Solving the Paradoxes of Quantum Physics with Bernardo Kastrup

[@st.armanini9521]

Well I admit I have a long queue of New Thinking Allowed videos to watch, but Bernardo takes precedence over everybody!

[@fourshore502]

agreed, bernardo is the supreme boss!

[@joannesuzieburlison7128]

me too. I need to listen to these more than once.

[@fridusfroetzl]

Bernardo spoke with such eloquence and clarity! I am so happy I watched this conversation. Thank you for making it available.

[@METAMORA6329]

Thanks Jeffrey Mishlove for bringing these fascinating guests! I would like to see another encounter with Vernon Neppe delving into the study of Kabbalah. 🤗

[@fourshore502]

bernardo is probably my favorite guest of all time

[@SeekersofUnity]

This is truly mind-blowing. Thank you Jeffery and Bernado.

[@geoffkershaw4968]

Bernardo makes things so clear, eg An infinity of new universes created every moment is a cultural artefact. So much to learn from his depth of understanding the world

[@qooguy]

the double slit experiments reflect how I perceive my life here... what I pay attention to snaps into clarity (solid lines), what I am not consciously paying attention to, even if it is next to me or being loud, fades into the background (waves). why is that? perhaps because our inner and outer perceptions are the "two slits" and REALITY is the photon gun, and what we pay or don't pay attention is our perceived (individually interpreted) physical reality. our choices and the laws of probability gives us the contingent world, and our interactions gives rise to consensus reality... pretty much what Bernardo just said if I understand him.

[@harlanmueller7499]

Love the new intro. Bernardo is always worth listening to

[@katherinestone333]

Schopenhauer's metaphysical insights, in particular the role of the "will" in shaping the observed world, align also with the physicist John Wheeler's idea that we live in a "participatory" universe.

[@19582607]

Good association made Katherine!

[@adriancioroianu1704]

Sure, this is a key element in Plato, it goes back to him in idealism.

[@bradmodd7856]

it is a wonder how long it is taking to connect the dots from psychology, philosophy and physics to the basic conclusions of Bernardo and his kin, perhaps a clear lucid hero will emerge to champion and herald in this new era of thinking...because in 50 years this kind of conversation will be normal everyday cafe talk

[@elizabethdesousa8290]

yes! and yes!

[@pettiprue]

psychology, philosophy and physics and neuroscience !

[@francam853]

I can't imagine a more 'clear lucid hero' than Bernardo. Extraordinarily clear on the most abstract material!

[@jantaylor3884]

And the idea that mathematical philosophy is taking a leading role (where perhaps empirical physics can't go) was a light-bulb moment! Infinite gratitude to Bernardo's clarity.

[@nik8099]

It has already been connected for a while, yet it has been derided. Look into astrology.

[@QED_]

23:16 endogenous (adjective) : 2a: caused by factors inside the organism or system 2b: produced or synthesized within the organism or system

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

Endogenous retroviruses.

[@19582607]

Thanks for the explanation of endogenous. I couldn't find a definition.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

Never heard of this guy until happening upon his debate with TJump by chance just two days ago. Donald Hoffman presented to me the first coherent sounding defense of a non-Materialist worldview. In one of Hoffman's YT interviews someone mentioned that he was basically an Idealist (to which he basically agreed but chose to refer as conscious realism) and in a YT search for Idealism Vs Materialism I found the TJump debate. I know of TJump through his debates with fundamentalist Evangelical Creationists and apologists. I was in Evangelical circles all of my adult life until recently and coming out of them has been a very painful and bitter experience. The insanity and willing ignorance turned me off anything that even hinted at Theism or spirituality. This is my main issue with those interested in non-Materialist ideas: the lack of critical thinking. What I like about Hoffman and Kastrup is the very definite scientific approach they take to this stuff. I used to think the two basic choices were Theism and Atheism, but more fundamental than that is Idealism (which theistic ideas are a mere subset of) and Materialism (which atheism sits inside). So whether or not I ever adopt Idealism (and to be honest I think my religious experiences may mean I never strongly adopt one position ever again) I now genuinely see it as a strong contender against Materialism as a coherent worldview. It would also possibly make sense of many strange experiences I had as a youth that Materialism seems to struggle to explain (precognitive dreams for example).

[@_WeDontKnow_]

Exactly with you on this. I love the rigor and critical thinking Bernardo (Hoffman as well) bring. Something I'm not used to in the space of people advocating against materialism. If I have to disrespect or disregard science to be consistent with a certain belief, my brain won't accept it. Not everyone is like this, but people like Bernardo and Hoffman really speak to people like this.

[@frialsharefabdo6472]

💚 From Syria... We are all one pure love and one pure Consciousness

[@lookmagazine2667]

I would love to spend a week talking to Bernardo.

