Bernardo, I love this. I want to suggest some audio tweaks. The room is what we audio guys call "hollow". You can correct this a little by taking out some of the bottom end. The music, IMO is distracting during your speaking. For best audio, short of using a different room, you can use a small shotgun style mic, you can add lots of sound absorbing material to the room (like blankets), or the easiest way is to get a Lavalier Mic to attach to your collar. These wireless mics can be purchased at very reasonable prices for the average user. I mention this in the spirit of helping because I really appreciate your thinking and want as many others to enjoy it as possible.
@bernardokastrup
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@rcnhsuailsnyfiue2
3 жыл бұрын
That’s an amazing book collection! What a breadth of viewpoints. Roger Penrose, Carl Jung, Rick Strassman, Alan Watts... It lends a lot of credibility to see you’re drawing from such different perspectives. I found out about your work via your interview with Curt at Theories of Everything. Great stuff!
@mwbgallery
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent , thank you for such precision and concision when sharing these positions. Keep up the wonderful and accurate presentations, books, arguments, and educational endeavours.
@michaelsteffeck6114
9 жыл бұрын
Something I find amusing about materialists using the brain-decision experiment as justification is that the study they are referring to was able to identify the correct decision with 60% accuracy. That's 10% over chance. There have been numerous psi experiments that have results of 10% over chance, but materialists/physicalists dismiss them entirely. Now, I'm not saying I necessarily believe in psychics, but it's a little ridiculous to accept one and completely dismiss the other. It always comes down to belief system.
@SouIatman
10 жыл бұрын
Bernardo, thankyou so much. I am really startled by and profoundly grateful for your wonderful intellect. My degree is in philosophy which I studied many years ago, in the late 90's. The materialism - idealism debate was largely presented as if it were a solved and put to rest question, with the obviously naive camp of idealists being out of touch with scientific knowledge and pure fantasists. I sympathised with an idealist position, on both an intuitive level and an epistemological level. It occurred to me that our ability to 'know' the 'outside' world through sense data and qualia were so flawed and constrained, that it left me with less confidence in their conclusions and assertions than the truly inescapable and defining Cartesian discovery and assertion that 'cogito ergo sum', 'I think, therefore I am'. I remember having the profound feeling that this simple phrase had in essence captured all that we knew and could ever know for certain, and I was left baffled by the fact that most of our subsequent enquiries into the nature of reality somehow ignored this and even attempted to directly contradict such a self evident truth. Descartes' wonderful method and his profound conclusion always spoke to me so much more loudly and deeply than the empiricist materialist arrogance which attempted to reduce all things to some meaningless random chance mess. It always left me feeling so abused to have all hope of meaning and purpose, our emotional states, our relationships, our loves and hates and values in life stripped away and reduced to quite literally nothing but random chance and highly improbable combinations of stuff (atomic bits and pieces) which has no business existing outside of a mind which perceives it. Sorry, starting to ramble somewhat. But my gratitude is deep for your work. You have a brilliant mind, and I wish when I was at university I had stumbled upon your sharp insight into this most important philosophical question. Thank you so much. Soul.
@bernardokastrup
10 жыл бұрын
Thank you, soulatman! It is fulfilling to hear that my efforts resonate. I also just published a new article on my blog that you may like, for it relates to what you say (www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/06/ways-materialists-beg-question.html). Materialism is largely based on projections: on the need to attribute to an imagined, abstracted reality outside ourselves the essential qualities of what we, at the deepest levels, are. In doing so, we avoid the need to confront much unpleasantness. Cheers, B.
@anduinxbym6633
10 жыл бұрын
Another amazing video, thanks for your hard work Bernardo!
@bernardokastrup
10 жыл бұрын
Cheers Anduin!
@bernardokastrup
9 жыл бұрын
ALL: I cannot comment on philosophical content via KZitem comments anymore, due to limited time and redundancy with other places where I do discuss my philosophical system. So if you like to engage on philosophical discussions, please post in my Discussion Forum at: groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/metaphysical-speculations. You can find more useful links about my philosophical system here: www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/04/social-media-policy-and-useful-links.html. I count on your understanding!
@aurelienyonrac
5 жыл бұрын
Materialism and idealism are offspring of ... . Belief. Who are you without your beliefs? Experience that.
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
@@aurelienyonrac This is a Repost from my conversation with @GuyFieri: When Bernardo pulls out image of galaxy clusters from cosmology, POINTING OUT it resembles human brain nervous system and make this to favor his ontology, he is allowed. (of course I agree that he is justified in doing so and we all should pay attention to what he is saying!) In this particular case, i might even give him a favorable weighting to his case. Kudos for Bernardo for his original thinking (angle of Resemblance) in this particular galaxy clusters example! On the other hand, When I took results from cosmology showing the age 13,8 billion and 100 billions galaxy , POINTING OUT it is exactly what materialism needs/ requires to have consciousness as a later / recent development in human brain (Angle of Age and Vastness). It is brushed off with statements such as: Idealism could also accommodate this. This is the domain of physics and not ontology. Physics are metaphysically neutral. After all outside world has to have patterns and regularities operating under certain laws, bla bla bla. (cherry picking & have a cake and eat it too)
@aurelienyonrac
4 жыл бұрын
@@zorashoes6482 Galaxy clusters resemble the brain's network. I love that. That is one big infinite brain! I'll rest with that image for a whill. That just cheered me up.
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
@@aurelienyonrac lol haha...so what are you saying exactly? :-) Be careful that One Big Infinite Brain may have some nasty instincts too...btw, my post might get deleted again soon by the owner of this channel :D
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
PS: don't bother with the discussion forum, any critical posts will be deleted by the owner (or at least some). Only those supportive of Idealism will be allowed.
