Why Materialism is Baloney

Part 3 of Essentia Foundation's and Keytoe Academy's joint course on analytic idealism and its implications.

[@johndough23]

What you are describing is the very essence of modern commerce. One based almost entirely around quantity and not quality. The more rare something is (quantity), the more of the units of exchange are needed to buy it (quantity). The value is almost entirely quantity based. Everyone knows the quantity but not the quality. This scarcity thinking leads to the dehumanization of life by reducing everything to the monetization process.

[@indicphilosopher8772]

Capitalism 👍

[@skybellau]

I can't thank you enough Bernado. After watching them all and especially the German woman's blind alters analogy, you have given us all a LOT more to consider. This broader perspective can help us prepare to understand many unexplained hidden variables. Thanks immensely. Now to catch my preconconcieved blindnesses as I watch them all over again 🖖

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@ReLoops]

amazing text my friend! whats your opinion on the idea that this indivisible entity might constitute all the universe, at the smallest scale, and since consciousness isnt a emergent property, would it make sense to assume that every single “thing” (particles, fabric of the universe idk) has a soul / or is conscious just like us but in their given “body”? in this idea, everything (and the whole existence) must have a consciousness to exist… kinda like if all that exists is conscious entities which correspond to the universe and things we see maybe im wrong, but i think Pantheism is basically that. again, congratulations and thank you for this elite text!

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@ReLoops The idea that everything is conscious is called panpsychism, and I think that panpsychism is utter nonsense since the physical objects are decomposable in simpler elements, while my arguments prove that consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, the laws of physics explain the behavior of particles without the need to assume that particles must be conscious. Panpsychism , as well as pantheism, is only an irrational superstition that anthropomorphizes natural phenomena, a superstition devoid of any empirical, scientific or rational basis, such as astrology, magic, cartomancy, etc. Since ancient times, man has shown a marked tendency to anthropomorphize nature and panpsychism is the result of this attitude. The fundamental property of consciousness, as we directly experience it, is subjectivity, i.e. the immediate and intuitive awareness of oneself as an indivisible unit, our "I". Consciousness is inherently subjective because a subject is an intrinsic property of experience, and subjectivity cannot be broken down into simpler elements / pieces. So, the term “consciousness” always refers to a subject who has a mental experience. For example, when we feel pain, what exists is not pain alone but “we who feel pain”; the “we” is an intrinsic part of the experience of pain. The same is true for any action: for example, there is no “walking” without a “walking subject”. The idea that an experience can exist without an experiencer is simply a nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression “spherical cube”, which is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless expressions and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while they are devoid of any meaning. The idea that consciousness or a mental experience can be subjectless, in the sense that it does not imply a unitary subjectivity that has a mental experience, is an illusory idea exactly like the idea of ​​a spherical cube or the idea that there may be a “walking” without a “walking subject”. Another fundamental empirical fact is that my mental experiences are independent of other people's mental experiences, which means that many distinct souls exist. What distinguishes science from supertitions or philosophical speculations is that science is a combination of logic and empirical evidence, and the most fundamental and direct empirical evidence is that we are the subject of our mental experiences.

[@metrologe]

@@ReLoops no (to the question). what should that "thing" be? matter/ material again? we were already further, no? consciousness is fundamental, why re-bind it onto matter? much more plausible: matter is a representation "condensate" of a "local part" (maybe "turbulance") of consciousness. The whirlpools "form illusions" of seperate individuals (subjects and if you like "objects"), but the flow is one.

[@ReLoops]

@@metrologe im afraid i do not have such knowledge to understand this at first, sorry my friend. what do you mean by “consciousness” is fundamental”? Please correct me if im wrong, but what i could visualize after reading that part of “turbulence” is that there is one consciousness that is diffused “infinitely”, thus creating the illusion of material. is it something in this sense? i now actually think this is a better approach than the one on my previous comment. im highly interested in this topic my friend, any information is welcome! thank you for the response and the insight! really appreciate it

[@metrologe]

​@@ReLoops In deed, all our (my) explanations are products of our consciousness where our mind might be counted part of, part of. And this of course is trust in own reasoning, maybe also called belief. I wanted to express, that for me it is very reasonable that matter that created the brain in this universe's "nature" is most likely (see few open-minded actual scientists of different genres) not at the base of reality and the new physics after Newton is not up to date (they know it, still hoping to find answers with insufficient methods, what I believe). Rather deeper parts of consciousness (not the brain-created ego) could bring much more consistent explanations when being closer to the base or even be the base of reality. Note that my putting into words of these things is an insufficient attempt, because it's an attempt with the matter-based tool of my brain. To experience it, there are no words and it is an individual way and here is the reason why it is not a scientific way/ method possible - so what is the purpose then :-)? Exploration, development beyond the present limitations, maybe and also some better ideas for scientific problems of the last decades, meaning projections into the scientific realm. I am electrical engineer, used to see myself as atheist, better call me sceptic, agnostic at this (temporary) state.

