Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism CRITIQUED

This video explains the two mistakes I believe Bernado Kastrup makes when defending his version of idealism: Analytic Idealism.

#Kastrup #idealism #critique

____Video Contents____

00:00 - Introduction
00:38 - Disclaimer
01:08 - Issue 1: Kastrup's method of argument
01:49 - The entropy argument
10:06 - The evolution argument
15:47 - The mistake in Kastrup's method
18:17 - Issue 2: The nature of universal consciousness
19:50 - Explaining analytic idealism
26:36 - Why evolution cannot explain meta-consciousness
30:49 - Could universal consciousness be God?
33:22 - My (humble) advice to Kastrup

____Channel description____

I am a graduate of Cambridge University with a PhD in Philosophy. My thesis was on the nature of truth, and I specialise in metaphysics, logic, and the history of analytic philosophy. I believe philosophy should be made accessible to the curious and philosophers have a duty to reenter the public debate on the questions of importance to our age. This channel is my attempt to do that!

____Memberships____

To take the ideas I explore on this channel to the next level with in-depth videos and more academic content, please become a member. Most of the videos I produce are exclusive to members. There are also options here to get in touch with me and do philosophy together. Also, with your support I will be able to spend more time reading, thinking, writing, and shooting video content for all you good people! But I need to keep my family fed too, so your membership is GREATLY appreciated.

It's a simple equation: more members = more videos. Thanks!

[AbsolutePhilosophy]

The comments and discussion this video has generated has been truly surprising. Sorry not to be able to engage with more of them. But I have read them all and thank you for all the time and effort spent in working through the issues raised. Thanks all and let's keep talking.

[paulkeogh]

I've listened to a lot of Kastrup and read many of his books and understand his "entropic soup" metaphor - imperfect as it is - alludes to the overwhelmingly large, possibly infinite, amount of information that our sensors would have to accurately receive, and our brains would have to coherently represent if perception was in fact a transparent window onto reality. He further argues, with evidence from evolutionary game theory that survival depends on selective attention to reality rather than comprehensive apprehension and veridical comprehension of reality. Kastrup is a very sincere and authentic philosopher who acknowledges that words are always imperfect and inaccurate descriptions of reality. From my direct experience, the best way to engage him in meaningful discussions is to invite him to a dialogue rather than a debate.

[bonoboji]

I suggest he interview Donald Hoffman because Bernardo accurately reiterates Hoffamn's research and arguments from evolutionary perceptual psychology. There is no error in Bernardo's argument from this stand point.

[DisturbsOthers]

Thank you for this thoughtful critique. I confess to being a devoted fan of Katstrup's philosophy. I can't say how many videos I've watched of debates between his point of view and others and I always end up in his camp. In large, I feel most of your criticisms might be misunderstandings. But, the one at the heart of your critique is compelling. Is universal consciousness phenomenal or meta? What if it's neither? I don't think Katstrup is so dumb as to not see the flaw/question you put forward, or at least your perception of it. I take his use of terms for varying "levels" of consciousness to be entirely about the difficulty of putting all of this into words from the perspective of the type of observers we are. These are concepts that are nearly impossible for us to grasp fully because we are embedded in, and part of, what is and cannot perceive it from the outside. What convinces me of Katstrup's philosophy is that it ties in nicely with Stephen Wolfram's concept of the Ruliad, Michael Levin's work in developmental biology, and eastern philosophical views of reality - particularly Vedanta. Each of those views entails translation from their discipline's unique vocabulary and focus, but it feels to me that they are all saying the same thing. I pay attention when physics, math, biology, and metaphysics are all describing virtually the same thing (and in a way that makes sense to me) and try not to let specific terms and language get in the way of understanding what is being conveyed. I'm sorry Bernardo turned down your invite to debate because I would like to hear his answer to your point. What is his reasoning for the apparent distinction or is this, at core, a distinction without a difference? "

[kruasan]

15:51 -- Kastrup never adopts scientific realism. He talks about metaphysics, about the intrinsic being of nature. We can taboo these complicated words like “realism” or “antirealism” for simplicity, and just discuss what is being said. Kastrup merely claims that abstractions help us to describe the behavior of nature and to control the future, they are true and experimentally proven/reasonable. But science by itself is a tool which never assumes any ontology: not materialism, nor idealism, nor anything else. You seem to be confusing physics and metaphysics. Of course we can use science and talk about it without adopting a realist attitude, without going into metaphysics.

