Kastrup: Idea of the World

In other words, nobody knows yet how to handle Idealism. On the face of it, it implies that everything is subject to the will of consciousness, and therefore any scientific law is more like a human law - people can break the law if they see fit! I think science needs a more gentle (but possibly intermediate) introduction to incorporating consciousness into reality.

Eh... I'd argue that they are less "human laws", and more a "habits / patterns of limitation manifested by mind / soul", paraphrasing Rupert Sheldrake. Because the many minds / souls that created this physical realm are not human in nature. And they probably have never incarnated into it themselves.

And these habits / patterns aren't so easy to "break" as seen by how tricky it is to manifest psychic abilities for a majority ~ as said habits / patterns are very powerful in nature. And so, only those with exceptionally strong psychic abilities of their varying natures can weakly have an influence, or at least perceive beyond the usual limits.

Furthermore, humanity is merely a particular manifestation of physical and mental form, of matter and ego. Just like physical and egoic entities that exist in this realm. We all share the same core nature of being individualized non-physical entity known as a "soul", after all.

Eh... I'd argue that they are less "human laws", and more a "habits / patterns of limitation manifested by mind / soul", paraphrasing Rupert Sheldrake. Because the many minds / souls that created this physical realm are not human in nature. And they probably have never incarnated into it themselves.

And these habits / patterns aren't so easy to "break" as seen by how tricky it is to manifest psychic abilities for a majority ~ as said habits / patterns are very powerful in nature. And so, only those with exceptionally strong psychic abilities of their varying natures can weakly have an influence, or at least perceive beyond the usual limits.

Furthermore, humanity is merely a particular manifestation of physical and mental form, of matter and ego. Just like physical and egoic entities that exist in this realm. We all share the same core nature of being individualized non-physical entity known as a "soul", after all.

Well that may be right, but the problem as I see it, is that until science moves on from materialism, none of this will count for much.

For example, I'd love to see science journals discussing not just NDE's, but NDE's with a clear paranormal component. I don't think that will happen until science tentatively accepts a theory that is non-physical and is testable (which excludes panpsychism).

As it is researchers will opine about NDE's without mentioning that these can contain paranormal components - such as people drifting out of the room where they are being resuscitated and seeing things in other parts of the building, or further afield.

Researchers don't want their papers rejected, so they avoid discussing stuff that seems 'impossible'. I mean science is whistling in the dark, but it still has enormous clout in the world.

Carlo Rovelli and Bernardo Kastrup — What is Real?

Gerald R. Baron

Part one of an analysis of what two scientist/philosophers have to say about the nature of reality in light of the quantum revolution. One works to preserve some semblance of the physicalist worldview, while the other turns it on its head. Both agree, reality is NOT what we think and what the advocates of the current materialistic worldview are selling.

=-=-=

Bernardo Kastrup takes on Materialism and Carlo Rovelli

The second post comparing the interpretations of the quantum revolution and what is real by respected scientist and writers. The first examined Carlo Rovelli’s Helgoland and his “relational interpretation” of what is real. Here we look at the very different approach of Bernardo Kastrup, including Kastrup’s response to Rovelli’s interpretation.

Bernardo Kastrup on idealism, dissociation, dreams, and more

Timestamps 00:00
Greetings 01:05
What is a dissociated alter? 03:15
The consciousness of dissociated alters 06:00
Priority monism? 06:50
DID and the fundamental mind: literal or analogical? 09:18
Implications of the DID analogy 13:02
Dreams vs. dissociation 18:10
Implications of the dream analogy 24:52
Christian Idealism joins the discussion 27:46
Last thoughts on dream analogy vs. dissociation analogy 30:37
Graham Oppy’s objection to idealism 34:48
Frequent objections to idealism 36:30
Pluralistic idealism 42:08
Buddhist view of the mind? 44:38
F.C.S. Schiller and submergence 49:19
Dissociation as a cognitive phenomenon 54:30
Life before birth? 58:23
The Hard Problem of Meta-Consciousness 01:01:11
Representationalism vs. epistemological monism 01:13:09
Links and compliments 01:14:20
Thoughts on panpsychism 01:23:23
Existence monism or priority monism? 01:30:55
History and the wisdom of past idealists 01:34:57
Idealism plus panpsychism? 01:39:22
Living philosophy 01:52:30
Absolute idealism 01:56:13
Personal idealism 02:00:52
Bernardo’s objection to personal idealism 02:06:12
The impact of personal idealism 02:07:39
Insect and animal suffering 02:14:06
Eating bugs? 02:15:45
Monistic Idealism will NOT eat the bugs! 02:16:32
The consciousness of insects 02:20:00
Christian Idealism leaves the discussion 02:20:25
Panpsychism and vegetarianism/veganism 02:24:35
Bernardo vs. a wild boar! 02:26:00
Meta-ethics and moral realism 02:37:35
Is the fundamental mind good? 02:42:42
Is Bernardo a theist? 02:50:23
Western and eastern spirituality 03:00:06
T.L.S. Sprigge and the main message of absolute idealism 03:07:00
Names, labels, and what really matters 03:12:00
Idealism without concepts? 03:16:19
Direct acquaintance vs. representationalism? 03:19:55
Prayer, meditation, and psychedelics 03:22:32
Bernardo vs. Sam Harris 03:27:08
Who presents the biggest challenge to idealism? 03:29:17
Bernardo vs. Jerry Coyne & TED 03:44:07
Mainstream academia 03:49:48
The ethics of censorship and marketing 03:56:59
Does idealism influence Bernardo’s ethics? 03:58:18
Mainstream news media and the future of political discussions 04:09:19
Bernardo on maturity and relating to evil 04:21:19
Conclusion of discussion 04:22:07
Close & future thoughts on dreaming and dissociation