[@stressaccount7664]

I've been diving into this topic and feel if we can get past this religious zeal for materialism / scientism we will have the possibility to solve many pathologies in the world such as nihilism. There has been a sort of schizophrenic split since modernity and this atomizing view of the world is a problem. Unfortunately we take materialism for granted which makes it challenging to even look at.

[@martam4142]

Materialism is false and harmful to society.

[@felipebautista3542]

Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKOVo2OCqa98oMksi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD

[@jasmyneemmerick]

I was so excited when I saw this coursework on *_analytic idealism_* available. I've seen Bernardo on many podcasts and have wanted to understand this concept better. However, Bernardo makes me cry (figuratively). I'm not smart enough to keep up with the conversation. Even words like _quantities_ and _qualities_ become baffling as it sounds like they are being used in a manner in which I am unaccustomed. I will press onward. I may have to listen to these videos many times to get any glimmer of comprehension. 😑 Thank you *Essentia Foundations* and *Keytoe Academy* for providing this presentation.

[@charliepan4055]

Yes could someone make very simple concrete examples with picture building it up slowly like you would talk to a child? Cant find it on youtube

[@jasmyneemmerick]

@@charliepan4055 That's actually what I'm going to do later this week...draw picture notes. 🙂

[@adamd585]

_Quantities_ are descriptions: wavelengths (620 nm), temperatures (400° F), mass (5 kg), distances (2 miles), etc. _Qualities_ are instances of a subjective experience: The color red, the feeling of something hot, the taste of wine, etc. My definitions might not be perfect. But should help with getting the gist.

[@jasmyneemmerick]

@@adamd585 Thank you, Adam. I'll refer to you comment when I re-watch the series this weekend.

[@AusDenBergen]

If you have time take it to pause the video, Google what sciences or philosophies your speaker is referencing. That will give you more context into how he is using words and how they're defined.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Well articulated but barely scratches the surface of the failures. In all fields of study they're running out of time and space to explain their beliefs. The hard problem isn't consciousness its that physicalism is dead. It has its place and ran its course. In the industrial revolutionary mindset everyone was obsessed with consumption and materialism they seen it in everything everywhere and even factory worker kids had a mechanical understanding so it worked well as a comparable. But now computation is on every kids mind which is a form of idealism.

[@JohnAnderson-ss9vn]

very interesting video but i wonder if perception of mind is an individual experience, then why do we all observe the same material world eg an animal, a landscape, or an inanimate object such as a table and chair .does that mean our conscious is a shared collective experience

[@VahnAeris]

thanks for the course 🙏

[@jonathansolero7]

Keep them coming 🔥

[@craigbowers4016]

Very motivating.

[@surrendertoflow78]

Wondering why NDEs are not included in this discussion? Cases exist where medical records show zero measurable brain function and yet the person is able to produce verifiable information about what they experienced while the brain was not functioning. There is rigorous scientific exploration of such cases (see DOPS at UVAC, for example). In other words, the whole lot can’t be disregarded as pseudoscience and I sincerely don’t understand why this isn’t the first point made when listing off arguments against materialism. How could there be any more convincing argument that our current materialist perspective needs to be laid to rest? What would the reason be for omitting this from the discussion?

[@mike8984ify]

Because NDEs are bullshit and as soon as you look at those cases more closely they crumble.

[@JustErics101]

Bernardo does think NDEs are valid transcendent experiences, however he has also said NDEs haven’t sufficiently been timed in laboratory settings to establish if they do indeed happen in moments of brain deactivation/reduced activity. I think he wants to steelman his own arguments and not bring them up because skeptics do have a point in saying NDEs haven’t been fully timed and matched with low brain activity. He doesn’t want to present an argument with some weaknesses and open himself up to some attacks.

[@surrendertoflow78]

@@JustErics101

[@bayreuth79]

@@JustErics101 That is not actually true. Dr Pim Van Lommel has studied the NDEs of cardiac patients who were being monitored. We know that there was no brain function whatsoever when the NDE occurred. The University of Southampton has replicated Van Lommel’s research. Lommel believes that consciousness is non-local. Read Dr Pim Van Lommel’s Lancet article. Bernardo has said that he’s not really studied NDEs

[@JustErics101]

@@bayreuth79 I think you’re probably right but Bernardo’s issue is that we can induce psychedelic states and measure their brain activity directly in a way we can’t with NDEe (NDEs aren’t usually induced).

[@marcuswaterloo]

The affinity of neurotransmitters affects how effectively they can modulate specific neuronal pathways, but whether this leads to an overall increase or decrease in brain activity depends on the broader context of neural interactions and the functional roles of the specific neurotransmitters and receptors involved.