[@chadriffs]

We need a new interview with Bernardo now considering the breakthroughs in entanglement measurement.

[@amanitamuscaria7500]

This is what Vedanta calls the Real and the Apparent. This is the best, clearest, most direct explanation that can be grasped by the lay person (me - not stupid, but not a physicist or philosopher either) that I have ever heard. It isn't as comprehensive in detail as Vedanta, but it is obviously more connected with modern physics and Western philosophy. Excellent. Bernardo is wearing his cool coat of arms shirt. Love it.

[@QuantumSunya]

How strange it is that I have pointed out on several occasions that a great deal of the insights promoted by Kastrup, as his 'own' insights are basically derivative from Yogacara consciousness-only Buddhist metaphysics which was around 2nd century A.D. - in the work of philosophers such as Vasubandhu and Asanga and their philosophical descendants. Furthermore, in 2010 I self-published my book Quantum Buddhism: Dancing in Emptiness, wherein these Madhyamaka and Yogacara ideas in a quantum context are presented in greater detail and rigor. I was researching this stuff 40 years ago when at Sussex university under the direction of Hindu philosopher Pratima Bowles, a remarkable Indian woman head of the Religious Studies department in those bygone days. I returned to continue the research after significant 'spiritual' experiences and insights whilst living in a Buddhist center. I spent about 10 years researching the first book QB, which still contains insights not found anywhere else. Several people have contacted me to express amazement at the level of detail in my work, including highly qualified physicists and Buddhists. And yet I see some of these ideas being promoted by other people, in less precision, as if they were new discoveries on their part. This is NOT to say that I think Kastrup has plagiarized my work, I do not think this. I think he has no knowledge of my work, but that in itself is odd as I have published a great deal online and have written 6 books, it would seem to indicate a lack of rigorous research on his part. But nevertheless, I will say Kastrup's work is very good. I have been plagiarized by the New Age 'Propheteer' Paul Levy, who has also been interviewed by Mishlove, and I am about to publish a book exposing this man (Levy) for the New Age huckster that he seems to be. I am then going to think about what further action I might take. I am also about to publish a book about the great 'mystical' physicist David Bohm and Buddhism. This book has been endorsed by a highly qualified Buddhist physicist who is an expert in Bohm's work. It seems to be the case today that publishing independent work, no matter how accomplished it may be, is insufficient - one has to promote oneself on the internet. Oh dear, more work to do! - quantumbuddhism.org

[@bajajones5093]

doc, Bernardo needs to be on once at month at a minimum. thanks Bernardo!

[@tnvol5331]

Bernardo, What is Brian Greens take on your ideas? I would love to hear you debate him.

[@19582607]

Thank you Jeffrey and Bernardo. One of the most insight bringing interviews of the last months that I watched I wonder though why these days Tom Campbell is not associated with the metaphysical udeas, why he is not asked on the stage. Maybe his oeuvre is less scientifically recognized, but even if half based on intuition, his ideas fit narrowly to those of Bernardo, as far as I understand.

[@wanderingthepeaks]

Quite simply brilliant ... Materialism should resign, and at least save some face, before facing inevitable checkmate ... but it'll probably muddle on until the King is finally trapped. :)

[@georgitchkhaidze1127]

Great interview! Paradigm shift is happening right now!

[@BuckyHuxley]

Bernardo, speaking of the volitional states of the will, makes me wonder what he would say about the "witness consciousness," the idea that awareness or consciousness is more basic and apart from the objects such as desire or fear. As far as my understanding goes, not only meditation but phenomenology would hold that phenomena, occurring in thought, are objects FOR consciousness, appearing only by virtue of the light consciousness (or attention, or awareness) sheds on them----the projector light behind the film projected on the screen. I love what Bernardo is doing but I haven't yet heard him address this question.

[@silexvi]

I am also no physicist, but Nassim Haramein, who has worked a great deal with one of New Thinking Allowed's guests, Elizabeth Rauscher, seems to have a very convincing theory for unifying micro and macro physics. I've often wondered if the resistance to and silence regarding his persuasive theory is its massive implications for basically everyone in the field, much like what was said here regarding the hesitancy to accept an underlying transpersonal mind element (opting instead for a multiverse idea etc.). Haramein's theory is very compatible with esoteric cosmogony-cosmologies, while at the same time being mathematically powerful as a unifying theory (not requiring special rules/exceptions to mathematically fit a square peg into a round hole).

[@angelmarquez6359]

Absolutely brilliant! We must look at consciousness entangled with physics to understand our reality. But the point at the end about your personal perspective versus universe, that's really interesting because that's the question; how much control do we have. Thanks everyone, loved the new intro too.

[@samrowbotham8914]

We all inhabit our own phaneron.