Links: Deirdre Barrett –

The Dream Character as Prototype for the Multiple Personality Alter https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-4...

Dalena van der Kloet et al. – Fragmented Sleep, Fragmented Mind: The Role of Sleep in Dissociative Symptoms https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168...

Dalena van Heugten-van der Kloet and Steven Jay Lynn – Dreams and Dissociation—Commonalities as a Basis for Future Research and Clinical Innovations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

Monistic Idealism – Dissociated Alters as Dream Characters https://youtu.be/nKKoA4a3lvM

Hastings Rashdall; J. H. Muirhead; F.C.S. Schiller & C. F. D'Arcy – Symposium: Can Individual Minds Be Included in the Mind of God? https://www.jstor.org/stable/4106443

F.C.S. Schiller – Idealism and the Dissociation of Personality https://www.jstor.org/stable/2011518

Pessimistic Idealism – Representationalism https://thepessimisticidealist.blogsp...

Pessimistic Idealism – An Argument Against Physicalism from our Knowledge of the "External World" https://thepessimisticidealist.blogsp...

Bernardo Kastrup – Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA...

Rupert Sheldrake – The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

Bernardo Kastrup’s essay from Bigelow competition.

https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winning...astrup.pdf

Bernardo Kastrup’s essay from Bigelow competition.

https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winning...astrup.pdf

I don't think BK fully realizes that some of his explanations of Survival that try to do away with the "Personal" make Idealism seem very much like a variation of Physicalism.

What neuroscience actually shows about consciousness

B.Kastrup

In his opening presentation of the ‘Science of Consciousness’ conference 2021, Essentia Foundation’s executive director Bernardo Kastrup reviews the neuroscientific evidence and discusses what it actually tells about consciousness. He also discusses, in explicit and specific detail, what he perceives as widespread physicalist confirmation bias in both academia and mainstream media.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Center has some stuff up on BK by Lance Butler:

Open Minds

=-=-=

Consciousness, Cause and Bernardo Kastrup

Bernardo has launched a new organization, #EssentiaFoundation, and has produced some wonderful short videos that can be viewed at https://youtu.be/Nls4o_mR-sY and https://youtu.be/wJG6yL4ncK8.

Here he points out the many irrational conundrum pits into which defenders of scientific materialism dig themselves. He points out that mainstream theoretical physics has almost completely eliminated the notion of matter – preferring other abstractions such as information or mathematics that are divorced from actual experience. He argues that our conventional notion time is an illusion. Therefore, causality itself is also an illusion. He suggests that the universe operates on a structured web of interrelated meanings and that Jungian synchronicity could replace our notion of causality.

Whirlpools in Universal Consciousness

Nithin Nagaraj, PhD

One can ponder on what constitutes a good metaphor. There are several features that it should contain. The metaphor must employ objects, things, events, phenomena that are very ordinary and familiar, which are encountered often in one’s daily life. Furthermore, the relationship between the elements of the metaphor must be a matter of common knowledge. This makes the metaphor relatable to a large number of people (adults and even children beyond a certain age and basic education). The simplicity of the metaphor is equally important. The obviousness of the truth of the metaphor typically makes any further explanation redundant and unnecessary. All that a teacher does over and beyond the metaphor is to provide the connecting link from the elements in the metaphor to elements of reality that she desires to convey. A good metaphor in philosophical discussions is one that, upon deep reflection, succeeds in catapulting the mind into silence, into the ground of our shared Being. The whirlpool metaphor does precisely that; it delivers us the experience of Swami Vivekananda’s words: “we are universal and individual at the same time.”

Based on his words elsewhere I do think Vivekanda meant the last line, but I don't think this is what BK or other Absolute Idealists believe. It seems to me their position is that the individual is ultimately illusory, and there is only a Transcendent Mind.

All the usual complaints arise in this latter case, though admittedly it is hard to describe how both the I-Self and the Transcendent One can co-exist. (The One-Many Problem)