The relationship between consciousness and time - Bernardo Kastrup | Living Mirrors #10 clip

[@finallyfinally9317]

Thank you and please encourage people to like and comment so more people get to hear these very difficult topics made easier ! I really think alot of people would benifit. Thank you 😊

[@JamesDixonMusic]

Gardening, proper cradle to grave to cradle undermines your proposal

[@auntiethetical]

“You can’t have an experience in an instant?” How about experiencing your entire life in an instant? Believe me, it happens.

[@lookmagazine2667]

Change, experience and time seem to me to be synonyms. All arise in consciousness by virtue of memory.

[@askingEveryone]

If I may, I think the only meaningful way to think about time in a system (i.e. in the Universe) is: a built-in mechanism that implements change in the said system; in other words, time allows to distinguish between two different states in the system.A good analogy would be a CPU clock in a computer program. A side note: in a physical universe where everything is a function of time, two subsequent states _must_ be different, as otherwise the system will be "frozen", "dead". If there's such a thing as a "primordial consciousness" (a "higher level" consciousness that runs a simulation of our Universe), i'd think there has to be some kind of "time" built in it as well - because that consciousness is not static. Perhaps that "high level time" is something different from our time, but there's got to be some fundamental mechanism that supports change at that level too. I'd add that I very much enjoy Bernardo Kastrup's delivery of his ideas (and of course the ideas as well). Thank you for this interview!

[@tanjohnny6511]

Bernardo says ,the answer is in the question is the same as zen koan.the answer is in the question of one hand clapping.who is asking the question,the universal conciousness.🙂

[@jacey1963]

My problem with the idea of the non existence of time would be the question of why did memory and expectation evolve if there is no time? Also to my mind if there is no time why would we see decay? Also in relation to language, if the present 'moment' is infinitesimally small then do we parse a single word or maybe a phoneme at a time or less when we speak.....and hold the rest in memory, and why did language evolve as a linear process, why is language not immediate and knowable only in the present. I think the existence of time is intuitively correct because it does exist.I began writing this comment at one point in time and now I am writing at a different point in time and what I write next will be in the present but now that is in the past. It may be intangible this definition and measurement of the present moment but that doesn't mean it is all there is, in my opinion.

[@castorpollux24]

I think the argument is less that time doesn't exist but rather that it is not fundamental to reality. Much like Kastrup said, many physicists now say time began with the big bang, meaning it is epiphenomneal. Our perception of time evolved because it exists in a reality where time is an epiphenomenal reality but not a fundamental one.

[@mohitoness]

we don't have to think of expectation evolving. it can be a total construct of our culture. A squirrel keeps his nuts not because it has conception of a future but because of past harsh winters. there are people who go about without actively thinking about the future. the past doesn't need thinking about in the same way

[@newidealism3894]

Time is not an illusion. I don't say that to contradict Dr Kastrup, I defer to him; I just can't see how time is an illusion. I'm not saying time is real. I'm trying to say it's not *even* an illusion. It's a juxtaposotion. A comparison. It's the same as distance. Distance has no reality of its own, and there's also no illusion of distance. Time is a construct we use for communication. We juxtapose events against the movement of hands on a clock or the Earth around the Sun, and then we use it as a way of talking. The same as talking about distance in inches. But there is no illusion of inches. I understand what he means when he says idealism grants ontological reality to illusions. And that's why I wanted to stop and offer this: Time has no reality of its own, and it's also not *even* an illusion. At the end of the video, when Dr kastrop mentions the predictive power of time (t) in physics, that also does not make it qualify as an illusion. I found your channel just now because I was searching for what he says about the present moment. When I have an opportunity, I want to ask about his argument that only nothing exists. He describes the non-existence of the past and future, and then he describes the fleeting nature of the present moment, and he concludes that only nothing exists. I might be misunderstanding, but in case it turns out to be useful or in case someone can correct me and help me understand better, I'll offer this: If you can't point to the past or future and they don't really exist, that means the present moment is not fleeting at all. It's ongoing, something to rest in. We must not point out the non-existence of past and future, and then also say the present moment is fleeting. Something is real. When we notice the non-existence of past and future, we are floating on one ongoing moment. ❤🎉❤🎉 Thank you for this talk!

[@marianpalko2531]

13:00 freudian slip

[@shogun9450]

Kastrup is so dismissive it’s arrogant

[@johnnytass2111]

Look up Chronon Field Theory.