[@Alex-zl3ke]

Great video. Just want to clarify for myself. You mentioned brain activity while on psychodelics and while sleeping. You said that it is lower than in regular situations. But according to what i read online it's higher. (for sleep, it also depends on a phase) Can provide links, if necessary. Thanks.

[@waynzwhirled6181]

I'm only eight minutes into this and it is so excellent.

[@VenusLover17]

Thanks for this 💎!!

[@ParallelNewsNetwork]

Can anyone site the Johns Hopkins papers Bernardo is referring to that psychedelics reduce activity in the brain? All the papers I have found suggest that brain activity is reduced in certain areas of the brain like the DMN but increase activity in others.

[@chrisallard1819]

Fantastic -many thanks

[@Kaliscetera]

I've only read the title and I'm on-board already.

[@TommyEfreeti]

Quantity describes quality numerically; it can therefore never precede it. For language to exist, it MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO DESCRIBE. Rational materialists mistake the measurement for reality....and will always remain bound by subject-object paradigms.

[@janhradecky3141]

I agree with most things Bernardo is saying but he is clearly not talking about materialism vs idealism, he is talking about subjective vs objective reality. You can have a reality that is subjective and is made of matter and reality that is objective and made of mentation. His ideas have nothing to do with substance and everything to do with locality.

[@olbluelips]

I see what you're saying, but it's a bit of a stretch to call the subjective world anything but mental imo. It's where we get the idea of "mental" from isn't it? As well, not all subjective experiences are quantifiable like matter is

[@janhradecky3141]

​@@olbluelips It seems like a stretch because of the associations people have with these two substances. People usually associate matter with an objective reality and mentation with a subjective reality but if you want to be absolutely precise as a philosopher you have to point this out and acknowledge that types of substances have nothing to do with locality of perception (subjective vs objective). It might be difficult to imagine a reality that is purely subjective and made of matter but I challenge you to try to do it. It's kinda funny how Bernardo says he fights against materialism in every interview he gives when actually he fights against the idea of us having access to objective reality. But I understand why he does it, the associations that I mentioned are extremely strong and deep rooted in people's minds, so people are more inclined to listen when he phrases things this way.

[@mojoomla]

I think he has started out with a wrong definition of materialism when he says that materialism says that the world out there is made of stuff that is completely different from what our thoughts and minds are made of. Actually the materialist does not say that. He says that our minds and thoughts are also made out of interactions of matter that makes up the material world.

[@plafar7887]

It depends on the materialist. Some say they are the same (somehow), others admit they are different, but that they believe matter gives rise to mind stuff (which is incoherent). Either way, it's an untenable position.

[@mojoomla]

@@plafar7887 When one is propounding a super mega theory, one cannot start out with a wrong definition. Bernardo best leave the material world to the scientists. God has built and maintained it as their playground. Those who try to upset His plans for the playground are sure to suffer from insanity sooner than later.

[@RoYaL3796]

@@mojoomla he is not propounding a super mega theory. He is inviting the materialists to rethink the assumptions they are making in their metaphysics.

[@user-ui2mk2no1f]

He has a Ph.D in philosophy

[@GreyZone7]

@@plafar7887 define what 'mind stuff' is, why is it different and why can't it come from matter. Well, you can't without invoking some magical dualism which is even more incoherent than materialism.

[@Psris123]

I see like Alex OConnor he has removed the bookshelves from background. Good idea i think anyway for same reason as Alex

[@IdeaRefinery]

I think you misrepresent materialism's view of Material as abstract - "in the mind of the materialists". Materialists assert that Material is primary, fundamentally not abstract. I think what you are describing is Dualism.

[@ClaudioCunhaPediatra]

Very proud of a Brazilian being, in my opinion, one of the greatest thinkers of today. Bravo!!!!!!

[@nyc-exile]

Materialists are the saddest people in the world. They are even denying their importance in the equation.

[@tomgreene1843]

Consciousness is an illusion so are we with no purpose ...what could be better!

[@user-ui2mk2no1f]

Bernardo I wish you would debate that Dave Farina, a staunch materialist. I am sure he would leave in a wheel chair.

[@FrancoisMouton-iu7jt]

Spot on. Reductionist materialism and dualism is dead and the world is moving towards a spiritual consciousness which is integrated and holistic.

[@rickvade]

even if the instruments dont work, the plane still flies and the turbulence can still be felt.

[@Ivuspp]

Matéria, para o materialismo, é uma abstração teórica, não um dado de nossa experiência empírica.

[@martam4142]

Materialism can't prove matter. That's the irony.