@lnbartstudio2713
6 жыл бұрын
Materialism as a belief system is far older than Western ideas about it. It was known in similar ways in India about 2,500 years ago. It still is known and believed as Charvaka or Lokayata. It disallowed inferences by basing it's ontology upon yet another inference. Makes about as much sense as the Western Charvaka of today.
@disposium
10 жыл бұрын
Good work. If nothing else, we can appreciate experience as being real. This simple way of approaching the fact of experience, the existence of both the experienced and the experiencer as facts happening in the arena of mind is, in my lowly opinion, a perfectly valid approach to the problem of why anything IS, and why that ISness can be appreciated. And it does NOT deny the validity of scientific investigation, the accumulation of experience in a thoughtful, insightful, careful (skeptical) fashion.
@bernardokastrup
10 жыл бұрын
I agree! And thanks for the kind words.
@flavianpetrulio52
5 жыл бұрын
I would like to offer the following to all who care to read it with patience, - the focus is on the difference between immortal Mind/consciousness and mortal mind/consciousness (also referred to in the Bible as the carnal mind). I'm not a religionist; I am a spiritual Scientist although I may use biblical phrases from time to time. The carnal/mortal mind needs to be defined before we begin. The carnal mind and the corporeal senses combine as one, not two. It is the level of false awareness which perceives an erroneous universe, - an erroneous universe of people; of organic birth, maturity and death; of sickness; of finite material objects as well as self-destructive negative qualities such as human will power; depravity, ego or small "i", revenge, insecurity; pride, fear, hatred, etc. etc. Most importantly, the carnal mind and its emanations have no real existence just like the images in our night dreams have no real existence. Mortal mind is the suppositional absence of immortal Mind. Mortal consciousness is the suppositional absence of immortal consciousness. Mortal mind and immortal Mind never mix nor mingle. They are diametrically opposed to each other in the same fashion as light and darkness. With the above in mind, I offer the following information to ponder deeply: When we dream at night, most people believe we are in a body which can see, feel, smell, taste and touch that which appears to be solid objects in space/time. But obviously, we know we were never in the "dream body/brain." It was the carnal mind which created the belief of the "dream body/brain." But when we are "awake", most people definitely without a doubt believe we exist or live in a "real" body and mind is in the brain. Why do most people believe this is 100% true beyond any doubt? This may be why: 1. Our night dream is an individual experience which doesn't last long and from night to night, there is no continuity. But our "awake" state is a collective experience shared by other people which appears to have some kind of continuity from day to day making us believe it must be real compared to the night dream experience. 2. From the time of so-called human birth, we were educated to believe mind was in the body/brain by other people who also believed mind was in the body/brain and consequently, this belief has been handed down for thousands and thousands of years. It's a form of hereditary hypnosis! 3. The prevailing scientific theory is that the matter universe came first and eventually, inanimate matter on this planet somehow became animate matter in the form of single living cells and evolved into conscious beings. This theory/belief/solid conviction of matter evolving mind is so deeply-rooted in human consciousness that most of mankind automatically believes it to be 100% true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Based on #3, the prevailing thought in the scientific community is that mind/consciousness must be in the brain. After all, if you hit someone on the head with a lead pipe, they appear to lose consciousness. If you give them an anesthetic, they appear to lose consciousness. If you kill them, they appear to lose consciousness. Generally speaking, this belief causes the physicists, philosophers and medical community (I have deep respect for all) to spend a lot of time and energy trying to discover how the brain creates consciousness. So far, they have failed miserably. They really have no clue. That's why they call it the "hard problem." They are so stuck on this deep-rooted belief that mind is in the body/brain, - they are in complete bondage to this age old model of thinking. They may have determined there are correlations between mind and brain; but that doesn't mean brain produces mind/consciousness anymore than believing the visible image on the TV screen is producing the invisible broadcast signals originating outside the TV set. The other day, I saw clearer than ever before and it hit me like a ton of bricks, - mind is not in the body/brain or in anything at all. Just as the carnal mind is not in the "dream body/brain" -- the carnal mind is not in the "awake body/brain" either. The finite, material universe of want and woe which we perceive via the carnal mind/corporeal senses (recall the above definition) is in the carnal mind; a product and projection of the carnal mind similar to how a movie is projected onto a screen but is actually coming from inside the movie projector. If the movie projector was shut off, the image on the screen would naturally disappear. But the carnal mind and everything produced by the carnal mind is a mirage, including itself. There is no truth in the carnal mind. It is a liar and the father (i.e. origin or source) of the lie. If it is true that Mind is not in the body/brain, what does this tell us? It means it must have come before matter and not after matter as the theory of evolution claims. If Mind came before matter, then matter could not have created Mind. If matter didn't create Mind, then Mind must be self-existent, self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. Since the carnal mind is a mirage and a liar, it has no real existence. The only thing that could possibly be left is the self-existent, self-sustaining and self-perpetuating divine Mind. This Mind must be timeless and space-less; it has no awareness of corporeality, pride, evil, greed, sorrow, insecurity, fear, revenge, hatred, etc.; it only knows its own incorporeal and infinite ideas of itself; it is pure and perfect, - uncontaminated by the erroneous beliefs of a finite, material universe of sin, sickness and death. All the erroneous beliefs of the carnal mind are simply unknown and non-existent to the level of divine consciousness symbolized by divine Mind. Unlike the analogy of the movie projector in which the carnal mind can be shut off, the divine Mind and its incorporeal, eternal images of itself can never be shut off. No matter what seems to happen within the realm of the so-called carnal mind, it is impossible for it to affect divine Mind in any way, shape or form! Divine Mind is impenetrable to anything which opposes its own nature. When consciousness reflects absolute Truth (i.e. divine Mind), the carnal mind spontaneously and instantaneously disappears into its native nothingness because it has no truth to sustain its imaginary existence. In reality, there is only one Mind emanating infinite, individual expressions of the one Mind; yet at the same time still remaining the one Mind. There are not many minds. Since this Mind is self-existent, it must be immortal and eternal. It is completely free from all that is unlike Spirit, God...because it is Spirit, God. It is our one and only real Mind. Our real, true identity is not a corporeal being (two eyes, arms legs, etc.). The corporeal being is a false image projected and painted onto the canvas of mortal consciousness by the so-called carnal/mortal mind. Our real, true identity is the image and likeness of immortal Mind, - the pure and perfect, incorporeal idea of infinite Spirit, God. Immortal Mind has never, for one second, stopped being our real Mind (which is not in anything) and we have never, for one second, stopped being the pure and perfect, incorporeal idea of infinite Spirit, God, our real Mind. We just mistakenly believed we fell into a deep sleep, separated ourselves from immortal Mind and were mesmerized by the false belief that we became the dream of the carnal mind. Dream and dreamer are one. As the Psalmist wrote: "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness."