In other words, Kastrup's position can be called “instrumentalism” -- that science and theoretical concepts have use in predicting observations, but we have no ontological commitments to them. Postulating a "literal physical being", which is unknowable even in principle, is a further, arguably unnecessary step. So Kastrup is an instrumentalist from the beginning to the end. The being of consiousness, on the other hand, is immediately known by the virtue of self-luminosity (svaprakasatva).

26:43 -- Consciousness and mind are different. The “empirical physical world” can be called Maya for simplicity, and it's an appearance which is not fundamentally real. Our bodies, our minds, any other object are a part of this appearance.


There are even some reasons (that are too complicated for this youtube comment) to argue that consciousness is existence or actuality itself, so it can be identical to the Absolute. (And that's precisely what Kastrup does when he talks about consciousness being an ontological primitive in idealism; Atman = Brahman and so on.)

Kastrup would probably say that evolution is literally what this continuous process of dissociation and complexification looks like from our point of view. But Kastrup uses terms that are not super precise for my taste, for example he calls the absolute "mind", instead of consciousness. (And well, given how much suffering we see in the world, this ontology is not much prettier than the default). I think it's obvious that an object cannot be an ontological primitive. Because any object needs space, time and causality to exist, while consciousness is a no-thing that doesn’t need these. So I think it’s not only that “we can’t ever get qualities out of quantities“ (as Kastrup often says) that is the argumentation for idealism, but, even more precisely, that consciousness is not an object among other physical objects! (cf. Sunyata in Buddhism).

29:54 -- I see no sense in saying that “meta-consciousness arises out of phenomenal consciousness”. Nothing arises out of phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness simply illumines everything, it's the existence of any thought, emotion or object of awareness. “Meta-consciousness” is just a fancy term for the higher function of the mind, it’s self-reflection or the self-identification with certain configurations of what one experiences. I don’t like using “consciousness“ word here at all. It muddles the already complicated topic. Intellect, personality, beauty, self-reflection, emotions, perceptions – all of these develop in conscious organisms with time and effort, while consciousness just passively illumines everything. The play works itself out.

Here you are actually touching a deeper question of the mechanism of this play. For example, in Advaita Vedanta, there is vivartavāda, loosely speaking the "apparent transformation" of Brahman (consciousness / the absolute) into the world. It's enigmatic how and why it can be seemingly separated from itself in different finite objects (minds). And I’m no Vedanta scholar so I have no answer to this question, but maybe there is, so anyone can feel free to expand my description.

[rooruffneck]

Bernardo said that in 2024 he'll be doing much less public chats. That said, hope you can set something up. Maybe when he's getting ready to promote his book in the fall something can happen. It will be his most concise summary of his model, so would be fun to hear you two chat.

I think he has addressed your first concerns. But god knows where. Donald Hoffman often faces that criticism. Have you heard his responses and do they hold water for you?

For some reason, I don't find it hard to imagine how a process of consciousness could evolve in a way that causes it to suddently 'fold in' on itself and become meta within a narrow context.

[UsedHeartuser]

I can't speak directly for Dr. Kastrup, but here's how I understood his arguments:

1. I think in his view evolutionary theory is primarily a mathematical theory, that doesn't necessarily need time and space the way we normally conceive of it. I also believe I somewhere heard him talk about the possibility that there exists something like "proto-time" in which consciousness can evolve. In any case, there seems to be a process happening in universal consciousness that, from our view, looks like evolution.