[@alexanderbodman6470]

“I Am”

[@miniarms8872]

These videos are a different look for you, Bernardo. All you need is your cat and you'd make a great Dr. Evil.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

9:15 how do we know this?

[@metrologe]

Haha, what do we "know", anyway? You can only come close with introspection and scepticism :-). Don't trust experts too much! many are pretty unreflected believers in their bubble. ...your question is good; that is the way!

[@thethikboy]

Materialism is an idea or a system of ideas, a metaphysics, which can't even demonstrate or define what matter is.

[@indicphilosopher8772]

Yeah, true.. Its all in their minds😂

[@wenasholeranch]

If the biblical narrative were true, the fall of man was the naming of the places and animal where we slipped into a fixed and measured reality.

[@kosmicwizard]

And from a philosophical perspective, Aristotle set up a self vs other paradigm with the same consequences

[@mysticmouse7261]

A world of spatial and temporal relations.

[@Ivuspp]

Materialismo: o mundo lá fora, para além de nossas mentes, não é de natureza mental, mas de total redutibilidade matemática, um mundo de quantidades sem qualidades intrínsecas. Estas seriam criadas pelo nosso cérebro. Por que o materialismo é errado? Há uma contradição interna essencial: ele define matéria de um modo incomensurável com relação à mente e, depois, tenta explicar a mente nos termos da matéria. Busca, assim, explicar as qualidades em termos de quantidades.

[@NikoAmeristar]

Love & Beauty are qualities. Money and the other stuff that comes with money is quantity.

[@PClanner]

I will give this a like even though I have massive issues with the structure of your premises.

[@timh7882]

Would you explain/elaborate?

[@chrisvanschalkwyk1455]

You are not alone. Very simplistic view of scientific observations in science. Get it? Observations = measurements. You cannot measure something which is not there. Regarding brain activity - we can measure what we know. We do not yet claim that we measure "everything" when we measure brain activity. Another example is gravity - we can only measure the effect of gravity. Science is not "complete". Quantum entanglement does not mean something only exist once you measure it. Probability waves exist until we measure it and cause decoherence - and can ascribe a quantity/quality to it. Light travels as a wave at the speed of light(in whatever medium) until we measure it. It has both particle and wave qualities - until observation/measurement. The famous analogy of Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time until observation confirms one or the other state. Dark matter exists - we can observe its effect just like gravity. There might be another form of "biological" energy in and/or around the brain which we might discover when we have the right technology. Galaxies exist 14 billion+ light years away - nobody claims they do not exist because we can't see them. They do not pop into existence when we look through a telescope. Their light has been traveling 14+ billion years to get here. Did the big bang occur because some consciousness came into being? Perhaps. It will mean consciousness existed first...

[@Corteum]

@@timh7882 He doesnt know what the structure is that he's referring to 😂

[@Magik1369]

Reality is not numbers. That is reductonism ad absurdum. Reality is Being. Being is a perfect co-emergent Unity of consciousness and energy.

[@innerlight617]

Must admit i am a fan of Bernardo.Along with his philosophical work,i really admire his explanatory ability. ps: what happened to his glasses?🤓

[@mba321]

Why does your admiration of Bernardo need to be framed as a "confession?"

[@innerlight617]

@@mba321 you think is wrong?I try my best with English language.I'll put it differently then.

[@HolismT]

Yes! my thoughts exactly! And who is this glass-less doppelganger?!!? Where did Bernardo go?

[@keytoeacademy]

His glasses were reflecting the lights in the cameras, so we made him blind for the whole course 🤭

[@HolismT]

@@keytoeacademy Maybe blind he will finally reach his goal and unify with cosmic consciousness. 😆 Jokes aside, these talks are amazing, keep them coming!

[@janklaas6885]

📍11:51

[@taonow369]

No measuring = meditation

[@LJG29]

Why is the baloney of the material world not like the instinct of a flock of geese, ie natural baloney? An illusion but a real illusion? How will the taking of the illusion less seriously, as a dashboard, help us? Why are our measurements, our thoughts, no matter how inaccurate, not part of nature?

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

🦋🐝🦉

[@MagdiNonDuality]

Bernardo. Why do you state that the taste of strawberry is made by your brain? In my experience the taste of strawberry arises in awareness but I do not know that it is made by the brain. I’m not clear whether there is any evidence that this taste can be made by the brain since you will be using the brain to demonstrate that.

[@janhradecky3141]

Bernardo doesn't say that, his stance on the relationship between our brain and our mental experiences is that our brain correlates with our mental experiences but doesn't cause them.

[@ashwadhwani]

Mothers matter ;))

[@nicanornunez9787]

Why quantum gravity is malarkey and join our course in analytical "why trees that fall without anybody near by do not fall". To reduce materialistic philosophy to xix century philosophy is the reductionism of the reductionism.

