Rupert Spira | Consciousness Only vs Materialism

[@rezinatebasshead]

"What I am trying to say is that minerals are a very rudimentary form of consciousness. What these other people are trying to say is that consciousness is a very complex form of minerals. We're essentially saying the same thing, but they're looking at life like its "bleh" im looking at it like "well this is great, life is a good show" - Alan Watts

[@rezinatebasshead]

the entire universe is conscious. Not just certain conglomerations of particles in a certain configuration. Consciousness is the underlying reality of the cosmos

[@stevec8872]

@@rezinatebasshead confusion. They are saying the universe is "in" consciousness. Not that the universe possesses an "attribute" called consciousness. The second form still either makes matter primary, or makes it "parallel" with consciousness which then introduces the same problems of interaction in substance dualism.

[@desertportal353]

Einstein never quite accepted that space and time ceased when he fell asleep and that he might just be dreaming even his theories re: space/time. He always insisted that the moon was still "there" even when he wasn't looking at it. Got so close...but never quite made it over the threshold of his possible lucid dream from pure awareness. Thanks Rupert !!! Good interview!

[@williamcallahan5218]

"The "spirituality of the Tao, like the Brahman of Vedanta and the Dharmakaya, and so on, of Mahayana, arises from the fact that these nondual Absolutes cannot be understood reductively as some material substratum but are the source of all consciousness as well." David Loy - Non Duality

[@doriesse824]

I thought there wasn't supposed to be a 'source' of Consciousness?

[@simonenenkel405]

Wow, this is very cool. Credits to Mr. Spira.

[@PauldelJunco]

“Some of my best friends are scientists.”

[@JorgeRodriguez-nx5eq]

I think that the Materialist model will never bring peace and happiness among human beings because a materialistic mind will always focus in the differences between us.

[@indicphilosopher8772]

Yes, its a dualist point of view.. Which always creates problem

[@inglestaemtudo]

I would have suffered so much less if I had seen this a decade earlier

[@deanmccrorie3461]

What was making you suffer?

[@dtwdgentry9170]

Where all the views at. Thanks bro keep it goin

[@SimulationSeries]

Thank you!

[@gaiasmind4989]

Believing matter to be outside of conscious awareness is a thought form WITHIN conscious awareness. The primary experience of reality IS conscious awareness, thus matter existing outside of that experiential fact should be considered a theory. However, right now almost every human being on the planet is taking the Theory of matter existing outside of conscious awareness as FACT. It simply is NOT A FACT and the truth of that statement can be verified right now simply by looking. Let us begin our scientific explorations from the primary experience of reality.

[@tohuwabohu195]

I see your point; you stated it very well, and it makes a lot of sense. However, the "primary experience of reality" which you posit as the optimal cornerstone for our scientific explorations doesn't cover all of reality's manifestations. Some things definitely happen to us of which we have no conscious experience whatsoever. How does the consciousness-only model account for those events?

[@indicphilosopher8772]

@@tohuwabohu195 Consciousness is the starting point of scientific exploration..

[@indicphilosopher8772]

@@tohuwabohu195 We have no conscious experience of breathing, heart beat etc yet they perfectly happen without our mental interference..

[@danielpaulson8838]

This part smacks of religion. I love when Rupert teaches how to look at self. You can actually see the parts. But consciousness is what now? And the universe lives within it? And we humans are what, emergent organic pimples within the solid energy momentarily borrowing some of it for our own thought existence? Things that make you say, "Hmmmmm."

[@EnergyFlows2u]

Too many ads, completely ruined the interview experience

[@williamcallahan5218]

download AdBlock

[@AlvaroALorite]

There is however one issi that need to be addressed. For this theory, this neo-idealism if you will, to make sense for us (in this time in history) it has to be founded in materialism! We know about the structure of the universe, and other topics that have talked about here thanks to materialism. This same argument in the XII century would have led people to *believe* that there is a God, a "ulterior mind" of sorts; and I'd kind of did. This worldview stops us from making advancements, it seems. However, empirism, through science, has consistently discovered truths about the reality we experience and let us manipulate it to an extent.

[@indicphilosopher8772]

Spirit and matter both are important.. Extreme of any kind is foolish.. Yin and yang, spirit and matter.. Balance between these is needed

[@SuperStargazer666]

What does he mean matter has never been found, that matter is abstract? We ourselves are made of matter aren’t we? A brick flying towards us would be pretty real if it hit us in the face.

[@williamcallahan5218]

no one has ever encountered matter directly (not even science). our only relationship with matter is our perception of it. what is perception but an abstract interpretation of energy which we create concepts of and name. so you can get smacked in the head with a stone but that stone is essentially an unknown. we live in a world of illusion and assumptions. that is not to say that it isn't a real world, it is just saying that it is not real the way we imagine.

[@SuperStargazer666]

@@williamcallahan5218 But the fact that my experience of matter coincides with yours.... if I throw a ball, you are able to catch it... does this not imply the reality of matter, or should we dismiss matter as a shared illusion? Are we all in a mutually-experienced dream that is illusory in its nature?

[@radscorpion8]

@@SuperStargazer666 Moreover you can't alter matter through conscious willpower alone, suggesting it is not a mere extension of your, or anyone else's mind. Which is unlike one's thoughts and other ideas. So for any of this idealism to work you have to believe that there is some higher-power mind imagining all of our world with some fixed qualities that we can't change, but that this mind also imagines us as well, or somehow we exist in that person's imagination. And the fact that everything still works and we record the same results when we aren't looking at something, or when we're sleeping... Its really convoluted. Which is why its way simpler to just believe in material reality, or even some form of dualism if you have trouble believing consciousness can come out of a complex network of neurons. Rupert is just a crazy person :P. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of scientists would consider these sorts of views as obscure at best

[@halweststar]

@@SuperStargazer666 hey, your second question summarizes it, yes that is sorta what is happening, except the other people who are still dreaming however you tell them "they are dreaming" they would get into the same position as of yours right now, which it is not a dream for you unless you wake up from the dream, and waking up from the dream would not be some sort of like ahh this is a dream and you continue but more like you know what you actually are outside of the dream and you can simultaneously be in the dream and be awake from the dream, its a total ontological/epistimological difference that you would realize the way we/human make sense out of our human experience is actually the exact thing that has been keeping us in the dream and keeping us from seeing reality as for what reality actually is.

[@halweststar]

"we ourselves are made of matter" is not data collected from actual investigation like science, it's a supposition that are not grounded in empirical rigorous investigative results which makes it to be a blind belief or dogma. for the actual discovery of truth, nothing should be left behind, everything need to be investigated equally, any sort of supposed vantage points being left behind would deem the resulting investigation to be zero-error-proof, therefor false, and however the result appear to be true, it will only be partial, the problem arise when we think the result stands for something greater than what it actually stands for or when we generalize, more over the application for truth goes beyond the philosophy of science!