@leandrosilvagoncalves1939
4 жыл бұрын
Wonderful explanation!
@rh001YT
9 жыл бұрын
I think the Helen Keller story explains a lot. It seems that without sight or hearing she was almost entirely just "mind", the exception being that she had the sense of touch, hot, cold, etc. But with only touch she did not seem able to put it all together and was like a brain in a vat. Her teacher, Annie Sullivan, must have been very wise as what she did was help Annie, using her only sense of touch, to build a larger picture of the external world. This example should silence anyone who disagrees with the Kantian transcendental idealism, namely, that our view of the external world depends on our apriori engine, or core, which always will, given experience with objects, generate the same time & space picture of reality. We can question the ultimately validity of the apriori engine, but not it's usefulness. So against materialism this says that we only know the apriori version of the so-called material world and have no way of knowing what we might be missing. Rather than claim "this is how reality is" materialists might want to back down a bit and say "this approach leads to improvements of living conditions and profit by manipulating things and energy in so far as we are able to understand them", with emphasis on "in so far....understand them".
@mikailmaqsood7291
3 жыл бұрын
Have you heard of Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception?
@ZDoggMD
5 жыл бұрын
Hell. Yeah.
@ZDoggMD
5 жыл бұрын
See also: zdoggmd.com/incident-report-266/
@dfcr83
9 жыл бұрын
Excellent excellent!! Thank you Bernardo! :)
@bernardokastrup
9 жыл бұрын
dfcr83 Thanks! :)
@shadowolf3998
5 жыл бұрын
I came to notice that if you identify with something you start affecting it, also when you focus on something for too long you start associating with it therefore you affect it. How I see it is like the observer and the subject are one and the same, they have a bond once they encounter each other and they will indeed affect each other, when you perceive even in physicality you are in fact affecting the system you are in and the system affects you. Likewise, there is a very common concept of dualism in nature and that seems to fractal outwards and inwards infinitely, meaning it does have no end and no beginning which is self-paradoxical therefore it has to have some sort of end or beginning... then again if it did we would at some point be able to reach it... so there are those ... ironically enough... 2 concepts of reality, one of which is basically the dualistic fractal nature and the other one is the one-ness unified nature of reality. This effectively makes possible a "Trinity" of states in which consciousness exists, it can be said that it is a trinity form(s)... this would make the most sense and when you think about it... when you have a scale, there are 2 forces and one in the middle that holds the balance together, so in fact, to transcend duality you have to look at the big picture... there is a trinity which actually seems to appear everywhere with the 2 forces being the means of which the 1 force or entity in the middle expresses itself, it is like seeing the yin/yang symbol and the part that separates them is actually the 3rd component, if in a scale you were unable to have the tip in the middle that holds the scale together then you would have either one or the other fall-off... So in the end material and mental are the same thing, the one thing we ought to look for is consciousness as that one thing that holds everything together, we ought to study the glue or the original root cause and not the end result, that is fundamentally why science is always chasing its tail... simply because it seeks results and not root core causes.
@bris1tol
10 жыл бұрын
On a new birth of philosophy from the ashes of materialism Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. This doctrine in its modern form seems to have originated from the secular philosophers of the Enlightenment, and from the writings of Voltaire and others seems to have become established in western thinking together with the secularization of society and its opposition to the power of the Church. The critical turn of thinking appears to have been due to an incompleteness in the metaphysics of Descartes. Descartes, for all of his originality and brilliance, overlooked the integration of mind and body, as noted by Leibniz, by dividing reality into two completely distinct realms, one of extension (the body) and one of mind, which is non-extended. This worked out well in practice, by accomodating Newton's new mechanics, since his mechanics only apparently dealt with the physical world, and freed science from dealing with mind (and divinity) by simply ignoring it. Today, with the advent of quantum mechanics, we know that this is not true, for quanta are mental, not physical, since they are not independently in spacetime. In materialistic thinking, the mind is a product of the brain and controlled by it. This however cannot explain intentional acts, which originate in mind. It also allows materialistic thinkers to ignore concepts such as the soul or divinity, giving justification for secularism, and opening up the possibility of dialectical materialism. Leibniz pointed out that matter, since causality must be mental and not physical (since there are no such physical entities as momentum, for example) must have some mental correspondent. Leibniz called this mental correspondent the monad. An example of a monad is a quantum. Another serious problem with materialism is that physical entities in spacetime are contingent, meaning that they are not permanent and fixed, as Bertrand Russell thought they were in his theory of descriptions. They are thus poor, ephemeral referents, since they both move and continually change. An example of a possible correction to materialism is given below, although obviously others might be able to do better. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The three levels of reality in platonic physics FIRSTNESS -FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin. SECONDNESS - SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) ental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." Some of these objects, such as ideas, or mathematics, are not monads, since they have no corresponding physical bodies. According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz: a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle). b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect. c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind. The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming. Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH. This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions. Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this. Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion. THIRDNESS - THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form. 3. Conclusions This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
@ladyviolet6180
6 жыл бұрын
Tnx that helped a lot
@koen8993
9 жыл бұрын
Okay, at about five minutes you say that just by having a generated image of a working brain is not proof that it creates consciousness and I would agree with that point. However, we have since learned of things that can happen to a person when something messes with the general processes of the brain, say lobotomy or an aneurysm. We observe major change in personality and their general experience of life. How do you account for that in your view? Or am I misunderstanding your views in some way?