[@simonsharp3319]

And your statement is the straw man of straw man's about analytical idealism. Even in this short video it's clear enough that he is not saying there is no objective world. He is saying the objectivity is not physical. This can be hard to initially grasp for anyone who has absorbed materialist philosophy. It's usually the first objection they raise under the impression they are in possession of a 'gotcha' There's only really 2 choices here: engage with the challenging proccess of trying to understand what analytical idealism actually is. Or admit that you don't want to. And that's OK.. there are enough scientists in influential positions who will... literally.. die before giving an inch on it and will never even go past the first objection you raise

[@Reienroute]

I think your way of understanding what he's saying is probably my biggest issue with Bernardo. Basically I don't think he's actually trying to communicate anything like what you've come away with, but I can completely see why someone would. I respect his work, but I wish he was better with his analogies. Though it could just be that a version of this topic which can be distilled into laymen's terms might simply not be possible. I commend him and others like him for trying though.

[@cameronmclennan942]

4:05 "we never come in contact with purely quantitative matter" Stand in front of a moving train and then come back to tell me about your qualitative experience of it

[@josephturner7569]

I know what materialism is. What is baloney?

[@Reienroute]

I like that Bernardo is exploring these ideas so publicly, but it's always struck me as over simplistic to jump to an all encompassing metaphysical idealism down the entire chain of causality. I belive that ultimately there are existential roots in idealism, but everything that exists by the rules set by that initial defining act of existence would be subject to that framework in a way which is "objective" for all intents and purposes. Doing my best to exemplify this in more detail: space and time are conceived of as information being directly interpreted by the pure act of subjective reception. The amount of time it takes to recieve input demarks a limit as well as lays out a conception of distance over which it takes such-and-such an amount of time to "travel". What this time is doesn't matter because it's defined by the initial experience. Objectively it takes no time across no space for information to travel to a receptive interpreter of that time or space because such concepts don't exist in that sense, but the fact that information is received at all sets an upper cap. Time comes into existence as the implicit conceptualization of slower iterations of that upper cap, which can essentially start at "objective" zero. So space/time is derived through an idealistic framework, but this comes with further implications down stream of this framework. Differences in space(here or there) sets the resulting rule about what it means to occupy space, and whatever follows this definition of "occupying" begins to fit a material function and then must give rise to the rule that it's contradictory for things of this nature occupy the same space. Essentially the quantum realm down to the Planck scale is in sort of gray zone of metaphysical idealism where it's existence under the above formed definition relies on the interpretation of its information, essentially through specific interactions with a spesific observer. Everything which exists as a result of this initial rule of interaction, while maintaining its subjectivity as focused through various forms of mechanistic arrays all the way up to the evolution of brains, no longer has the function of ontological creativity. We, as beings possessing multifaceted, self organizing, sensory input devices, are interpreting interpretations of interpretations of interpretations down to a fundamentally idealistic creative force, but that doesn't mean we partake in it in remotely the same way. Yes this still means that the tenets of materialism are a misnomer and this still describes a sort of panexperientialist universe build out of information rather than "stuff", but to compare the brain's conjuring of qualia to the metaphysical idealistic fabric of existence as anything more than an extremely loose analogy is, I think, grossly missing the mark.

[@halimb4836]

“Jump to an all encompassing metaphysical idealism down the entire chain of causality” what else could it be ? anything you suppose that’s not subjectivity or experience is playing conceptual games, and making a LARGER ontological leap than supposing IT IS subjectivity or experience. Because that’s all you CAN verify , that’s what makes his argument so strong. experience is all there is was and will ever be, can you imagine something else ? Why not make it fundamental then ?

[@Reienroute]

@@halimb4836 I don't know that we're even necessarily disagreeing. The only distinction I'm attempting to make is that how much creative potency an experience has is dependent upon the nature of the interaction. We as humans are subject to our experiences, not the other way around, because the laws which have pieced together these units of consciousness we interpret the world through have dependencies on the existence of the experiential factors within that particular evolution. We're interacting with predetermined experiential interpretations and are dialed in to a version of those interpretations which our brains can represent as qualia. In the subjectively immediate sense, yes we are constructing a nonexistent set of surroundings, but it's representative of a pre-existing line of communication. It's still all "mind" so to speak, but our individual representation of it is nonetheless 'a posteriori'.

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@Reienroute The interesting differences come when we start seing existence as holistic instead of atomistic, because then we must face what to me seems the most interesting question of all: "what are interactions/relations?" I think in the path to the answer is also the answer of how individuation occurs (and maybe how the contrary could happen or even be experienced). I tend to visualize the flow of time as some sort of "weaving" the fabric of reality, with pure reflection as the starting point and each step forward as an individuated "entity/object" (or abstraction as I prefer to recall to it). I also think that this focus could help us in understanding how causality is built, because it seems to work from the top down as well as from the bottom up (in the different layers of subjectivity/abstraction) in some sort of "pull and push" mechanism. Whatever is the true structure of reality, it isn't trivial, that's for sure. So, in a very simplistic view, "time" could just be the "weaving", and space could just be the relational/dimensional structure of a given set of information.