[@goertzpsychiatry9340]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2mXn6t5qLajq9U

[@hook-x6f]

Nobel prize in physics 2022 has been awarded to three physicists working on Bell's theorem for over fifty years. They have proven by experiment that there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics. God does play dice and there is spooky action.

[@momsazombie1]

Jeffrey is in his 70s?! He looks like a man in his 50s, and still so sharp-minded. Thank you both of you for this very clear and profound conversation.

[@Josbi]

Jeff, the new intro looks awesome, but don't get rid of the old theme song, it sets the perfect mood for your videos, this new one doesn't really match your channel's personality... The old narrator was also better imo, just my 2 cents!

[@sisterseeth]

Jeffrey's side-to-side head bobble reminds me of a cat shaking it's tail before it pounces. It makes me so very happy.

[@butterflymagicwithhottea9291]

Hey Jeff, BTW I like the new intro bit you have recently. It's very bling-y. Settling down now to watch this video. Thank you for all you do for your viewers. I truly appreciate your channel!

[@compellingpeople]

Hurrah, my favorite guest!

[@fourshore502]

agreed.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

The only thing i don't like about BK is that Deepak Chopra is forewording some of his books, that guy is a monument of vanity. I love BK and this channel is a treasure i discovered it recently and i'm addicted now, i need to exhaust all my fields of interest now.

[@floydwilkes9904]

Quite a feast for the imagination. Perhaps the creative thinker first managing to coherently connect all the dots and ideas in this roiling stew, will become to the Aeon of Aquarius what Yeshua of Nazareth was to the Aeon of Pieces? Excellent episode. !

[@FranciscoJavier-ld8lo]

Thanks for another fascinating interview

[@LeeGee]

13:00 - on quantum entanglement as a means of transmitting information at speeds faster than that of light. Am I right in understanding Mr Kastrup (

[@LeeGee]

The scarab appeared at the window as a scarab was mentioned appearing in a dream -- if there is no causal link, and I have no reason to think there can be, what brought about the synchronicity/coinciding of events...? One of the fundamental questions that seemingly requires a radical answer, where 'scarab' and 'dream' are variables with a large range of values from my own limited experience.

[@ashflix123]

I’m surprised the observer effect was not addressed in the later part of the discussion.

[@samrowbotham8914]

What about the Experimenter Effect and the Pauli Effect most people have never heard of them.

[@tnvol5331]

Who are the non materialist physicists from the past? Bohm, Plank, Heisenberg ? anyone know?

[@hook-x6f]

Erwin Schrodinger, Neils Bohr, Planck, Bohm were all non materialists, and Heisenberg said materialism is an illusion.

[@leeds48]

Most all the quantum founders ended up voicing support for idealism - i.e., consciousness is the most fundamental - including Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli - for sure. And Bohr, too, I think, if memory serves. But they were Nobel laureates and could say what they actually thought. And of course, idealism is opposed to materialism.

[@tnvol5331]

@@leeds48 Thanks.

[@davidsillars3181]

Excellent. Looking forward to Peter B Todd's next appearance too.

[@jediwarlock1]

The moment i open my eyes, i observe what i see, by observing, i am entangled to all that i observe, entangled quantum systems shares information. Tesla gave us a hint, think in matter of frequencies, energy and vibration. When you vibrate on the right frequencies, your energy then fuels into your entangled surroundings, this is basic quantum mechanics at work. You observe, and by observing in synchronization with your internal frequencies, vibration and energy, as you start to observe with this framework perspective in mind, play around a bit until you notice certain external responses to based on which frequencies you vibrate on. Map out which 'strings' effect different mechanics in your immediate surrounding, eventually you can then start working on engineering that which you observe. Fun little mental play to start practice the new art of quantum sciences. Be advised, most quantum scientists advanced in the field go a little ''crazy'' with all its new implications on reality as we 'understood' it, It is said that when you truly understand quantum sciences and how it all relates to your reality, then how could you not go a little ''crazy'' heh. But get out there, experiment with entanglement and the ripples you create by simple quantum mechanical engineering techniques, and look for immediate responses, which all depends on your current perspective / framework, and to which frequency you are vibrating on (frequency and vibration can translate to thought and emotion), and if your energies are positively charged, then that which is entangled, will be positively charged as well, making positive responses to that which is entangled by you, based on the framework perspective in focus and so on, It is you who decides when things entangle, by observing that which you want to entangle. Something to think about at least. I may not have put it perfectly, but that is basically how to start experiment with the quantum reality we live in. Good day, and may your science research go with ease, think of how the sciences apply to reality, because if you can't visualize what is said, and not connect it to reality, then you may have a harder time understanding what is being said by these top scientists in the quantum field, it all sounds like nonsense, until you understand how it relates to reality, then the game begins. Good luck out there, all the answers you seek are already here, it is just spread out over several different theories, but if you combine some of the latest theories, you will see the big picture of how this is all connected. A unifying theory is coming. Understand the observer can chose what to observe, before observing it, with these simple techniques. Farewell Traveler.