@bernardokastrup
9 жыл бұрын
koen8993 If all reality -- including bodies and inanimate objects -- are images of processes in consciousness, then a lobotomy, brain surgery, psychoactive drugs, etc., are all also images of processes in consciousness. Therefore, the fact that drugs or trauma interfere with your subjectivity should be no more surprising than the fact that e.g. your thoughts affect your emotions. Both, after all, are processes in consciousness. If you think this should not be the case, then you are implicitly assuming some form of dualism somewhere.
@koen8993
9 жыл бұрын
Thank you for clearing that up. I don't hold Idealism to be true, so I didn't have a proper frame of understanding to comprehend your argument. Now I at least see where you're coming from.
@bernardokastrup
9 жыл бұрын
koen8993 That you understand what I am saying (whether you agree or not) is all I hoped to achieved, so I am happy to hear it. :)
@BigBunnyLove
8 жыл бұрын
To replace our drive for profit makes no difference? He is using his inner experience as the basis for his ideas, which materialism has not included in it's scientific method and that is the error he is trying to correct. And Quantum Physics has blown materialism out of the water. Science has blown materialism out of the water. But it must be as you say, these discussions make no difference, eh. Also, he is not an idealist for real, he only plays one to talk to people like you in a game you refuse to see. Yawn, next.
@jaredprince4772
5 жыл бұрын
Solipsism is the rejection of all outside oneself, the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
@skivvykiv
10 жыл бұрын
Hi Bernardo, great video! Quick question.. If all reality is subjective to ones mind, then does this do away with objective morality or does idealism better explain why we share morality by an all encompassing consciousness (ie. God)?
@bernardokastrup
10 жыл бұрын
Thanks Kivio! Well, morality is a difficult topic. I discuss a bit about morality towards the end of 'Rationalist Spirituality.' But to answer your question, I think a worldview that entails we are all split-off psychic complexes of a single mind should be more conducive to explaining the shared intuitions behind our morality.
@ElanSunStarPhotographyHawaii
10 жыл бұрын
This as a good question i have come into this arena many times myself but it seems that morality is basic equipment. Compassion and empathy are aspects of the higher percetpion. These elements compassion and empathy and resulting morality cannot be explained to materialists or rationaists...It comes from another arena
@skivvykiv
10 жыл бұрын
Elan Star most atheists will hold to a mechanistic idea of morality stemming from empathy in our brains,but will conclude it came about by evolution for survival. They will generally steer away from any talk of higher perception or higher selfless cause.
@jimsandy4872
5 жыл бұрын
Kivio No this does not do away with objective reality. And yes it does imply a higher larger consciousness ie God.
@chrisw7347
3 жыл бұрын
I don't believe there is a exclusivity between Materialism and Idealism. I think these two ideas, or at least their most sophisticated and rational approaches, eventually meet in a representation/agreement of reality. The similarities are far greater than the differences, and the differences truly are hashed out once we just converge on "Is this *inside* the mind? Is this *concrete* reality?" and so on. The *ultimate* values behind Materialism and Idealism actually converge. I imagine a kind of superposition between some of the claims of Materialism and Idealism, where elements of **both** representations, that seem contradictory, are actually simultaneously operative.
@Joshua-dc1bs
6 жыл бұрын
Bernardo, what are your thoughts on Neutral Monism?
@Joshua-dc1bs
2 ай бұрын
@@amihartz I actually forgot the content of this video
@aseeroha
5 жыл бұрын
at 2:55 you said that our perception is in our subjective experiences. Yes I agree with that. But, what do you think of this thought? "The color of an object that I perceive is subjunctive, but the fact that this very object reflects light at a specific wavelength is objective. It is independent of any observer.'
@simonsharp9075
5 жыл бұрын
An aspect of mind at large that is in consciousness but not necessarily conscious.
@TheBrunarr
4 жыл бұрын
This is the doctrine of indirect realism.
@robheusd
Жыл бұрын
2 - Flames cs combustion & brain activity vs consciousness. You inverted the causality of flames vs combustion. Flames indeed do not cause combustion, but the other wat around. So in the analogy of brains vs consciousnes, the brain represents combustion, the flames consciousness. That brain activity comes BEFORE consciousness in the temporal sense is also known, because we can measure that the brain state occurs before our conscious experience of that state. Which again shows that the physical brain is primary to consciousness.
@zak2659
6 ай бұрын
you'Ve just misunderstood the whole point. The point is that brains are the image of consciousness, and thus trying to reduce the thing in itself (consciousness) to the image of said thing is equivalent to trying to reduce combustion to the image of the combustion which is the flames.
@aseeroha
5 жыл бұрын
I think the flames are the result of combustion. Or am I wrong?
@CosmicFaust
9 жыл бұрын
+Bernardo Kastrup Homo Sapiens have not been around for 99.9999% of cosmic history so who was observing the universe then? And how did consciousness come into existence if it creates a mental construct of all reality? I am against the world view of materialism myself and personally think it's between idealism and realism being true and am willing to take idealism very seriously, I just have some serious questions about it.
@bernardokastrup
9 жыл бұрын
+Ellis Farrow www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/the-top-10-most-fallacious-arguments-of.html and www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/06/ways-materialists-beg-question.html.
@BigBunnyLove
8 жыл бұрын
That was funny. You listened nor responded to one thing he said. You demonstrated his points exactly. Thank you for the lesson. You must be a bot. Gotta be.
@peterjones6507
6 жыл бұрын
The idea is that Mind is not human minds but their origin. Consciousness would not 'come into existence. It would encompass and transcend existence.