2. Meta-consciousness comes about when phenomenal consciousness folds in on itself to create something like a loop (not spatially of course) for the purpose of self-reflection. The underlying substance is still only phenomenal consciousness, only with a more complicated structure (a loop). For this to happen nature needs something that, from our view, looks like evolution.

3. I think the idea behind not giving meta-consciousness to universal consciousness is the question of what would then be the whole point of creation? Especially with all the suffering it entails. If universal consciousness already had meta-consciousness to begin with, then our existence would be completely pointless. From our perspective at least, we seem to be the only creatures capable of meta-consciousness. So it makes sense to assume, that meta-consciousness arose from an evolutionary process of which we are the endpoint.


4. The motivation behind this process is self-knowledge. Since universal consciousness is only phenomenal conscious, it can't reflect on itself. It therefor must create humans, which have meta-consciousness, in order to gain self-knowledge. This process is not premeditated, but follows a "blind will" like in Schopenhauer. That's why universal consciousness doesn't care about all the collateral damage (suffering) it entails.

[benadam]

You've misrepresented the his argument about perception. Perception of a thing in itself does not require replication of the perceived object inside the mind of the perceiver, since he's taking about the map not the terrain. Our map does not match the terrain out there. Also the interface theory, doesn't just say we perceive limited information that is useful, but false information that is useful.

[japanbond]

Idealism is a faith at the end of the day. Science is a study of the finite. Kastrup is a scientist and he attempts to explain a faith in terms of science. That's why there will always be holes in his argument

[BadjaBeats]

26:58 He acknowledges that universal consciousness bears resemblance to the consciousness of earlier life forms, yet he does not claim that it is more akin to these early forms than to later ones. The absence of metacognition doesn't necessarily equate to greater similarity in every aspect. BK's argument is that universal consciousness constitutes a high-dimensional 'space' encompassing all conceivable experiences, inclusive of time. It is not constrained by space and time like our perception; its higher dimensionality allows it to encompass all characteristics of space and time, along with additional elements.

[Chemical_Truth]

I think what Kastrup meant by saying we would turn into an entropic soup if we would perceive reality as it is... imagine if you would feel every molecule of air touching your skin all the time and you would see the entire magnetic spectrum. You would turn into an entropic soup.

[allenanderson]

Your point about Kastrup's evolutionary argument being self-undermining is exactly spot on. I had the same reaction to Donald Hoffman's argument when I first encountered it.

[BadjaBeats]

18:09 Your argument suggests he seeks to undermine scientific realism by employing scientific evidence, inadvertently creating a paradox. Yet, I contend that your conclusion is flawed. His approach is more about integrating physical reality into a metaphysical framework. Admittedly, my grasp of scientific realism and anti-realism is limited, but I'm convinced that these concepts are not black and white. The assertion that empirical reality isn't the ultimate truth doesn't imply a complete disconnect or lack of insight into what might lie beyond it.

[cloudstclass]

My own issue with Bernardo’s vision of idealism is as follows: if consciousness is the foundation of ultimate reality, I cannot buy into that idea of that form of consciousness being less sophisticated than that of a human being. I don’t believe that higher ideals such as morality, musical harmony, mathematical proofs and love are emergent, man-made inventions. I believe that they are fragmented reflections of an underlying, objective reality.

Is Kastrup’s refusal to acknowledge this due to the fact that it resembles a more traditionally theistic view? I’m not sure. But I will never be able to reconcile the idea that bland, person-less consciousness is at the heart of ultimate reality, and the precise sophistication of physics, math, and the humanities are evolutionary accidents. If we as humans are the way that consciousness knows itself, there must be some forward thinking capacity built into that primordial consciousness. If that is true, then the bland, person-less consciousness that Kastrup identifies with idealism is not, in fact, bland, or person-less.