[@johnnytass2111]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Have you heard of Chronon Field Theory? Apparently it's a theory that gets rid of any metaphorical language terms from the mathematics of physics. The only language term that could not be eliminated from this theory was Time. I think it posits that everything that can be consciously observed is (or can be) observed by the entire Chronon Field of Time. I heard the scientists leading these studies are applying for patents to be able to turn any one aspect of physics into any other aspect, meaning turning gravity into electricity and vice versa. I'm no expert, though, so who knows if this is bunk.

[@tonytinderal]

Great discussion. Information transmission can be transmitted faster than the speed of light imo. Telepathic thought is faster surely?

[@hook-x6f]

Entangled minds probably come from quantum entanglement. That's faster than the speed of light.

[@rejophilipjose7763]

Great talk

[@mattbartlett0]

Theoretical information transfer FTL has now been proven by Anton Zeilinger, winner of the 2022 novel prize. Though it presents tremendous engineering challenge, Anton has experimentally proven the concept. Look up some of his videos on KZbin where he explains things. This video is 3 years old so perhaps Bernardo has updated his views on this.

[@mismass7859]

Entanglement, like a pair of fingers sticking into flatland appearing as two individual particles, they seem to be connected faster than the unique speed of light in flatland even though the two particles are on opposite side of their flatlandverse, spooky action at a distance they cry in 2D flatland. Meanwhile in 3D/4D the dude with the two fingers, body and brain and his own unique speed limit of light wonders what the fuzz is all about in flatland, there’s nothing spooky going on here in my 3D world and it all happens according to our natural laws, over here my fingers are just inches apart and they both belong to the same body and brain, and I know exactly what happens to both of them at any given time. Entanglement seems like magic to flatlanders because it breaks 2D laws, but not 3D laws where the source of the phenomenon originates. The moral of the story, particles are multidimensional and different laws apply in higher dimensions. Of course particles don’t even fundamentally exist, they’re just information, and information is just consciousness, and consciousness and creation is one and the same, which is a subset of the source of it all, awareness. Fundamentally source is just playing with itself exploring creative potential. P.S. If you’re looking for the source of gravity, it also lives in a higher dimension, and we get to taste some of its effects over here in 3D/4D. My two cents.

[@seandotexe]

YO A NEW INTRO AND BERNARDO!!!!!

[@solarpoweredafricanvegansp178]

Oh wow! Jeffery is still alive?! I used to watch his show 30 years ago!

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Bernardo thanks so much Thanks so much

[@jackdugan5566]

hey Jeffrey I've watched a bunch of your videos. you often say there is lots of evidence for paracyhology.. what are some good examples or books that contain the evidence for paraphyscology. can you make a list for new comers to this subject?

[@jackdugan5566]

or anyone else who reads this comment?

[@jantaylor3884]

@@jackdugan5566 Cardeña, E, Lynn, SJ & Krippner, S 2017, 'The Psychology of Anomalous Experiences: A Rediscovery', Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 4-22. Daher, J, Damiano, R, Lucchetti, A, Moreira-Almeida, A & Lucchetti, G 2017, 'Research on Experiences Related to the Possibility of Consciousness Beyond the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Output', Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, p. 37.

[@jackdugan5566]

ok thanks I'll check it

[@pettiprue]

Nice new intro mate!

[@peggyharris3815]

It appears as if Bernardo equates 'manifesting' with 'wishful thinking'. THANK GOD!

[@MrSanford65]

I think representation also includes scale. In other words, There can be no hole or empty space in the field of complete reality so therefore particles that are entangled have to be impacted by even smaller particles between them that we can’t see because of our larger scale and relationship to the environment. Every inch of physical reality has to be covered in a field of physicality. There can be no other way.....

[@ABC-tt1ig]

How do they un entangle the particles and put them at large distances to test that they remain in entanglement ?!

Love your channel. But I need to keep being a critic. Change the intro! Shorten the time and but maintain the old jingle!

[@CactusLand]

Hi Jeffery, love the new intro.. looks and sounds great, congrats!

[@Ser.gioBueno]

Amazing 🤩

[@joaquinizquierdo769]

I think that is time to watch again 2001 Space Odyssey right after the elimination of the main computer scene and from Jupiter and beyond, that’s the revealing element.

[@stephanietretton7508]

can a telescope look at its self... can a microscope look at its self... a telescope is a microscope in reverse and a microscope is a telescope in reverse... in a microscope, a small portion of the world is magnified into the microscope... in a telescope, a small portion of the world is magnified into the telescope... so inside that telescope/microscope is both worlds... the very large and the very small working perfectly in harmony... without any paradox's... we are that very looker right in the middle.