@SouIatman
10 жыл бұрын
By the way, my wife wants to know if you are Brazillian?
@bernardokastrup
10 жыл бұрын
Hi soulatman,Officially not, but I was born in Rio de Janeiro and spent my early life there. So your wife is picking up on something. :)Gr, B.
@bris1tol
10 жыл бұрын
The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired) (11-28-2014) Abstract Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony. The top down structuring from Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science. This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories. 1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes. Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self. For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular-- the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy. The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of Leibniz's unfamiliar spreadsheet style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting. Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly. 2. The three levels Firstness -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Secondness -- Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz: a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle). b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect. c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind. The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming. Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH. This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions. Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this. Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion. Thirdness - Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form. 3. Conclusions This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
@iloverumi
3 жыл бұрын
great presentation
@AEthebeast
9 жыл бұрын
Anyone else fascinated in the object he was holding. Anyone know what this object is called or where to get it?
@bernardokastrup
9 жыл бұрын
Alexander Echevarria I don't know the name of that thing... I bought it in a French gadget shop... also forgot the name of the shop :(
@capricioussole
9 жыл бұрын
Alexander Echevarria If they still have Spencer Gifts stores, You can get them there or in a headshop.
@georgedoyle7971
4 жыл бұрын
@a1seus Idealism makes sense as it does not undermine “values” such as morals and ethics, including human rights that protect our loved ones, our families including the vulnerable in society, unlike pure materialism that renders everything meaningless and purposeless even scientific endeavour. The fact is that there is no evidence that this theoretical abstraction of the mind “matter”, that is a very useful tool in areas such as medicine, is the only thing that matters. Equally, modern science has demonstrated that “matter”, for want of a better word, exists at the quantum level that is invisible, unmeasurable, non locational, bi locational, timeless and can influence other “particles” over distance and collapses at the wave function during the (observer effect) in the double slit light experiment, suggesting that consciousness not “matter” brings concreteness to reality and is fundamental because it is impossible to even perceive or experience “matter” without consciousness. I think there’s a kind of abject blindness with materialists as they have been conditioned to view the world with this particular theoretical abstraction of the mind that whilst useful in areas such as medicine it clearly has limits and the potential to undermine, morals, ethics, meaning and purpose when applied to all areas of investigation, human experience and reality leading to hubris, intellectualism and in the worst cases mania, “scientism” and nihilism. (Scientism: “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.” (Merriam Webster Library definition) Hence this clearly very frustrated but brilliant impression of a villain from a children’s pantomime.... “buahahahahahaha ahhhhhhh hahahahaha” The fact is we all want absolute certainty and prefer scientific theories that support our personal ideology. Obviously it would be possible to describe everything using only the (natural sciences) “but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure” (Albert Einstein). Nevertheless, our previous assumptions regarding physicalism/materialism have crumbled under the weight of evidence from quantum mechanics alone without having to point out the arguments regarding consciousness and what we can truly know with certainty from the deductive reasoning of Descartes and philosophers such as Bernardo Kastrup etc. The fact is that quantum mechanics has demonstrated no one even knows what “matter” even is (Roger Penrose). So what do materialists even mean by “matter”? How can you seriously believe you have the intellectual high ground for something when you don’t even know what it is. This is clearly a “faith” based assertion. At least with deism and theism etc we have the direct evidence of our own consciousness not to mention the evidence of billions of levels and different states of consciousness in the world. Interestingly, according to the expert on consciousness Professor David Chalmers who is the Director of The Centre for Mind, Brain and Consciousness, and does not come from a religious perspective ..... “Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.” (David Chalmers) Fascinating subject! All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis “Hubris calls for nemesis, and in one form or another it's going to get it, not as a punishment from outside but as the completion of a pattern already started.” (Mary Midegeley) All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. Take it steady ❤️
@bris1tol
9 жыл бұрын
Personal thinking and remembering in Plato's Mind Uncannilly, Leibniz's Monadology often seems to provide answers to unforeseen questions, no doubt because the structure of Leibniz's universe is correct. First of all, a person, by which we mean the monad of a human, has intellectual capacities, ie has an individual Mind, which we designate mind or soul (Leibniz uses the term "spirit"). This contains his identity and has downward control, namely, dominance over a set of nested personal monads, such as the brain, the nervous system, and so forth. Leibniz's concept of monads differentiates him from the later British empiricists, such as Hume and Locke, who, unlike Leibniz, did not have Mind or mind in their toolbox to help them explain perception, impressions, and ideas. Here we will be able to to deal with such mental objects (Secondnesses) by calling them "intendeds", or "intended mental objects", a concept explored by the psychologist Meinong in the 19th century germany. These are Leibniz's apperceptions, which are perceptional experiences that we attend to so that they are intended or thought, making the experiences conscious. Monads are the mental correspondents of physical bodies. Intendeds or apperceptions are mental experiences made conscious by the intellect's intending them of thinking them (reflecting on them). These constitute our memory, and, although I cannot find such a claim at present in Leibniz's works, from Hume and Locke afterwards and simply from common sense, perceptions (memory) fade with time. They do not face in Plato's Mind, which is unchanging. Note that humans cannot see all mental experiences clearly, there is always some cloudiness or distortion, according to Leibniz. I propose that the more clear perceptions (following Hume), constitute ideas, which are then intendeds. These are similar to monads but have no corresponding physical bodies. Intendeds not being monads, these intendeds as ideas can then be compared and manipulated directly by the personal mind (soul). since they have attached intents, and downward control is in effect. Not all experiences are made conscious; the vast majority of them are not reflected on and so remain unconscious. Leibniz seems to be the first to discover this "unconscious", made famous later by Freud, whose method basically was to make perceptions (in the form of dreams) into conscious apperceptions. As to the particular mechanisms of such thinking, I refer the reader to annarborscienceskeptic.com/2011/david-hume/david-hume-impressions-and-ideas/ -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
@Paratecnica
4 күн бұрын
There is a confusion between common sense materialism (a popular belief system or worldview) and philosophical/scientific materialism (as a methodology).
