Idealism Deep Dive with Bernardo Kastrup

How can reality be mental?

Bernardo Kastrup is a philosopher and computer scientist recognized for his work on the nature of reality and consciousness, advocating for a form of metaphysical idealism.

Susan Blackmore is a British psychologist, lecturer, and author known for her research on consciousness, memes, and paranormal phenomena, and her book The Meme Machine.

TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Become a YouTube Member Here:

SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):

Other Links:

#science #consciousness #idealism

[bennguyen]

I always enjoy discussion between smart people where they honestly try to get to the root of where there is disagreement. I'd like to see..

Bernardo Kastrup / Slavoj Zizek and Sean Carrol / Sabine Hossenfelder
Timothy Nguyen / Professor Dave Explains and Eric / Bret Weinstein
David Pakman / Sam Harris / Mark Cuban and Charlie Kirk / Scott Adams / Ben Shapiro
(there was a great talk between Mark Cuban and Vivek Ramaswamy)

Perhaps a panel discussion (moderated by Jeffrey Mishlove or Jesse Michels ) with Jacque Vallee, Jeff Kripal, Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, Greg Bishop, Keith Thompson, Stafford Betty, Robert Bigelow... Bernado Kastrup, Robert Kuhn, Curt Jaimungal.. Daniel Peter Sheehan, Mike Benz, Joe Rogan, Mark Gober, Leslie Kean, and Kelly Chase.

The audience attendees would be by invitation only and comprised of people that have heard thousands of first-person paranormal experiences (Jim Harold, Jack Wagner, Melissa Sweazy / Nathan Reisman, etc).

[waofactor.graphic]

Behaviour is predictable but not the mind, evidence Lee creativity.

[DetectiveStablerSVU]

This is so good. At my deepest moments of psychadelic revelation, "I remember!" is what bubbles up. The disassociation dissolves and I'm greeted with the wider identity of reality.

[billyoumans]

The mystics of the world virtually all confirm what he is saying. She is determined not to get it.

[marktermotecnica]

Kastrup says that by considering everything mental, the hard problem of consciousness is avoided. The brain would be itself a manifestation of the mental "substance". The problem here is that
1) if for "hard problem" we mean beeing able to describe the processes and the mechanisms which give rise to consciousness, I am pretty sure that it will be possible to give such description by relying on physical processes only
2) if we mean WHY those phisical processes manifest as first person conscious experience, then this problem is still present even with kastrup's view of the world, which would be something like "Why is it the case that those foundamental mental experiences are experienced as a brain, a human body, a 3D world etc?"

[richardatkinson]

I am always amazed at how Bernardo Kastrup’s philosophy is so close to the truth. (I have never reckoned Sue Blackmore, from her paranormal days to her endorsement/development of the meme theory of human consciousness and culture.) I think the word that was missing in BK’s explanation was “self”. Human beings are separated mentally, and have to rely on language for limited communication (not simply to avoid overload, but also - I don’t think Bernardo has realized this - to enable independent creativity, the “atom” of culture). I think his emphasis on dissociative personality disorder obscures the absolutely normal nature of human selfhood, which is our meaning and purpose. I think SB is right in thinking that the existence of brains is the Hard Problem of Idealism, and I think BK’s “dashboard” response is fine, except that he uses the file-icon analogy: the file icon has *no* relationship to the file’s content. The brain’s structure is not just a visual label, it is a drastically simplified perception (BK has that tight) of computational processes. But there is a deeper Hard Problem, the evolutionary record. Why did the universal consciousness choose such a devious method of producing dissociated selves? A partial answer is that the universal consciousness is not Godlike - it is not infinite, neither omnipotent nor omniscient. More subtly, evolution may be either a great experiment later repurposed as a vehicle for selves, or else it is the simplest available way of making the human world.

[jsharp]

You should talk to Jay Dyer on epistemology.

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).

Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes—they are abstract concepts created by our minds.

Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Clarifications

The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.

Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

Conclusions

My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

Marco Biagini

[gireeshneroth]

She simply refuses to understand by promoting confusion.

[kittiesneverdie]

Hearing her interrupt Bernardo is like listening to nails grating on chalkboard.

[bluntforcetrauma]

She is deeply confused by choice. She refuses to consider the evidence.

[charlesblithfield]

The outside world cannot be distinguished from the body IMHO. Permeable membranes are the nature of biological tissue. Within moments a person upon entering a small room with several people in it, atoms, say carbon atoms in the C02 from one persons breath, which moments before were carbon atoms in the glucose in the candy that person ate, are entering the bloodstream of the person entering that room. This is just one simple example of the tremendously complex exchanges that are constantly taking place in any biological system on earth. Our perception of this world only accounts for what we need to understand from this interchange to maximize some fitness functions.

[swerremdjee]

Cognative tribalism, what do you all think about this word?
Didn't like it at first but its growen on me and i think its a nice word which tackles the ingroup outgroup part very well

[hubadj]

Is she listening to him? The guys makes perfect sense. Maybe you really have to have an experience of ONE to be able to understand and talk about it.

[SUSYQ]

Music can motivate is that because its influencing the emotion?

[KaliFissure]

Homeostasis plus.
That is the rule.
This is gravity.
Present state, and a bit more.
A bud. An acceleration.
More money. Gravity is the rule

[Hunnna_Jay]

Damn what happened to all the views and interactions big dawg!?

[charlesblithfield]

I think it’s a big mistake to talk about human minds as a brain only phenomenon. Brains do not exist without bodies. Sense perception is a function of a system of organs of which the brain is only a part, a big part true but one cannot see without eyes. Extending this idea a body cannot exist without the ecosystem it lives in and this system not only includes air, water, plants and terra firma but microorganisms and other bodies (humans). The body/mind is in a constant highly complex interchange with this broader system which includes information exchange.

[KaliFissure]

As faulty and limited as our data collection, retrieval, processing is in this "apparent" meat

Either there is an objective reality which we each get a slice of

Or WHICH of us is dreaming it all?

[mellonglass]

Maybe the dashboard is a left brained requirement without play, play messes with plans, maps and concepts and lives predominantly in the commonality of the senses and the sensational.
Perhaps we require an end to the machine and to see its failings of no feelings.
A pilot without feelings could not ‘fly’ a plane, only operate it blindly in the safety of knowledge, not experience.
So many great videos of pilots without experience, flying by the book.
(Unconsciously)
Mind over matter.
The act of using a machine, is to remove feelings (of pain *effort)