[@Reienroute]

@@MeRetroGamer Executive function is essentially an internalized focal point of experiential information. For example, the fact that our gut bacteria plays only a tangential role in our subjective moods in comparison to something more plugged-in to our central nervous system is literally just the evolutionary continuation of the original, executive, protocognitive function of a nucleus from the earliest eukaryotic cell development. These things don't waver because their subjective being *is* what it *does* . Everything is mind, so to speak, but material rules can still apply to that reality. I believe that our universe has an idealistic cosmology, but its subsistence beyond the point of virtual particle formation is only passively panexperiential. The root function of subjectivity itself has creative potentiality, but when funneled into a complex network to form conscious experience, it places its focus squarely on a mechanism which doesn't have creation in ontological terms as its ends. Its intentionality is one of receptivity for the sake of maintaining an influx of things to recieve. Our brains, insofar as they give us an illusion of unified being, exist to be informed by something else. Whether it can be argued that this "something else" is *just* information when it comes to its most fundamental nature is disconnected from the question of assigning causal dependency. I believe both can be co-defining without eroding any reasonable distinction.

[@MeRetroGamer]

@@Reienroute The fact that engineering is a thing is, to me, enough demonstration that the top layers of abstraction can reacomodate their lower layers, even those that seem disconnected from the focus of "the engineer". I think that it is a natural tendency for the cosmos to grow and reach higher orders of knowledge and complexity in a myriad of forms that probably are unimaginable to us. I also don't think that the brain give us the "illusion of unified being". I relate to my own experience to assert that consciousness is always unified, and not in the sense of "connectivity" but in the sense that it is just one and the same (always and everywhere), but we usually conflate consciousness with its dynamics/systems/structures, which are something completely different. By the word consciousness I always try to relate to something that I would prefer to describe as "the driving force of aliveness", or just "spirit", but "spirit" and "consciousness" have many cultural connotations and that's why I usually try to avoid those terms. So, we feel ourselves as "individualized" not because of an "illusion of unified being" neither by an "illusion of separate being", but because there's a recursive and very concentrated dynamic that plays a very concrete role within a very concrete "space" and "time". Without the sort of recursive structure that plays in brains, I don't think experience would be splitted and atomistic, instead it'd probably be of a much more diffuse and general nature.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

3:51

[@pepedestroyer5974]

3:49

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

The mind is a computer program.

[@dokidelta1175]

I will begin my critique by stating that I am not a materialist, I am a Christian platonist. With that being said, I feel like your opening statements had several issues but I will reserve my opinions until I finish. Issue 1: I think this is going to harm your video, I think you incorrectly define materialism. Materialism is far better defined as the idea that all things can be reduced to infinitely simple (fundemental) components. This is false, but because you have incorrectly defined materialism, you have given the materialists a way out of your logical trappings. Issue 2: "Materialism replaces the territory with the map." You begin this point by declaring that quantitative values are to be understood as descriptions of a qualitative world. This comparison assumes that qualitative values are somehow "more real" than quantitative values. This cannot be assumed to be true. Obviously if the world around us is fundementally qualitative, and quantities are mere tools for comprehending it, then materialism is false. However, there is very little evidence to suggest this. The universe doesn't obey "qualitative laws." It obeys laws of quantity. Once again, this doesn't mean the world is materialistic, but it means that you are making a bad argument. We live in a quantitative world which we commonly understand as being qualitative. This quantities, however, are not material. They are abstractions, which are perfectly real. Therefore materialism is false. Issue 3: The problem of conciousness is a good argument. No complaints. Conciousness is not infinitely reducible to fundemental components. Issue 4: "Particles don't exist without measurement." This is demonstrably false and results as a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Particles don't have definable properties without measurement, they exist as a probabalistic wave function, a set of possible states. While unobserved, it is not the case that they do not exist at all, but rather that they exist in all of these states. In any case, I agree with your ultimate conclusion. Materialism is false. But these reasons are not sound.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

*15:27* The Black Swam of Brain Activity.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

Knowing what we know about the default mode network, this part seems the least convincing of the video.

