Dr Bernardo Kastrup, Idealism vs Materialism

[CALCANEUS]

Bright hosting bringing earnest questions and push back. Brilliant guest with incredible sound argument for idealism. That said, Materialism collapses under its own weight. What is easy to miss is what we mean be consciousness and experience.

[zsolt]

It's kinda sad how a lot of people equate science with the philosophy of materialism. Disregarding any other metaphysics that's not materialism as anti-scientific is ironically quite irrational and dogmatic. Not to say that there aren't people who really spout nonsense. Figuring out what is BS and what is not can be tiring but if one wants to be rational then one has to stop being lazy, start thinking and actually listen.

[GregoryGeller]

I'm only 20 minutes in but this is already the best video I have ever seen on YouTube. Dude, whoever you are, thank you.

I've leaned towards materialism my entire life and THIS GUY, Bernardo Katrup is the ONLY PERSON who has been able to make an argument in favor of metaphysical idealism that makes sense to me. He is right that the material world is DEFINED as that which is NOT experiencial! 100% agree. You made a statement that "computers DO create visualizations" or something like that. But, you are missing the point. Computer visualizations are JUST electrodes and diodes and the excitation of electrons and pixels and stuff. It is not AN EXPERIENCE. Only YOU or I and other conscious entities can EXPERIENCE the visualizations created by the computer. It is a COMPLETELY different thing, not like bricks and walls. Like Katrup is saying, there is absolutely NOTHING in common with the DISPLAY of a picture and the EXPERIENCE of the picture in consciousness. This *IS* the hard problem of consciousness.

So, since we can't--even in PRINCIPLE--get from materialism to consciousness without some kind of magic, why not START from consciousness and see if we can derive the material world? This, I must admit, does seem MORE plausible. You asked in the beginning, why can't materialism just assume that matter is fundamental and consciousness comes from it? Well, that's exactly what they do as materialists, and they have failed and failed spectacularly, so far.

I'm not saying I'm convinced. What I'm saying is that I'm convinced that Katrup's argument is cogent and makes sense. I'm convinced that it does seem easier to go from assuming consciousness and deriving matter than it is to go the other way around.

Anyway....love this video. I've subscribed. Hope to see more interviews like this in the future. Thank you.

[integralsun]

It should be Saint Bernardo. Only a saint could demonstrate this extraordinary level of patience.

[HIIIBEAR]

This was my favorite talk. introduced me to analytical idealism! Expanded my understanding of how concepts are explained by other concepts and how that relates to how I see myself and others.

[dazlemwithlovelight]

Thanks for the replay, it's been a while since I watched this interview. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.

[TheMagev]

This was the most pleasant debate I think I’ve ever seen Tjump have. I’ve watched too many of the dumpster fire episodes.

[larsandre]

I follow you all the way upp till 1:09 when you start talking about experiencial states out there. In my experience these are also projections. But still good presentation. In my personal experience everything happens in Me, and Me I can acess. It’s a deliberate process to overcome the last hurdel to become one, but it is doable.

[neilhabermehl]

30:50 Kastrup begs the question, assumes that when an arrangement of material becomes conscious (say, as an embryo grows) that is dualism. No, the material simply gets arranged consciousness-wise.

[solomonherskowitz]

Very clear and to the point discussion on both sides, thank you.

[crazygadgets]

"And we all have this feeling, that I came into this world. Well, it isn't true - you came out of this world, like a leaf comes out of a tree." - Alan Watts

[alant]

very rare to see two people who have fundamental disagreements talk to each other as if they are sane individuals.

[piles]

bernardo needs to get better at destroying arguments of emergence.

eg. a pattern on a shell is an emergent property of the shell.
when we observe the basis of emergence ie. that shell we necessarily observe its emergent property ie. the pattern, and vice versa.

likewise blue is asserted to be the emergent property of a particular neural correlate in the brain. however no such emergent property is observed upon observing the neural correlate that is asserted to be the basis of emergence for the emergent property blue.

furthermore after splicing billions of mammal brains christof koch failed in his decades long heavily funded research to locate the neural correlate for consciousness itself, let alone its emergent property of basic consciousness. so even he now no longer maintains are hard physicalist position openly admitting it requires a total collapse into magical thinking.

[kgrandchamp]

Wow! Absolutely loved this talk even though I didn't really understand Bernardo's idealist view! I am definitely more on Thomas's side as a materialist (consciousness derives from a certain level of complexity and an appropriate material machine as an emergent property) and think, until whoever gets proved right, it is somehow more useful for us humans to manipulate the world "out there". How can one's consciousness engineer the physical world and therefore interfere and modify nature's mental state? But Bernardo's theory is compelling! Will have to listen to this again and immerse myself in all those terms and definitions! Thanks Thomas and Bernardo for this fascinating and, to me, slightly destabilizing and scary talk! 🌿

[lexter]

23:50 - So is this idealist denying the concept of emergence? Because it sounds like he cannot understand that matter is not having experience on its own just like that. But a specific type of matter in specific combination can have experience through emergence characteristics of this complex system. This is what materialist prove, and idealists ignore. Or can he prove what he is saying? Doubt it, as most idealists hate empirical evidence.

[Juju-uzur]

What happened to all your other videos?

[SofiaInterius]

Would love a follow up on this one. Great stuff no doubt.

[skandi]

Is this a new upload of the old conversation from 3 years ago?

[inglestaemtudo]

Once I understood materialism the spell was broken. You don't need Idealism to defeat materialism. Materialism defeats itself, actually I should've been buried more than 100 years ago with the advent of Quantum physics.

[Astralox]

18:06 i just realized how incredible stupid the idea is that we can make consciousness that will emerge from complexity. Materialists lokt their own brain and then are basically saying add some stones and pots and pans and u get consciousness lol