Bernardo Kastrup Λ Susan Blackmore: Conscious Illusion?

LINKS MENTIONED:

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00:00 Introduction
00:05:04 Illusionism is misunderstood
00:07:40 Who is the "illusion" happening to?
00:09:20 Bernardo's disagreements with illusionists
00:19:35 Materialism doesn't work
00:28:21 Mindfulness and mind-altering experiences aid the philosophy?
00:30:34 Why aren't you a panspsychist?
00:38:27 The regularity of the laws of nature in Idealism
00:49:45 The simplest understanding of a "dissociative boundary"
00:54:57 Telepathy in Idealism and in science
01:06:21 The "self"
01:15:04 Psi phenomenon (NDEs, Precognition, ...)
01:17:32 What would convince you to believe the opposite of what you think?
01:21:44 Bernardo witnessed the miraculous (personal story)

[TheoriesofEverything]

Timestamps and Sponsors:

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00:00 Introduction
00:05:04 Illusionism is misunderstood
00:07:40 Who is the "illusion" happening to?
00:09:20 Bernardo's disagreements with illusionists
00:19:35 Materialism doesn't work
00:28:21 Mindfulness and mind-altering experiences aid the philosophy?
00:30:34 Why aren't you a panspsychist?
00:38:27 The regularity of the laws of nature in Idealism
00:49:45 The simplest understanding of a "dissociative boundary"
00:54:57 Telepathy in Idealism and in science
01:06:21 The "self"
01:15:04 Psi phenomenon (NDEs, Precognition, ...)
01:17:32 What would convince you to believe the opposite of what you think?
01:21:44 Bernardo witnessed the miraculous (personal story)

[Xtazieyo]

I like Susan. She seems like a good sport. Great conversation and I am stoked about the full 1on1 interview with Curt. However, my brain can't make sense of this one observation: How can someone like Susan, who has been thinking about the "problem of consciousness" for decades, not be deeply familiar with Bernardo's work in the first place? I mean, he clearly is the most famous idealist alive, providing a highly consistent and modernized argument for one of the most significant metaphysical paradigms in the field of philosophy. How is this possible? At the end of the interview she mentions that there was this issue of telepathy being difficult to explain through any of the ontological modesls and..Bernardo quickly pointed out..that this is one of the easiest questions to answer through the lense of analytic idealism. At some point she seemed flabbergasted by how much sense Bernardos arguments make. Again, why does a Joe Shmoe like me know about this crucual interpretative framework and a university professor who holds a PhD in parapsychology seemingly does not? Why is she running into the same traps as someone who isn't even familiar with the general argument of idealism in the first place? On the one hand, she doesn't advocate for one specific model of consciousness, but also doesn't seem to deeply understand all the possibilities in the first place. So annoying, I had to get to get this off my chest! Maybe a full. long form interview will clear up the confusion...Bernardo was brilliant as always. Curt is a gem and we all know it!

[markupton]

Kastrup was EXTREMELY kind and gracious in this one.

[_aje]

Curt. I just want to say that a lot of people appreciate what you’re doing. I see myself in you and feel like so many of us are searching for answers to questions we are still formulating. Keep doing what you are doing. Much love ❤❤

[woodcabinasmr]

The difference between Bernardo and those people is that he is not only a smart intellectual academic dude, he is a modern sage.

[tigerwas]

BK is always coherent, clear, precise, respectful, thorough, insightful; his intelligence is undeniably distinct. I couldn't say the same for the other who seemed to use a lot of words without saying anything. But i love a good show! And you never fail to deliver, Kurt..thank you.

[Sam-hhry]

Illusionists are obliged to solve the meta-hard problem of consciousness. If consciousness/experience doesn't exist, why do we all think that it does? Illusionism avoids the hard problem but runs into an almost identical problem.

Also good on Blackmore for actually pointing this out.

[berkefeil]

“Illusion is a conscious state. It’s already an instance of that one is trying to get rid of.” Bernardo is right on this one. Illusionism seems to be an irrelevant notion when it comes to making sense of the nature of consciousness, precisely because it _doesn’t_. We may be living a ‘dream’ in which everything we thought we knew about the world is untrue in the literal sense, but one thing that we are certain of is the mere fact of consciousness itself. With all due respect, Bernardo is just teaching Blackmore after he made his point 👌

[BrianShaneRushton]

I assumed BK would win this one but i didn't think it would only take 5 minutes. What a guy...

[philosophicast]

This should be a walk in the park for Kastrup.

[davidhoggan]

Kastrup has a well understood and executed response for everything. This dude. Man.

[yifuxero]

Kastrup is right. Consciousness is fundamental, but Absolutely so! The philosophy goes back to "The One" of Plotinus, then to Nargajuna (150-250), and most eloquently to Shankara (788-810). Lao Tzu's Tao is another example. In Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, everything is Pure Consciousness in an ontological sense, and is experiential in the non-dual state of Samadhi or Satori. This is a state that transcends the mind altogether, Some people experience Pure Consciousness naturally. You may be one of them. (It's the Self of everybody).

[adamstephens]

After reading her "very brief introduction to consciousness, " I don't see how anyone takes her seriously.

[foxburns]

Not really a theolocution. S. Blackmore did not have a position to defend.

[sludgiebear]

A very interesting conversation. Bernardo touched upon dissassociation. If we are dissassociated, giving rise to the perception of a self that is seperate from other things, then what are we dissassociating from? Is he suggesting that everything in the universe is connected together, and everything is part of a much bigger "thing", but everything is experiencing dissassociation from the bigger thing?

[cashglobe]

How curious that Susan dismisses Bernardo’s point about how he experienced a very real parapsychological phenomena. Didn’t she study it? She seemed to dismiss it as an illusion. Unless Bernardo is lying, there is no illusion there and the odds of it being a coincidence are probably 1 in trillions.

[stevesmith]

Susan Blackmore seems a great listener and has a very open mind.

[ZalexMusic]

CC: Chris Langan and Sabine Hossenfelder. THIS is how you explain a metaphysics to someone who is not already familiar with it. Notice BK doesn't say "you've got the wrong paper" or hide behind unnecessary jargon. Bernardo is the best thinker in the game. What a great episode of TOE.

[jacksonharrison]

You can see by the end that Bernardo has started to win her over, and she’s smiling with understanding. It’s very sweet.

[philippeforest]

What a fascinating exchange! Thanks to Bernardo for exposing again and again his brilliant ideas in such clear terms, thanks to Susan for her outstanding open-mindedness and her respect towards foreign ideas that many other would have dismissed because it differs so much from the academic norm, and of course thanks to Curt for making all of this brilliant talk possible. This is truly a gem of a youtube channel!