[@studiodingli4875]

Having watched many "The One is World Consciousness" by Frederico Faggin, Benardo Kastrup, and Donald Hofman, none have tackled the principle of Justice. So is Mother Teresa and Hitler's Consciousness "partwhole of the One", start off on an even platform in the new conscious? No, I like to think Mother Teresa communicates and finds love from the people she helped. Whereas Hitler will experience the conscious pain and suffering he caused to millions and this won't go away until he begs forgiveness. This is what Hell can be. Following from the Principe of Justice what is a sin? Coveting your neighbours' goods happens all the time, but most people get over it. The most serious would be be.killing and stealing and bearing false witness against thy neighbour. Is there a hierarchy of sin seriousness in "The One"Whole World" Consciousness?"

[@davidhoggan5376]

They do not believe in freedom of will in greater sense. Morality is relevant to the culture/time period anyways.

[@indicphilosopher8772]

There is only consciousness Hitlers consciousness 😂is that a joke

[@boolioski]

So adrift in a sea of shared insignificance with zero free will then. Great!

[@pepedestroyer5974]

How can materialism be defeated?

[@dogsbollox4335]

By hidden dimensions

[@mba321]

Did you watch the video?

[@timh7882]

By valuing coherence over tradition and attachment.

[@real_pattern]

maybe it should be coherently defended first?

[@pepedestroyer5974]

@@mba321 I did but why is materialism widespread?

[@canjian1783]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

[@Aquamayne100]

so then cypher was right

[@nyc-exile]

A Universe without consciousness (before or after) is the dumbness thing ever., hahaha.

[@johnhausmann2391]

That is a ridiculous definition of materialism. He's created a straw man that can barely stand up.

[@dashpowers22]

Cool strawman.

[@afterceasetoexist]

Elaborate?

[@lokayatavishwam9594]

@@afterceasetoexist Allow me, sir. 1. Metaphysical theories are speculative and by definition, they cannot be proven or refuted..idealism only necessitates serious consideration if it explains all the facts explained under materialism with the same efficacy and additionally explain more phenomena that materialism cannot not explain and provide evidentiary substantiation. 2. Scientific materialism does not necessarily presuppose any metaphysics of substance. Scientific materialism only states that what exists can, in principle, be studied, measured and replicated under experimental circumstances. There is no such consensus on what the "physical" or "material" is (bernado uses the orthodox definitions of matter to show that QM proves materialism is wrong). Only agreement is in the rejection of supernaturalist explanations of events. 3. There is no consensus that reality is exhaustively comprised of quantities, under materialism. One possibility is that qualities are emergent from quantities. Another possibility is that qualia does not exist independently of complex biological organisms. Clearly there are empirical gaps here, but that does not refute the thesis or undermine its explanatory potential. Idealism on the other hand, pretends to have achieved some closure, while it actually only dabbles in asinine drivel. Bernado is basically deepak chopra 2.0

[@sneakylizard3165]

@@afterceasetoexistHe doesn’t understand what Kastruo is saying as it isn’t a straw man at all. Don’t take him seriously.

[@martam4142]

​@@lokayatavishwam9594'Scientific' materialism may not make assertions about what matter is, but philosophical materialism certainly does. It's philosophical materialism which Kastrup is attacking. A well deserved attack, since materialism is self-refuting and absurd. Materialism suffers from the curse of 'representationalism', which doesn't allow us to have contact with extra-mental reality. I see you are a materialist religious zealot. There are alternatives to idealism. Like hylemorphism (which I think is correct). Materialism? Materialism is a dead-end, the religion of a decadent society. And the identity brain/ mind is also patently absurd. Correlation doesn't imply neither causation nor identity.

[@LoveAIChatGPTMoneyMaking23]

@@lokayatavishwam9594 saying "Clearly there are empirical gaps, but that that does not refute its explanatory potential" is effectively a god of the gaps argument but using materialism in place of a god. As for your statement that "idealism only necessitates serious consideration if it explains all the facts explained under materialism with the same efficacy and additionally explain more phenomena that materialism cannot not explain and provide evidentiary substantiation." the thing is, idealism does this, it doesn't need to explain all the facts explained under materialism in a new way, you can simply use materialism's explanations for that. Idealism isn't stating that all science is drivel, it simply states that consciousness is more fundamental then the material, not that the material doesn't exist. Also asinine drivel? grow up, you've no need to be disrespectful, simply refute the point if you believe it's untrue, you have no reason to be insulting.

