empirical realism), to say nothing of the fact that insisting that representations definitely correspond to things-in-themselves involves circular reasoning. Nor can Kastrup appeal to representations to substantiate his transcendental realist hypothesis that representations definitely correspond to things-in-themselves (e.g., a mind at large), since this would amount to Johnsonian stone-kicking.

[@Mandibil]

I like your criticism. Seems like you can spot inconsistencies, contradictions and circular reasoning. All netaphysics is pure imagination imo. I have never seen any functional argument for an external world (beyond his socalled dashboard) neither from BK. He just takes it for granted. it does not matter whatever funny stuff one can come up with if there is no argument for an external world in the first place

[@clivejenkins4033]

BS

[@theostapel]

A yoga teacher once told me - that to search for consistencies - is the method for fools - in a life of meditation - this has sometimes exasperated me and yet helped to understand that ideally - we have to live and think - flexibly - until the end. Fare thee well - on life's journey

[@OuroboricIdealism]

@@theostapel The point is not necessarily to seek consistencies so much as to respect the limits of possible knowledge, and accept with humility that some things we can know (appearances) and other things we cannot know (alleged transcendent entities, e.g., some alleged transcendent mind-at-large). Although “we had contemplated building a tower which should reach to the heavens, the supply of materials suffices only for a dwelling-house, just sufficiently commodious for our business on the level of experience, and just sufficiently high to allow of our overlooking it” (Kant, KrV, A 707). “All metaphysicians are therefore solemnly and legally suspended from their occupations till they shall have answered in a satisfactory manner the question, ‘How are synthetic cognitions a priori possible?’, For in this answer alone consists the credential which they must present if they have anything to offer in the name of pure reason. But if they do not possess these credentials, they can expect nothing else of reasonable people, who have been deceived so often, than to be dismissed without further ado” (Kant, Prolegomena, §5). Kant’s insight that we might desire to “build a tower which should reach to the heavens” though we possess materials sufficient only for a dwelling-house at the level of experience remains powerfully relevant. Far from representing a mere restriction, this limitation provides the necessary foundation for genuine philosophical progress by establishing clear boundaries for human knowledge and understanding. My critique of Kastrup’s analytic idealism serves as a crucial reminder of these boundaries and the lamentable consequences of attempting to transgress them.

[@theostapel]

@@OuroboricIdealism Thank you for all this undeserved effort. You philosophers - are words smiths. And here am I - meditating on the heart - trying for experience - in silence - that is .. Fare the well - in life's journey