The New Science of Consciousness: Bernardo Kastrup & Carlo Rovelli & Patricia Churchland

Robert Laurence Kuhn

[maecentric]

Carlo Roveli thinks the Hard Problem Of Conscious is exagerated, but everything weve ever known has been an experience held by conciousness, so, you cant get anymore absurd then that. What would be more important to figure out then the thing upon which everything else rests?? He wants to propose a metaphysical worldview outside of the only state of being weve ever known, mentation, so he gets even more absurd.

[luisortega]

I'm so proud of Kastrup for putting himself through this for the advancement of ideas

[oliviergoethals]

Wow Bernardo is head and shoulders above in this panel.

[misterbiscuit]

It seemed to me that Bernardo Kastrup was the only one acquainted with the philosophical consequences of the topic of discussion

[levity]

Patricia thinking that she doesn't have a worldview is synonymous with Patricia having an unexamined worldview.

[chetanpatil]

I am not disappointed because they are against Bernardo. I am disappointed because they don't even know what they are talking about.

[huntertony]

Bernardo really took on both of them like nothing this man is a GOAT

[huckfinn]

Made me think of Max Planck's famous quote "Science advances one funeral at a time'. Churchland is the old guard, cemented in Physicalism; Kastrup is a new scientist, open to a more syncretic view of science and religion/philosophy. In this discussion at least, Rovelli seems hopelessly lost in semantics.

[thomassimmons]

Bernardo is the only one of three that seems to understand intuition
ie consciousness. If I'm going to bet on the future, I bet on Bernie...

[inglestaemtudo]

Thank you so much for posting!
The sad thing is that Churchland and Rovelli don't seem to grok idealism. How can you debate against something you don't understand in the first place?

[VigilanteTribe]

Why was this even arranged if there's not enough time for the speakers to speak for a decent length of time and to address the points raised by others??

[patrickdelarosa]

Bernardo is just on another level, materialism is baloney.

[moesypittounikos]

Progress being made after funerals seems truer than ever after listening to Pat

[SeyboldReport]

The statement of the talk: '"consciousness is the involuntary wiggling of my left toe". A new philosopher-rock star - Barnardo Kastrup.

[TheDaveSharman]

Kastrup is next level genius, that's all I've got to say

[HeronMarkBlade]

they seem to be criticising a position Bernardo doesn't even have.

[carlobrayda]

Bernardo does Aikido with the panelists. Hats off to the Dutch Samurai.

[nbeizaie]

It is always like that. People who have made their life and career through something, always get attached to them and it is hard for them to let go (specially older people). There is always resistance to new ideas specially form older generations. They can not see their "castle" is coming down.

[TheSpeedOfC]

Carlo "Im going to answer this and answer it in the context of this conversation" gee Carlo, thanks for clarifying exactly what the participants and listeners would expect.

[JimKanaris]

Patricia seems to think that accumulating data is worthwhile while relating that data to larger frameworks of understanding ("-isms") is a waste of time, which, depending on that framework, of course, may be entirely true. But the suggestion that she doesn't inhabit such a framework in her, ahem, practicalism, is both naive and self-legitimating. Hide behind the facts in a modesty that is unwittingly immodest. It’s an old story in the history of science, which philosophers of science since Kuhn are quick to point out. Still, we need the Patricias of this world in the push to fairly understand the world. Carlo’s perspectival framework, I suggest, implies this. Bernardo, too, thinks data production is absolutely essential but rightly calls out Patricia’s caricature of larger frameworks, “metaphysics, ” being impractical by appealing to data and by explaining the practical implications of idealism, which, incidentally, Carlo misunderstands demonstrated by his comments toward the end about the "after life". (Patricia’s example about the impracticality and potential irresponsibility of idealism while walking one’s dog was, let us just say, preposterous.) Carlo raises some important points but I think he misses the nuances in Bernardo’s position based largely on his (Carlo’s) misunderstanding that Bernardo is essentially reacting to a dated idea of science, i.e., 18th century mechanistic, deterministic science. This is easily cleared up by reading the many things Bernardo has written on the subject.

I found the debate illuminating both from methodological and ideological standpoints. When it comes to philosophical acumen and a holistic appreciation of the issues, I think Bernardo came out on top. Carlo and Patricia, I feel, were guided much too much by their understanding of the bugaboo surrounding vitalism, whether of the monist or dualist variety.