[ChristianSt]

even though I disagree with some points in this video I have to say that generally it's a good critique

[Pumpychan]

I am personally very grateful for your posting this. As I intently listened to the 7-part Kastrup series you refer to here, increasingly I felt disturbed by claims that become increasingly weak from a purely philosophical discipline and degrade into quasi-religious theory.

Very closely analogous to Vedic or vendantic thought, Kastrup has “dematerialized” the world by leaping to a model of universal consciousness within which we humans and presumably all other sentient beings: butterflies, buffalo, conceivably even bacteria, are mere “alters”. This is the ego-attman duality as expressed in vedantic philosophy and to some extent in Buddhism, though without a universally conscious mind. To think I am an independent and separate being is a delusion. OK, so we are supporting the Hindu paradigm of ontology… aren’t we?

There is nothing in the chain of reasoning he presents by way of philosophical logic to arrive at this all-purpose, all encompassing solution to the mystery of the True World outside our limited and conditioned perceptual limits. Absolutely no empirical basis to claim universal consciousness… it would require some spiritual insight, reaching of enlightenment, or a psychedelic experience to also, again, PERCEIVE universal consciousness. As an item of religious insight I cannot argue this away. But it does not follow from logical premises that because we can only know and interpret parts of the world in accordance with our sensory equipment and mental biases that outside this realm of is a single unified CONSCIOUS field. This is fabulously concocted if logic and science are the tools we require to prove.

So, either Kastrup is an enlightened yogi, or he is full of crap. I don’t know which.


There are many other absurdities. A man punching another man he describes as more dashboard information. I wonder why the example does not entail himself either being punched, or doing the punching… or worse. Are wars merely dashboard events mentated by an observer? That’s getting nearly preposterous to claim.

And it can go further… what explains the existence of things like mitochondria when no one could possibly “mentate” these. He dismisses the prior earth objection with a sneer, but in the case of germs, or cellular organelles, we’re talking about newly discovered facts that until 100 or 200 years ago did not exist on the mental landscape of humans. Did the plagues of Rome involve a punishment from god (or the gods I guess they’d have said) or was it a bacteria borne of rats and fleas? According to the mental framework there were no germs until someone was able to think of them. So I guess Zeus caused the Roman plagues… OK, glad we cleared that up.

How about events like a chess game… if 2 people play, it is undeniable (in a standard game) that one side wins and one side loses. This is a physically verifiable fact based on the mating of the king. You cannot remove the occurrence of the chess game from reality. Nor can you universalize it. It is by definition a game played fairly by 2 humans. You win or you lose. No dashboard involved.

So sorry but Bernardo is not the philosophical messiah though he seems to fancy himself something like this.

And I would think that Sam Harris would be a formidable debate opponent… they should have spoken long ago.

[douglaswoolley]

Meta-Consciousness can only exist with Language. Also we experience a very small portion of the total scale of "Reality". We cannot see or experience a planck moment nor the span of a million years. We are very successful within the sphere of objects we can handle, and in building instruments to deal with objects out of that range (Cern, JWST, Microscopes etc.) The word reality is a place holder. For most of us that is enough.

[StefanSchoch]

Listening to you I have the impression that you haven't really understood Bernardo. Much of your critique relates - as far as I can tell - to problems we inevitably face when we try to explain these topics in a language, that is 'by definition' (trying to define) dualistic. So one question for instance is how literal you take the image of the 'screen of perfection'. Here I think you haven't represented Bernardos point adequately.
So with all respect: nice try, but not convincing (to me).
If you're interested in answering the question how 'meta consciousness' could evolve from 'phenomenal consciousness', I'd recommend studying Ken Wilbers Integral Approach and engage in some spiritual practice to 'see' for yourself where language no longer works. That (plus the work of Iain McGilchrist) brings it perfectly together.

[Flynn-hlug]

This video must of taken a lot of effort - and it's a joy to watch, thanks for making it

[markborst]

His argument on the entropic soup was ment by Bernardo as a critique against materialism. I think you missed his point.