@miguelfonseca1104
9 жыл бұрын
you defend idealism quite well, but i think you should classify whether you defend a subjective idealism like berkeley or an objective/absolute idealism of hegel and bradley. this is why a lot of comments get confused since the idealist position you defend is ambiguous on whether experience refers to an experience first and an experiencer second or vice versa. if you take the subjective idealist view, fighting solipsism becomes more difficult.
@MonisticIdealism
8 жыл бұрын
+Miguel Fonseca "...idealism does not entail solipsism any more than realism entails solipsism: both the idealist and the realist infer the existence of other streams of consciousness from the experience of volitional actions that do not originate within one’s own stream of consciousness." Source: Henkel, Jeremy E. (2012). How to avoid solipsism while remaining an idealist: Lessons from Berkeley and dharmakīrti. _Comparative Philosophy_ 3 (1):58-73.
@BigBunnyLove
8 жыл бұрын
It's a Kastrup Idealism.
@tajzikria5307
Жыл бұрын
Monistic idealism
@MrEzradelucas
6 жыл бұрын
The categories, Mind ,qualia,etc are attempts to deaggreggate the totality of 'what is ' so these concepts or descriptions are important ,if you don't want to accept the unusful conglomeration of everything to a category of 'what is '.
@adri6959
3 жыл бұрын
Saw you in VPRO tegenlicht. I think your ideas will take off when you start using animations.
@taskmasterx5976
9 жыл бұрын
If everything is mind then why can't I experience your mind if you were right next to me? What is the barrier between our minds? What medium separates us for you to use the phrase "other minds"? Are you willing to say that there are no minds other than your own (solipsism), because idealism leads to solipsism. And if your "mind" is dependent upon the existence of a "mind-at-large", then why isn't the mind-at-large dependent upon an even more fundamental mind, and so on, ad infinitum? Also, idealists have trouble explaining what they are observing when they look in the mirror. If a mirror reflects their image, then wouldn't it be a reflection of their mind, not their body?
@miguelfonseca1104
9 жыл бұрын
TaskMasterX 1. minds are separated by awareness, not content, why awareness is finite, that's a problem of the one-and the many and it plagues all of metaphysics, not just idealism 2. idealism can fall into solipsism only if you take your notion of identity (the I or ego) to be primary and experience to be secondary. if experience or feeling is primary and the ego a construction of a finite center of experience just like the object world, then there is no risk of solipsism. the most that can happen is a misperception of what entities in reality have their own egos but this is a problem in materialism as well. the idealist is just as likely to infer consciousness of those entities that share similar frameworks to ourselves because correlations are not irrelevant. the objective world is the filter which a finite mind particularizes its experience. 3. your worry of a mind at large is a clever objection but it relies on a hard to spot misunderstanding. if many minds rely on a mind at large we are likely to say that there is one cosmic mind so to speak (hegel and bradley refer to this as the absolute) but there is two meanings to one here. there is the one of quantity and the of identity. the cosmic mind is not a one of quantity which is divisible but one of identity whiich means its oneness is equivalent to stating its non-duality or non-divisibility. this is no different then when atheists ask agaisnt theists who think god is the first cause, what caused god? this is to complete misunderstand what an ontological first cause means. similarly, absolute idealists dont think the cosmic mind is in space and time so questions of diviision are not a threat. 4. the mirror objection i dont get it. to an idealist, the body is a primary vehicle to understand our awareness so when we see a reflection, we are seeing a part of ourselves that explains a very significant portiion of our being, but we are not SOLELY this. if you would liike to continuue thiis by all means reply or send me a message. i also recommend you read, appearance and reality by f.h bradley, which is perhaps the greatest book on idealism
@Eric-yc7po
8 жыл бұрын
+TaskMasterX precisely. He doesn't realize it, but when he says things like "flames are combustion," this is not evidence of idealism, but the contrary. If you are familiar with identity theory (reductive materialism; physicalism), you'll know what I'm talking about. Anyways, you hit the nail on the head.
@BigBunnyLove
8 жыл бұрын
Face palm...when oh when?!
@daithiocinnsealach1982
4 жыл бұрын
Donald Hoffman is an Idealist and he believes that what we experience as reality is basically a construction of our brains. The very charge you lay upon Materialists. So it is possible for an Idealist to believe that colour and texture etc do not truly exist yet still believe that everything is fundamentally made of consciousness. I guess this why he calls himself a Conscious Realist rather than an Idealist? If love for you both to have a discussion on your differences of opinion.
@vishnusnair610
2 жыл бұрын
@bernado read Sankara bashyam on Upanishads Geetha brahmasutras, especially mandukyakarika. All are adwaithisams ( philosophy)
@stephenhogg6154
5 жыл бұрын
Isn't the argument for idealism refuted by the existence of the arche-fossil?
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
this is what probably happens when one reads too much carl jung and not enough patricia churchland :-)
@thomassimmons1950
3 жыл бұрын
I Am That I AM...Thou Art THAT...
@earlthepearl4062
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you Bernardo for making me think harder and wiser! Im gonna read this paper philosophies-02-00010 pdf and then maybe join the discussion forum if i can comprehend and evalute it? I came here from reading my favorite Philosopher: Every thing is of the nature of no thing./ Parmenides
@Werdna27
3 жыл бұрын
I really can't agree here. If you postulate an opposition in the title of the video, then isn't it - considering the philosophical, historical opposition of these two schools of thought, most likely that the emergent truth is that there is a different lane upon which the opposition is transcended? This could be seen as a Hegelian dialectic, or a Derridean Deconstruction or any other school of thought that surrenders to paradox (which it should).