[@mikewazzupski]

cool metaphor!👍

[@samrowbotham8914]

It is all being imagined. Rupert Sheldrake told me that when people first looked down the microscope scientists were seeing the homunculus of whatever animal they took blood from. This is pareidolia the same problem presenting itself germane to Virology.

[@nayr6161]

Ok, but how do we all share the same coherent universe. We would all have to have the same mental qualities

[@nik8099]

Individuals, places, things, objects, events, etc. are bundles and synergies of similar and/or different energies. Look into astrology.

[@nayr6161]

Nader Abed what does this have to do with my comment

[@TheEvda]

Fascinating.

[@leandrosilvagoncalves1939]

Of course the universe is mental. And of course, if possible it must be amazingly hard to control this mental universe according to our will. I can't even control my OCD lol

[@cx777o]

Maybe meditation and the realization that you are not your thoughts might help, it has helped me in many ways

[@48tomw]

“What Tesla accomplished is the greatest discovery in mankind. The transmission lines you see everywhere, along the roads in every place you go, these allows us to have a giant drive shaft that we can take rotary motion from like a massive turbine plant and convey it thru an electromagnetic structure that operates with reflected waves and time frames. This work just like a drive shaft, it bounces back and forth, twists, and rotates. But you can stand outside and look at those thick power lines that go down any public street and in the space between those lines, the energy there is the energy of a giant railroad locomotive moving at 95% of the speed of light down the space between those wires, and there is no evidence that anything at all is happening except that the wires are slightly pushed apart and warm. So it’s a type of drive shaft that exists in another dimension. Then you put the synchronous machine on the other end (of that power line) and you couple out of that (electrical) drive shaft like a transmission and you have rotary force again. These things (rotary Tesla generators) are no more than stamped iron in patterns. By making this special arch form and its influences on the formative forces in the Ether ...Tesla’s invention is the most powerful arch form the human race has ever conceived.” - Eric P Dollard

[@48tomw]

There are only two dimensions, the first is Space and the second is Counter-Space. What we think of as three dimensions are only cartesian coordinates. Tesla also said space has no properties only attributes but the ignoramus Einstein thought differently because he was retarded in some way thus we've been stuck with another mind virus and that is spacetime which has been glued to gravity in some mathemagical reification process. Mathematics can only describe something, only a properly functioning human mind can Explain something. Tesla said more than once that one can think deeply and yet be insane.LOL

[@travisqueen1628]

The answer to life, the universe, and everything is quite simply. 42... it's the question that is most important... What is 6x7? I can't believe that he quoted Douglas Adams sci-fi spoof... lmao!

[@dacovaz]

However, the cat exists physically inside the box before you open it and is observed. It is not a (transpersonal) mental process. This is what Einstein ment: The moon is still there even when I don’t see it.

[@Cpt_Guirk]

The interviewer reminds me of Art Bell. He probes the guest and then gets out of the way.

[@samrowbotham8914]

All paradoxes melt away when you realize this reality is simulated.

[@hook-x6f]

I am you and you are me and we are altogether. See how we fly like pigs in a sty, see how we fly.

[@Melaki22]

My question is: if consciousness creates matter, and things just unfold through consciousness and present themselves in many forms, from where does consciousness originate? Is it just our minds or even plants, is a stone even conscious? If mind creates matter through mind, must the matter itself not be mind also, and therefore being able to observe?

[@APaleDot]

Bernardo is an Idealist, which means he believes that reality is fundamentally mental. Consciousness is the basis of reality. Not "your" consciousness or "my" consciousness, because "you" and "me" are just stories that we tell ourselves. Rather, there is only one consciousness which we all share which _is_ the universe. Rocks and trees and such are just particular aspects of this consciousness which are outside of the story of "me". Just like a physicalist, Bernardo believes everything is made of the same stuff, but because the only thing we know for sure exists is our own consciousness, he believes the whole universe is simply this one consciousness which has figured out how to separate itself into pieces by telling itself a fictional story about itself, much like you do when you dream.

