Kastrup: Idea of the World

I like Bernado but I don't pay much attention to his theoretical/philosophical position. What is he actually basing his "knowledge" and "certainties" on ? If you want to know something about the human condition after death, ask those that have died and come back rather than Bernado, as nice as he is. 

We can't be certain of anything, but the more reports we get (from the resuscitated) the more it looks like dualism (substance) is more likely to be correct. I've never seen the problem with saying that dualism can't be true because how then does mind affect matter. Haven't there been enough experiments already to suggest (if not 'prove') that it can and does? 

High minded philosophical theories don't 'trump' real life revelation from millions of people, surely. I was only talking to a young woman yesterday who reported walking around the hospital wards (yes walking out of her body) observing. If this is not dualism then what is it ? 

One might suggest the report is fanciful and unreliable. Okay, but there's hundreds/thousands of these now. Extra corporeal (individual) consciousness, observing our ordinary material world (the hospital in this case) unseen, and yet able to retain all it's individuality, have normal coherent thought processes and remember them. This 'walks' like Substance dualism and 'quacks' like Substance dualism.  

This is what they are reporting. It's not that I desperately want it to be true because I can't bear the thought of not existing as an individual someday. This is the data and I think the data has to be given priority, always.

Doesn't viewing the ground of being as an Eternal Ur Mind-Blob (like a force or a mechanism) leave one in the exact same bind as the materialists? I.e. How can personality and personal consciousness arise or originate from something completely impersonal?

Anyway, I've come to view Kastrup's ideas as being somewhat akin to Plotinus and neo-platonism: a perfect philosopher's religion, logical, consistent, beautiful, ordered, but ultimately gutless, lacking in blood, sweat, warmth and heart. 

And since neo-platonism was the final product of the dying classical world before it passed out of existence, perhaps we can view Analytic Idealism (and other contemporary analytical spiritual conceptions) as holding a similar place in history, the last gasp(s) of a failing culture.

As I'm sure anyone reading this can guess, I'm not a philosopher, nor a particularly systematic thinker.

Hmmm...I'm not sure the Neo-Platonists were lacking in warmth/heart?

I do think Kastrup is putting out something with regards to how it resonates with academia. If you go back to the old days when he was writing up articles for New Dawn he was talking about magic, UFOs, etc.

Now I think he wants to push a as-close-to-physics Idealism, which may be for the best.

This is what they are reporting. It's not that I desperately want it to be true because I can't bear the thought of not existing as an individual someday. This is the data and I think the data has to be given priority, always.

I think it's definitely a soul/body distinction. Substance Dualism as a term just has a lot of historical baggage that isn't really necessary.

IIRC Edward Kelly and a lot of the Esalen people are moving toward Idealism or Neutral Monism, but they are looking at it from a formal standpoint facing academia. There are definitely variations of Idealism that work with Survival, Kelly obviously isn't abandoning the idea of an afterlife after championing it for so long.

For the general public I think a brief description of Survival-friendly metaphysics is probably all that's required, if at all.

For the general public I think a brief description of Survival-friendly metaphysics is probably all that's required, if at all.

For the general public, it's probably more important to simply publicise the evidence for survival more widely. And to to so in a neutral way. It's one thing to ask questions, to probe more deeply. Quite another when the media is being fed a line, a viewpoint, based on a materialist metaphysics. In other words, it is often the messengers or their 'experts' who distort things in the retelling, because of an allegiance to a metaphysics which disallows survival.

Such problems are one reason why I'm unattached to any philosophy, it can be problematic to grow too attached to ideas of "this is the way things are".

I think it's definitely a soul/body distinction. Substance Dualism as a term just has a lot of historical baggage that isn't really necessary.

IIRC Edward Kelly and a lot of the Esalen people are moving toward Idealism or Neutral Monism, but they are looking at it from a formal standpoint facing academia. There are definitely variations of Idealism that work with Survival, Kelly obviously isn't abandoning the idea of an afterlife after championing it for so long.

For the general public I think a brief description of Survival-friendly metaphysics is probably all that's required, if at all.

Agree with your first line, Sci. I can't see how physical matter is not actually what it appears to be, though (Idealism) I'm not referring to the 'fact' that the spaces between the atoms (or whatever) are actually relatively vast (if I have that right). I think there are (at least) two different very real substances.

Agree with your first line, Sci. I can't see how physical matter is not actually what it appears to be, though (Idealism) I'm not referring to the 'fact' that the spaces between the atoms (or whatever) are actually relatively vast (if I have that right). I think there are (at least) two different very real substances.

For myself I think there is ultimately a single substance, though its exact nature is unknown and perhaps unknowable...at least on this side of the Veil. [Of course once we're on the other side I know philosophy won't be my priority.]

The only reason I'm wary of Substance Dualism is because it's very easy to just dismiss the entire afterlife (and often Psi as well). You see it here & there, that because the evidence implies dualism it can be dismissed without examination. It supposedly can't be true.

I think a lot of the usual materialist cheerleaders trot this out from time to time.