@glynemartin
5 жыл бұрын
In Bernado's terminology Mind = Consciousness.
@ElanSunStarPhotographyHawaii
10 жыл бұрын
Bernardo ...you are a "force of nature" so much creativty work in so many areas. Thanks for your insights .
@bernardokastrup
10 жыл бұрын
Elan Star Thanks Elan! :)
@TheBrunarr
6 жыл бұрын
If all is mind, then there must be some fundamental necessary mind that brought all of reality into existence since it is not derived from our minds. Monistic idealism entails God!
@svenmeier9706
7 жыл бұрын
6.40 talkin about "magical step" whilst trying to sell the idea of an even more magical step: flow of mind and subjectiv states
@simonsharp9075
5 жыл бұрын
No it's called an ontological primitive. Or in common parlance - you have to grant the universe one free miracle to get started. Bernardo argues that consciousness is the most appropriate and parsimonious ontological primitive.
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
@@simonsharp9075 you have to remember if you want it to be parsimonious, it has to be so from the START to FINISH of your theory. Not just as a start you have parsimony but then you have to invent universal mind, process of disassociation (unknown how), when a human / or conscious animals die, their consciousness re unite with the "mother stream" / mind at large, then what will happen after you reunite (dont know).. Dont let the 'parsimony' at the start deceive you :-) for example, solipcism may look as the most parsimonious ontology at the start, but then in order for it to work, you are forced to postulate cartesian demon/ simulator / simulated universe with other unconscious people mimicking your behaviour as your figment of imagination etc etc....Be warry of this 'parsimony' marketing jargon.
@kevinvaught3370
3 жыл бұрын
Instead of referring to this view as Idealism why not refer to it for what it is. It sounds very much like anthropocentric projection.
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
you have to remember if you want it to be parsimonious, it has to be so from the START to FINISH of your theory. Not just as a start you have parsimony but then you have to invent universal mind, process of disassociation (unknown how), when a human / or conscious animals die, their consciousness re unite with the "mother stream" / mind at large, then what will happen after you reunite (dont know), the brain acts as a 'filter' of consciousness (how does this happen exactly? unexplained).. Dont let the 'parsimony' at the start deceive you :-) for example, solipcism may look as the most parsimonious ontology at the start, but then in order for it to work, you are forced to postulate cartesian demon/ simulator / simulated universe with other unconscious people mimicking your behaviour as your figment of imagination etc etc....Be warry of this 'parsimony' marketing jargon.
@arnoldfwilliams
4 жыл бұрын
Oddly enough, the opposite of a false notion is not a true notion. It tends to be another false notion.
@pentosmelmac8679
2 жыл бұрын
Bernardo, you are unquestionably correct, but trying to prove your assertions to materialists is as futile as their attempts to argue against idealism. This is entirely a realm for direct personal experience. The intellect can only infer knowledge. However, please keep poking the bears!
@AcidProphet
4 жыл бұрын
Is it just me or Bernardo mistakes cause with effect when talking about flames and combustion?
@noobslayeru
3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Hegel and Kant were idealists too.
@noobslayeru
3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 look up paraconsistent logic.
@noobslayeru
3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 no actually, I’m not sure what exactly you’re even talking about. You can still even be an idealist and be object about it. I’m not sure what materialism has brought in terms of knowledge that is necessarily granted only be materialism. I referenced dialetheism and paraconsistent logic because they allow us to understand paradox and interpret Hegel and Kant.
@noobslayeru
3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I still don’t see how naturalism is in any way relevant. You can be a naturalist and an idealist. You can Alonso be a naturalist and a materialist. Methodological naturalism is an epistemological system, not an ontological one.
@noobslayeru
3 жыл бұрын
@@nickolasgaspar9660 I brought up dialetheism because you suggested that Hegel didn’t do any good for philosophy. Hegel gives an elegant solution to Zeno’s arrow paradox using paraconsistent logic.
@randypage26
7 жыл бұрын
Virtual Reality or our physical world being illusionary is more of an idealistic idea.. Materialist believe in an objective physical reality existing whether we are conscious or not... seems to me like this argument is really against traditional idealism who believes that our reality is emerging from a non physical, purely mathematical, abstract source that our consciousness turns into reality as we know it. The goal here seems to wanna offer a more refined idea of idealism but his materialistic position doesn't represent materialism very well.
@jimsandy4872
5 жыл бұрын
Platonic Idealism has been relabeled and dismissed by post modern materialists. Like every clever Marxist apologist first he redefines the terms of the debate.
@willp9226
3 жыл бұрын
The mind plays a role, but if you don't believe the world or realm of form exists then you are fooling yourself. Just because some people hallucinate doesn't mean that it is real or of the world of form.
@fanboy8026
3 жыл бұрын
Materialism/Physicalism is dead
@martam4142
3 жыл бұрын
It was about time.
@disposium
10 жыл бұрын
Anyone looking for another take on the 'mind as fundamental fact of existence' might want to read Richard Smoley's book: The Dice Game of Shiva, wherein the metaphor is a game of chance, skill, and cheating, between Shiva and Parvati.
@robopoet
4 жыл бұрын
Is that a Gilligan's Island font?
@marlou169
3 жыл бұрын
💎
@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493
3 жыл бұрын
go on Lex Friedman?
@kenopanishad
3 жыл бұрын
Bring a debate with Sam Harris. BRING ETTTT :D!!