[@adamstephens9043]

This is one of very few points where my views diverge from Bernardo's. I refer to it as the "animist intuition". Bernardo supposes that metabolism is the image of the process of dissociation, so he would say that plants and all other living things are conscious, but that's not good enough for me. Our bodies are objects of awareness and are the images of processes of dissociation (I still prefer his old way of referring to it as a process of localization and obfuscation, but understand why he went with dissociation). This is our starting point. I would argue that it's more reasonable to suppose that all objects of awareness somehow have this same interiority. Bernardo doesn't completely disagree with this, but supposes that the interiority behind a rock is the interiority of the whole Universe, therefore the idea is that the conscious beings that exist are each individual metabolizing organism, the Universe as a whole apart from those organisms, and then, perhaps, the conscious agents with no "physical" form such as the archetypes of the "unconscious". I think Bernardo is viewing dissociation too strongly as an either-or thing. When you're driving and lost in thought, not thinking about the process of driving, you are dissociated from that. That dissociation is not complete and collapses readily. This is what I suppose is true for non-living things like rocks. Bernardo sometimes uses the image of a rock rolling and bouncing down a mountain to think about whether a mountain is conscious. I would suppose that, yes, the mountain is somehow conscious and so is the rock. The rock's consciousness is contained within the consciousness of the mountain, but it can separate from it, and perhaps carries a bit of the mountain's consciousness with it. I also suppose that the consciousness of a rock is akin to a static, enduring thought or feeling, very unlike our own. Bernardo is more right than not that the consciousness behind the mountain is the consciousness of the whole of the Universe, but I think it matters that the mountain and the rock present themselves to us as individual things. The mountain's consciousness is perhaps contained within the consciousness of the whole biome about it and/or the whole mountain range, which are in a step-wise manner contained within the consciousness of the Earth as a whole. Bernardo would probably find this needlessly complex, because it makes it hard to identify the individual "alters" but the fact is that people throughout the world, throughout history, have consistently spoken of such things as the spirits of mountains, lakes, and forests. We seem to have some access to this. We also speak of the spirits of communities. I do think something may be created by emergence when things interact, so there are spirits of communities and places. They just aren't so strongly dissociated as we are. Similarly, I think that we as dissociated alters are not such discretely unified things. I do think there are processes within us that are themselves more or less strongly dissociated. We are the collection of those things, and in just the same way, the consciousness of the Earth as a whole is a collection of the individual consciousnesses that compose it in two distinct ways that overlap and merge together. My use of language here can be misleading, as I feel forced into speaking of the consciousness of individual things, when ultimately there is only one consciousness of which we all are a part.

[@PanLamda]

Disagreeing on Bernardo's interpretation of Schopenhauer on the difference between will or "endogenous states" and representation or "exogenous states". Desires, urges, wants, volitions etc. are based on emotions/affections which one can state that there are representations (sensations/perceptions) of bodily (interoceptive) states.

[@samrowbotham8914]

What comes first the thought or the feeling?

[@marineboyecosse]

Was there a reason that the comment I wrote to this video was removed?

[@st.armanini9521]

This video was posted 20 minutes ago, on July 10. Your comment says "3 days ago". I recognize a time traveler when I see one! :D

[@marineboyecosse]

@@st.armanini9521 Hello Stefano. If you scroll up to the description under the video head you will see text that says the following: For a complete, updated list with links to all of our videos, see newthinkingallowed.com/Listin... Go to the link and you will find videos with a "release by" date. I made my comment on the video when it appeared there...which was over a week ago. Have a good day.

[@aartigandhi962]

Just superb

[@araujosandri8561]

Vontade-Representação; Bhairava-Bhairavi; Shiva-Shakti; Prakasha-Vimarsha, Na verdade a construção de Schopenhauer tem um paralelo próximo com o não-dualismo do shaivismo de Caxemira, não do vedanta, onde Brahman é estático e o mundo ilusão, Maya sem realidade.

[@adventuresinawareness]

Thanks Jeffrey for this! If anyone is intrigued or even persuaded by Bernardo's view, you may enjoy an upcoming course where we've invited him to expound on what it means for how we understand our lives, relationships, death and mystical experiences - hope to see some of you there :) dandelion.earth/events/5f4aa8fb38d1ae00164c91ee

[@moesypittounikos]

Jung took the idea of synchronicity from an essay written by Schopenhauer.

[@FR-yr2lo]

'' before they are observed they don't exist physically, they exist as a mental state, a transpersonal mental state out there, which essentially constitutes what we call the shared world, and it is by interacting with this transpersonal mental context that we bring physicality about on the screen of our perception.” What does this mean? I read almost all of your books but THIS is the point I don't understand.

