What Do We Actually Know: Bernardo Kastrup

A talk from SAND 15 exploring the brain, perception, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, panpsychism, and more.

Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on 'Scientific American,' the 'Institute of Art and Ideas,' the 'Blog of the American Philosophical Association' and 'Big Think,' among others.

Science and Nonduality is a community inspired by timeless wisdom, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience. We come together in an open-hearted exploration while celebrating our humanity.

[djdollase]

Bernardo is THE bridge between science and spirituality. So glad that, thru Rupert Spira, I found him on YouTube.

[theautodidacticlayman]

Bernardo, this is BORDERLINE prophetic, brother. May God continue to use you and draw us closer!! You are not far from the Kingdom. 🙏🏻

[emilypotato]

I’m so happy to have a scientific explanation that doesn’t negate what I myself have been experiencing! Rupert and Bernado compliment each other very well.

[seraVmiskiel]

Awesome explanation! Now, if only we could all learn how to better associate with our fellow disassociates. This would be an even more beautiful world. Keep going, Bernardo.😍

[youtubecanal]

Thank you for sharing. Love Bernardo Kastrup and is simple, parsimonious and clear ontology.

[jennyrook]

Exactly what the Sun told me. In fact I quote you in my book, out on the 15/12/22. We are imagined into being and then given a different perspective, so that we think we are separate. The same is true of the Sun, though it knows it is not separate from the Galaxy mind nor the Universe mind. It’s all the same stuff, the imagination of Source/God/Brahman, whatever you want to call it. What a marvel it all is!

[ulrikewermann]

Every day I can observe this phenomenon staging itself in my psychotherapeutic practice.

[peterluxus]

Bravo Bernardo!!! Very well explained!!!

[sabaarunanthy]

Blazingly clear description Thanks Bernardo

[RT-frtn]

Great presentation Bernando! May I request for an in-depth talk on how illusory divisions (bounderies by senses) are created and how to overcome it. Thank you, Rima

[robertroest]

Here Bernardo is so clear! He always is to me, but here even more so.

[clivejenkins]

Absolutely brilliant, Dr bernardo is amazing 💯👌

[lunkerjunkie]

well said.
dissociation explains a lot about perspective.
denial of unity gives the appearance of separation.

[TravisCBarker]

The language chosen to explain the interpretation creates an understanding separate from the phenomenon that we seek to observe. The reasoning is consistent but takes leaps that lack sufficient objectivity to transcend cultural and religious assumptions.

[anthonydworak]

“It riles them to believe that we perceive the web they weave.”

[mtmind]

Speaking from direct experience:
Without duality one cannot know existence. However Duality is required to know non-dual reality.
But ‘you’ cannot do it.
Something which knows there is a body can reveal it to you.
It is beyond words. Beyond measuring with thought.
The radiant brilliant inseparably of awareness and emptiness that doesn’t even know that it is.

[michaelferguson]

This is brilliant! Beautiful connections! It's all more simple than we can think. Thank You! Be kind ;)

[realcygnus]

What currently connects the most dots IMO & by FAR.

[glenndespres]

11:48 For those who can’t find the science in this video. You’re welcome.

[Robinson]

Referring to Rupert's example: the inner experience of the image of the brain is the image, the Self is the screen (or at least the image isn't). This doesn't make the physical brain which is represented by this image on the screen not actual and manifested in the external world. I feel something is going wrong with his dancing of the dancer syllogism, and the experience of that which-experiences: for "that+which experiences" can be portrayed as the Self; or as the physical brain.

But the reasoning is more sophisticated than I thought and I like his efforts, at least its interesting and attempts to be thought-through. This was a good talk, thanks