For the general public, it's probably more important to simply publicise the evidence for survival more widely. And to to so in a neutral way. It's one thing to ask questions, to probe more deeply. Quite another when the media is being fed a line, a viewpoint, based on a materialist metaphysics. In other words, it is often the messengers or their 'experts' who distort things in the retelling, because of an allegiance to a metaphysics which disallows survival.

Such problems are one reason why I'm unattached to any philosophy, it can be problematic to grow too attached to ideas of "this is the way things are".

I'd say a tiny bit of metaphysics has its use, mainly so a person can see that there a range of ways to accommodate what seems impossible - that you have another body that is barely to outright undetectable by physics/chemistry/biology, and it is this body that survives death.

Agree with your first line, Sci. I can't see how physical matter is not actually what it appears to be, though (Idealism) I'm not referring to the 'fact' that the spaces between the atoms (or whatever) are actually relatively vast (if I have that right). I think there are (at least) two different very real substances.

Monism, Dualism or more?

A sub-stance is something that has/is a level of support and firm grounding in the real world.  Its substantial nature can be measured.  Physicality exhibits as a supported level and has potential for quantification.

So are information objects "grounded" in the real world.  These objects are perceivable and when used, present as mental configurations able to change circumstances.  There are math objects, logical objects, intentional objectives and objective designs.  They are seen to have their own environments, such as a quantum equation in Hilbert Space, or as an coded message in a logical space (think DNA/RNA/Ribosome/Protein interactions)

I personally think these two platforms or levels of objects and their documented relations do not cover all of reality.  There appears moral/spiritual/ethical objective states.  Some believe in Divine substances, that exist apart from the first two.  An open mind on the subject explores all these levels and the substances that they generate.  

By the phrase, "a kind heart" is not meant the physical one.  Nor is meant the informational heart (which is measurable in its vast communication with other bodily systems).  What is meant is a measurable flow of good will, freely given.  A valuable substance in my humble point of view.

Monism, Dualism or more?

A sub-stance is something that has/is a level of support and firm grounding in the real world.  Its substantial nature can be measured.  Physicality exhibits as a supported level and has potential for quantification.

So are information objects "grounded" in the real world.  These objects are perceivable and when used, present as mental configurations able to change circumstances.  There are math objects, logical objects, intentional objectives and objective designs.  They are seen to have their own environments, such as a quantum equation in Hilbert Space, or as an coded message in a logical space (think DNA/RNA/Ribosome/Protein interactions)

I personally think these two platforms or levels of objects and their documented relations do not cover all of reality.  There appears moral/spiritual/ethical objective states.  Some believe in Divine substances, that exist apart from the first two.  An open mind on the subject explores all these levels and the substances that they generate.  

By the phrase, "a kind heart" is not meant the physical one.  Nor is meant the informational heart (which is measurable in its vast communication with other bodily systems).  What is meant is a measurable flow of good will, freely given.  A valuable substance in my humble point of view.

You make a very good point. A lot of our possible ways of describing the world (in its broadest sense), even those embracing consciousness, tend not to mention this. What may be described as benevolence or a whole range of terms, meaning not a mere machinery, conscious or not, but something more positive, uplifting.

Monism, Dualism or more?

A sub-stance is something that has/is a level of support and firm grounding in the real world.  Its substantial nature can be measured.  Physicality exhibits as a supported level and has potential for quantification.

So are information objects "grounded" in the real world.  These objects are perceivable and when used, present as mental configurations able to change circumstances.  There are math objects, logical objects, intentional objectives and objective designs.  They are seen to have their own environments, such as a quantum equation in Hilbert Space, or as an coded message in a logical space (think DNA/RNA/Ribosome/Protein interactions)

I personally think these two platforms or levels of objects and their documented relations do not cover all of reality.  There appears moral/spiritual/ethical objective states.  Some believe in Divine substances, that exist apart from the first two.  An open mind on the subject explores all these levels and the substances that they generate.  

By the phrase, "a kind heart" is not meant the physical one.  Nor is meant the informational heart (which is measurable in its vast communication with other bodily systems).  What is meant is a measurable flow of good will, freely given.  A valuable substance in my humble point of view.

"Monism, Dualism or more?"

Well firstly of course, I (we) don't know. I suspect the latter (according to 'revelation' from the relatively new science of resuscitation), but as Sci says, it has unacceptable connotations (baggage). Not for me, though, personally, but that doesn't count for much.

 "A sub-stance --circumstances". 

I assume there is no actual inherent significance in the roots and branches of those words (from Latin and Greek substania/circum and ousia etc) that you are drawing my attention to ? 

"I personally think these two platforms or levels of objects and their documented relations do not cover all of reality.  There appears moral/spiritual/ethical objective states."

 (substance and circumstance platforms?) 

Agreed !

"By the phrase, "a kind heart" is not meant the physical one.  Nor is meant the informational heart (which is measurable in its vast communication with other bodily systems).  What is meant is a measurable flow of good will, freely given.  A valuable substance in my humble point of view."

Of course but I think I'm missing what you're getting at there.