[@nathanielm4033]

Reality is analogous to wavelike perturbations, arising from the Void. That is what all avenues of enquiry are telling us. The observer and the experiment are in the same rate of vibration and therefore exist at the same harmonic node. A still point between "inner" and "outer". So we are not aware of the vibrational aspect of reality - except in boundary states , such as sleep paralysis, where the interaction of *seemingly" inner and outer waveforms are undeniable. (lucidity, or feedback/interference in scientific terms ). Subjectively huge experiences moving through the observer and the observed. Usually describe as electrical , vibrational or ascending tones. These are intimations of wavelike QM phenomenon. The same terms have always been used to describe other worlds and NDE;'s long before we knew about the wavelike foundation of reality - "vibrations", light that is everywhere at once, beings that respond to certain patterns of sound. SP tell us that reality is vibrational and constructive - its important, please look at the data. We can observe altered states from outside, and gain information, but we cannot account for the hyper real seeming experience and subjective time dilation in terms of the waveforms ,observed because we are outside the frame of reference, (shared rate of vibration) in the same way as us observing a hypothetical star ship moving toward C. We are in a different time frame. Time is not explainable in objective terms. Some have posited that is out measurement of peaks between waves. We may experience time dilation or even hyper real experience subjectively - dreams lasting days - life review - which will be characterised by anomalous waveforms in the brain. REM, gamma band activity. But from our frame of reference at the waking harmonic we cannot ever see it - as is - as we are in the same node - the observer - the observation - the equipment - and fellow experimenters are all t the same node or frequency of consciousness where we are not aware it is constructive vibrotational aspect. However, MRI's will show the altered waveforms. But the altered waveforms are tell f a process that extends beyond what we call time. See Penrose who has suggested that a photon may not experience time. In NDE's some aspect of what we describe as a photon is moving outside space/time - remember for it to be there for a moment, it is always there. This is how information is captured outside spacetime, when to us it looks like entropy. or disorder . From Mr K's perspective. Reality is a wavelike medium, material or mental. It doesn't matter. The observable (associated rather than disassociated) aspects are because. the inner and outer wavefroms interact through frequency to produce stable harmonic nodes. where we are - not aware of this constructive and vibrational aspect of reality. These nodes are disrupted by experiences such as psychedelics and NDE's when the like for like internal and external waveforms are no long in synchronisation, or phase lock. We can observe this from our frame as altered wavestates in MRI that seem to produce or reveal deeper experience, but we cannot measure how they react like for like with "external"wavestates because we cannot measure quantum fields to this degree. It's likely they are very subtle. However I can tell you from sleep paralysis they are very energetic at our human internal level. Way more powerful than ordinary physical sensations. We'd need to measure the subtle fields within and outside the body to tell for sure. Bear in mind they are not really "inside" or "outside". Just reprensations. There are nodes existing at higher rates of vibration, we call them astral, NDE etc. I don't know what they are. The point is they appear stable and we are not aware of this vibational constructive creation of reality - we are only lucid of the state - which appears stable. Its only boundary states that are the tell.

[@hook-x6f]

Sometimes you learn from the comments. Thank you for that.

[@mattd8725]

Quantum physics does not predict how time works on the very large scale so how can we take seriously the implications of what it predicts happening "at the same time" over very large distances?

[@samrowbotham8914]

Time is Illusionary. So are numbers. This should wake you up to it all being an illusion.

[@marineboyecosse]

I still have not received a reply on why a substantial comment I made, which contained no offensive content and was a thoughtful and considered response to Bernardo's video, was mysteriously deleted. I would be grateful for any illumunation Jeffrey might throw on this. It certainly wasn't deleted by me...

[@NewThinkingAllowed]

I see that there was a lengthy comment by you, posted a week ago. It has not been deleted.

[@marineboyecosse]

@@NewThinkingAllowed That's very peculiar. It has completely gone for me, on different browsers. Took me a fair old slice of spacetime to write. Anyway, not that important I guess...

[@sleethmitchell]

science is the study of magic.

[@fourshore502]

umm wait a minute at 9.40 and is he saying that science is basically at a point where they have to admit the existence of god? neat!

[@davidwise3426]

Interesting.

[@lbc161]

The new intro is so long that I went out for a bite while it played out.

[@delawareciao6428]

It's redundant, tbh. Doesn't fit the content, nor Jeffrey's personality.

[@elizabethdesousa8290]

good thing your not in charge :0

[@nik8099]

Physics cannot even directly demonstrate if atoms exist.

[@leeds48]

It has pretty much demonstrated that they don't exist physically, at least. More and more, theoretical physcists use the term "particle" in a metaphorical sense only. Now they talk about "fields." And a field is not a thing - it's an empty space.

[@new-knowledge8040]

What the HECK ??? New thinking is NOT allowed at all. Imagine that you dropped out of school, and thus in turn you have no physics background education, but in your spare time you proceed to analyze "Motion", and do so because you have noticed something odd about motion that no one else seems to have noticed at all. As the result of your analysis of motion, you independently discover the Special Relativity(SR) phenomena, and you also then independently derive the SR mathematical equations, including deriving the Lorentz Transformation equations. All of these derivations, were also done in a completely new manner, a manner that has not even been thought of before. Now because new thinking is ABSOLUTELY not being allowed these days, you end up being violently opposed, ridiculed, laughed at, etc., all due to you discovering SR and its equations, in a completely new and independent manner. WHY IS THAT ?????