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
Under Materialism, mind is produced by the brain (i.e. the brain must produce mind). Hence Materialism predicts the following: 1. The Universe must be very old. Because its the ONLY way this can happen via evolution. Lo and Behold the Universe is very old indeed aging around 13,8 billion years. 2. The Universe must be very vast. Because its the ONLY way this can happen under materialism. Lo and Behold the Universe is very vast containing billions of galaxies. 3. The Brain must be very complex. Because its the ONLY way consciousness can be generated under materialism. Lo and Behold the brain the the most complex physical systems we know of. All these 3 predictions DO NOT have to happen under Idealism. 1. Under Idealism, the universe may as well age only 1 million years old. (and the idealism still holds) 2. Under Idealism, the Universe may as well just contain earth, moon and sun only. (and the idealism still holds) 3. Under Idealism, the brain may just be as complex as your liver.(and the idealism still holds) So Materialism actually "predicts" how the characteristics of our universe and our brain MUST BE. And we indeed see the predictions are accurate. On the other hand, what does Idealism predict? does it predict nothing? well you know what they say about a theory that tries to predict nothing and explain everything. Your prior could be matter as the primary or consciousness. How are we then supposed to update our posterior probability (using Bayes Theorem) when choosing between Hypothesis A (Materialism) vs Hypothesis B (Idealism)? If you pause and think about it. Materialism is indeed a brave theory that predicts boldly that in order for a being with consciousness like us to exist. Those 3 features of our real world must hold true, or else materialism would fail.
@bernardokastrup
4 жыл бұрын
I normally don't comment here, but your naivety is so sweet I couldn't resist. :-) You can't even conceive that idealism, panpsychism, cosmopsychism and even dualism could be entirely consistent with (i.e. "predict") all these things, can you? :-) You got some reading and thinking to do! At least you are critical, that's a good start. Good luck.
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
@@bernardokastrup Regarding your comment, I agree that all other ontologies you mentioned above could be entirely consistent with all those 3. But ONLY MATERIALISM would FAIL if these 3 are found to be NOT the features of our universe. So in a sense, only materialism is falsifiable by these things and yet LO and BEHOLD it holds! What do you make of this surprising fact?
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
@@bernardokastrup on your point that Idealism could be entirely consistent" with these things - yes I agree it could be "consistent"....but you then add i.e. "predict", sorry i have to disagree with this "predict". Idealism does NOT predict and could NOT have predicted these things apriori. But Materialism predicts these 3 must hold true apriori or else it would fail miserably. So here i think we are seeing some of the 'predictive power' of Materialism as an ontology, tested against real world observation? In my mind, a theory that is merely 'consistent' is kind of weak and "unwilling to take risk". But Materialism seems from this point of view, a very bold and 'risk taking" theory. NB: Your naivety to equate 'consistency' and 'predictive power' is so sweet :-) btw, why did you remove my post on your blog after it was posted? because you can't stand posts which are critical to you view? what a sad thing to do :( But it's ok, i understand it :-)
@tomcollector9594
3 жыл бұрын
@@zorashoes6482 Hahaha, name one experience you've had "outside of consciousness" name one experience you've had that was not an experience in consciousness... If you believe in something outside of consciousness.. "you believe it" on faith... you have faith in induction and maybe should go talk to Hume... you are basically a religious person.. you also likely have no idea "who you are".. so why should we trust you on anything else and especially something as vast as the universe... are you a self?.. are you some name or personality?... did you thoroughly examine this question for 40,000 plus hours, and with what tools did you examine them?.. only thinking?.. or meditation?... or both?.. where does your body begin and where does it end... is the self there or not there.. if you don't have answers on who and what "you" are... then why should we trust "you" on anything else... if you believe the indoctrination that you are a self with a name, and that your body is located where you are indoctrinated to believe it to be... then why trust your view on the universe... I'm not in anyway talking about souls, or god, or anything spooky... I'm talking about classic "self inquiry" in a secular sense... did you do the hard work of asking yourself "who am I?" every single hour of your thoughts for 40,000 plus hours... or have you been busy living a conventional human life as a self/name and taking that conventional life and idea about "you" being a discrete and separate entity and then projecting it onto the universe... thinking it.. like your undeveloped version of "your self".. that the universe must also be discrete and separate.. find a way for materialism to work without discrete objects and entities.. and also objects that no one has ever witnessed... no one has ever witnessed anything outside of witnessing it... neither have you... you have never experienced any evidence outside of experience... so the world that exists as discrete objects on its own terms is something you have "faith" about... why not be a true skeptic?... and reject all but what can never be an illusion?... why have "faith" in something... please don't use "an appeal to success" fallacy on behalf of science... be a true skeptic.. stop trusting things that are unverifiable... and start your skeptical journey with the question "who am I?" spend a super super long time on that question.. look around your consciousness for "who am I?" and "what am I?" look for the "who" don't think about it... look for it.. for a very very long time.. because there is no reason to trust an investigation conducted by a detective who himself is under a delusion about his own identity
@yahussainmazloom1
8 жыл бұрын
if this video had the subtitle it was very useful video for me I can't understand the words , I am not english :/
@yahussainmazloom1
7 жыл бұрын
nickolasgaspar good. u gave u Identity that u are dog
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
Read Patricia Churchland's work and compare it with this one :-)
@martam4142
3 жыл бұрын
Why should we read garbage philosophy?
@m8oneguy913
8 жыл бұрын
I got no clue...
@zorashoes6482
4 жыл бұрын
This is a Repost from my conversation with @GuyFieri: When Bernardo pulls out image of galaxy clusters from cosmology, POINTING OUT it resembles human brain nervous system and make this to favor his ontology, he is allowed. (of course I agree that he is justified in doing so and we all should pay attention to what he is saying!) In this particular case, i might even give him a favorable weighting to his case. Kudos for Bernardo for his original thinking (angle of Resemblance) in this particular galaxy clusters example! On the other hand, When I took results from cosmology showing the age 13,8 billion and 100 billions galaxy , POINTING OUT it is exactly what materialism needs/ requires to have consciousness as a later / recent development in human brain (Angle of Age and Vastness). It is brushed off with statements such as: Idealism could also accommodate this. This is the domain of physics and not ontology. Physics are metaphysically neutral. After all outside world has to have patterns and regularities operating under certain laws, bla bla bla. (cherry picking & have a cake and eat it too)
Пікірлер: 149