[@waynehilbornTSS]

Hilarious approach. Well done. I like to say "science is the foolish religion if we share a common dream". Mentioning our simulated worm food "brains in our skull" could be misleading to the muggles. You could add a occams razor argument because it is ridiculous to think we can experience "toast" in both our nocturnal dreams and also experience "toast" in a completely unrelated way... in what muggles deem a kitchen, How silly are they.. haha.. I found this video very funny and I teach this stuff... Simultaneous time means time is as unreal as space. Space-time is an expectation field, probabilities is the dumbest word ever invented. Philosophers need to make consciousness arise "instantaneously" a burst of everything everywhere all at once. In truth the memory of your first kiss will be simultaneous to a million years from now and what those silly muggles deem worm food engrams in their simulated brains. Your personality is ego which is memory. And your memory .. EXISTS FOREVER and ever... and simultaneous (absence of) time is alose why w eall live forever by default. You are indeed a thought.. but so is every word in this sentence that petition my brain. Expectation causes quantum collapse and entropy never matters because we can collapse time to make that blue car manifestation seem to come to us in ways that defy linear time. Pay attention to the timelines of all your magic, many thing you manifest will not make sense using linear time. (sidenote: AI is a ridiculous concept because every line of code is an "if/then" statement.. computers can only compare). Albeit your "toaster" is conscious because it can sense the motion/change (time) in our holographic universal matrix as in a pribham/bohm holographic brain model but on a larger scale. Brains are not required for memory and consciousness. Bodies are for our earth air gravity and energy stuffs. You must be Aries to make a video ridiculing materialism.. so many cow to them. The universe is wigners friend if you replace the word probabilities and repaklce it with the word expectations. Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (Wheeler) proves the past cabn change but THINK LIFE SIZE.. the past changes.. How every religion/miracle works.... Imagine a skeptic was drowning in the ocean.. he will die. Now... Imagine the drowning person is a devout TOOTHFARIAN. This man attends Tooth Fairy Churches, donates to Tooth Fairy charities... and has always been a devout Tooth Farian. He even brushes his teeth 4 times per day. Now imagine the TOOTHFARIAN is drowning .. and he cries... "Please save me lord Tooth Fairy" This "Positive Outlook" seeds history. SUDDENLY! Three days ago (in the past), three days ago (in the past) (Did I mention this next part occurs in the past) Suddenly - three days ago. IN THE PAST, a cruise ship and 3000 passengers get a slightly different weather report AND/OR alter course an extra 2 degrees so they are now on course to rescue the TOOTHFARIAN 5 minutes after he starts praying. The TOOTHFARIAN was at home packing for his sailing adventure the following day and yet a cruise ship and 3000 passengers have already altered their superposition (They are Schrodinger cat in box) to match the expectation of the TOOTHFARIAN (supervising scientist). The error of Quantum Mechanics is simply that they use "Probabilities" to affect changes instead of "EXPECTATION".. a more accurate portrayal of what occurs. Simultaneous (absence of) time means your first kiss is simultaneous to now and we could be telepathically attuning to the actual kiiss as our "memory".. and this si what occurs. Simultaneous (absence of) time means you live forever and ever.. by default. I enjoy ridiculing the muggles.. so I enjoyed this video much... I write my own books of similar vein. "Theory of everything mind", "The Savvy Sorcerer", etc. But I see you have two books in view. I have not read them but we are ideas.. the world is literally a thought... A good metaphor is Nike sneakers birth into our experience like we birth into earth air. Babies are born because nobody expects full-grown adults to just pop into existence and start pressing buttons. There is no hard problem if the universe was always simultaneous and could always have a linear seeming memory. and conscious, This matches the very first Hermetic Principle, "The universe is mental, the all is mind". Every thought you think is an outside "INTRUDER".. karma... the goal in life is to avoid bad dreams or our afterlife could be shitty.. and forever and ever is a bloody long time. Reincarnation is to keep us "sane" That's why we practice simplifying and Transcendental meditation (thought avoidance), dry fasting discipline is good This video made me think you might enjoy a Hermeticist on reality. I regularly practice my "fighting" with muggles on quora.. and how I polish some of my points used above. After Hermeticism, Hinduism seems closest. My book "Theory of everything mind"... could be philosophy.. .. or magic.... We are all.. all.. Pantheism rules!

[@slowdown7276]

You are mad Wayne

[@waynehilbornTSS]

@@slowdown7276 - Technically you have two reasons for believing you are actual as opposed to living the dream. 1) Mommy woo: your momnmy told you you're a real boy and you ass/u/me she isn't a dumbass. 2) self pinching (very hard): without waking up .. Egads. Please don't contribute to a discussion if your IQ is less than that of a turnip. Science will ALWAYS be the most foolish of all religions within our common dream.. You remote view the understanding of every word in this sentence even if you won't have a mommy who will teach you that for another dozen lifetimes. This may seem "gruff".. But its muggles who are the daftest lot.. forever and always. Magic is real because EXPECTATION causes quantum collapses even if you won't learn that for another 30 years... and admit to it 30 years after that ALL science is based on mommy woo.. CAN YOU PROVE YOURE A REAL BOY? by attaching a note from your mommy or video of you self pinching really hard re-read my above comments if you want to fully understand reality.. and afterlife... you live forever because time isnt truly a thingamabob Re-read my above... OR DONT... first time humans are not meant to know things.. Que sera sera