[@samrowbotham8914]

Because everything is carefully controlled and no one is allowed to upset the Status quo.

[@new-knowledge8040]

@@samrowbotham8914 Sorry if I sounded a bit grumpy. After I threw my YT Special Relativity videos together, I was totally shocked as to how much opposition I received due to my methods not being of the standard methods. I got lots of thumbs down, and plenty complete rejections by both university teachers and one physicist, both of which had their own YT channels. I dropped out of school, so I had absolutely no education in physics at all. My way of thinking was just not welcome within the school system. So I had to start from scratch when starting my quest to gain an understanding of the basics concerning the structure of reality, and over time I succeeded. So the weird thing is, that if you can do all that by yourself, in today's world you are not thought of as being an intelligent person. This reminds me of some of the so called intelligent MIT graduates. Several of them were handed a battery, a small light bulb, and a piece of wire. They were each then asked to use the materials given to them to make the light bulb light up. They all failed. Something no more difficult than making a cup of coffee, quickly went right over their heads. What this most often means, is that if you are not that bright, but you are a knowledgeable person, then you are listed as being an intelligent person. If on the other hand, you are an intelligent person, but not very knowledgeable, then you are classified as being nothing but a hopeless case, and as a person that is not to be listened to.

[@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt]

The host reminds me of the 🌈 guy on Project Runway

[@silentvoice9168]

That is because there is NO such thing as gravity! Only electro-magnetism. As soon as you apply that it will all make sense. Nothing worse than DOGMA.

[@JimHabash]

maybe, maybe. That would knock socks off. I'd like to see it

[@frankfeldman6657]

Just listen to the real thing, people, e.g., Swami Sarvapriyananda

[@stephanietretton7508]

can he not see... can he not see beyond the words he reads, beyond that math... those paradoxes need his mind to look... to look beyond those words so as he can do some deep thinking... no measurement is needed inside the mind, because all shapes are in a constant movement... its the flow of the thought that "is" the fact... to say Einstein was, and is wrong, and proven!.. to me shows that this man is but a child compared to Einstein! if... then... end... if you believe in the big bang, the big crunch, and the big expansion... then you are inside an illusion... if... then... goto... tell... if I desire a silver spoon so as I can see my food... if the desire for gold is only to put on the edges of my furnishings so as I can see those too in the dark... if I desire silver n gold and things of the reflective types to light up my world so I "can" see all those hidden things... then you would call that person a very wise person indeed... because they have no paradoxes... they only have answers... Thx... Einstein had the answers... a static cosmos that is... and always has being... if you were to ask me what is a brain, and which brain was my favorites, I would say the brain is a tool for the heart... a creator of compassion... a creator of compassion from chaos into an order... the heart starts to beat to the rhythms of its mothers, once its in tune it then starts up the brain... now both working as one unit seeking true order, true love, true compassion... born into a world that has no order just chaos everywhere... that baby's journey has just begun... Einstein spent his whole life from being a baby to his death, without being programmed, to seek, to look, to understand the cosmos... that Order... he was my favorite because they who condemn this legend have a need to cheat in their math to fool others that he was wrong... but to me from my point of view in this now he hit the nail on it head!!! you see, if he is right and he was, then the big bang is just a paradox because there never was one... if I am standing on a railway line, a straight railway and look down the two parallel tracks that I have just laid, I will see them come together, come to a point... this as we all know is an optical illusion... well, what if time was doing the very same thing and when I look back in time it seems to come to a point... a big bang I could think... my brain is saying that, that is just an illusion too where the railway lines come to a point, did the track start there?, no... because as I walk down that track to well after that point, and measure the track, I see it to be just the same, no difference at all, this proves to me that the point which the lines appear to meet is just an illusion.

[@realcygnus]

I'm not sure exactly what you're "on" about. 🤣 Though he didn't live to see it, there is very little to argue about the fact that his 1935? EPR entanglement paper turned out to eventually be demonstrated wrong by experiment. From the 1st actual tests of Bell's inequalities in the 70's to ALL subsequent entanglement experiments since. He was ONLY wrong about entanglement. As far as Einsteins best & most well-known work, Special / GR, it is perhaps thE most validated theories science has ever had. Still gaining supporting evidence after over a century. Einstein is a GIANT, nobody(especially BK) thinks otherwise, aside from those "EU" douchebags. 🤣

[@stephanietretton7508]

@@realcygnus... hi... Einstein would never in a million years use the word "spooky"... if you own a pair of gloves, one in the north and one in the east, the exact moment you come across the one in the north, the one that fits your right hand, you know that the one in the east is... the left glove... the information is instantly known, as if there is no space for that information to travel in. lets say the distance between any two objects is 0 now lets start to expand that 0... lets times it by say 100... need I go on... do you see...