Kastrup: Idea of the World

Did you watch the video? It’s quite long - do they discuss anything new?

Hmmm I think this probably depends on how much of Kastrup's work one has read. I do think there are some things in there but I don't know if any of it is especially new.

I'd say the UAP/NDE stuff might be, if not necessarily something newly stated, consolidated in a nice way. Which isn't to say I (or anyone else) agrees with Kastrup's takes here.

Edit: To give a concrete example I think his Super Psi type explanations fall flat.

In this lecture given at the G10 conference, the director of the Essentia Foundation, Bernardo Kastrup, argues why the idea of conscious AI, though we cannot refute it categorically, is silly.

Perhaps we should rather ask ourselves the question why we entertain the idea of sentient computers in the first place.

According to Kastrup, this has a lot to do with the fact that most computer scientists are power users of computers but they've never built a computer themselves. If they had, they would be familiar with the nuts and bolts, and they would understand that the idea of microscopic transistors becoming conscious is not that different than proposing that a sufficiently complex sewage system—consisting of water pipes and valves—would become conscious.

Exactly because AI is having a fundamental impact on society with many regulatory and perhaps even existential challenges, it is very important that especially in academia we strongly distinguish between fact and fiction: to think that AI's running on Turing machines—i.e. all AI's we currently have—can become conscious is not even science fiction, it's pure fantasy.

00:00 Introduction
04:12 Start of Lecture on Al and Consciousness
06:23 Bernardo Kastrup's Background and Perspective
07:41 Early Career and Al Experimentation
10:43 Challenges in Al Consciousness
13:07 Philosophical and Practical Implications
15:45 Arguments & Critique of Al Sentience
18:55 Obvious Differences Between Al and Human Brain
21:32 Computer Scientists, Misconceptions & Sensationalism
28:42 Cultural and Psychological Factors
29:50 What Can We Learn From Nature About Consciousness?
35:11 Panpsychism and Its Flaws
38:27 Quantum Field Theory and Reality
43:44 Moving Forward with Clarity
48:39 Q&A Session

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

Link to video about indirect realism:    • The world isn't real because of this...  

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

=-=-=

Bernardo Kastrup and I discuss concerns I have with aspects of his metaphysics of Analytic Idealism. (For a link to a video I did on the main problems I see here:    • Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism ...  ) Kastrup provides important clarifications and further detail. In this discussion we focus discussion on the interaction of scientific evidence with philosophical views, and how modelling can provide insights into the nature of reality.

0:00:00 - Introduction
0:00:46 - Nutshell compared to Baloney
0:04:49 - Does Nutshell reveal your frustration?
0:09:25 - The role of empirical evidence in metaphysics
0:26:03 - How 'real' are physical theories in analytic idealism?
0:31:10 - How does entropy disprove naive realism?
0:39:13 - What does entropy tell us about mind at large?
0:51:45 - How can we make sense of mind at large?
1:06:02 - Does mathematics relate to reality?
1:23:14 - How can we talk or think about reality beyond the dashboard?
1:32:50 - Analytic idealism outlined
1:36:03 - Analytic idealism and behaviourism
1:47:13 - Bodies and corpses
1:56:14 - How does meta-consciousness arise from phenomenal consciousness?
2:06:01 - Does mind at large perceive?
2:12:46 - Mental excitations and appearances
2:30:24 - Things to come in part 2

See What do we know about the risks of psychedelics? & free documentary What's in My Baggie? There is an incredible danger in thinking you can just find good psychedelics via illegal markets, I can say that from personal experience as I was attacked by a friend who thought LSD could cure his depression.

In this conversation, neuroscientist Dr. Christof Koch, philosopher Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, and Hans Busstra explore what it means to take mystical experience seriously without abandoning scientific rigor.

Our previous episode with Christof Koch:    • Famous Neuroscientist on 5-MeO-DMT and Int...  

Both Koch and Kastrup emphasize that some psychedelic experiences exhibit a striking degree of specificity and convergence across individuals, pointing toward possible archetypal universals. While this raises clear ontological questions—suggesting that the contents of mystical experience may, in some sense, be real—the deeper lesson may be epistemic: alongside knowledge gained through scientific experimentation, there may also exist a form of direct acquaintance with truth; a ‘hyper-real’ mode of knowing that can leave the experiencer puzzled for years, or even a lifetime, and can inspire groundbreaking new science.

Both Koch and Kastrup emphasize that some psychedelic experiences exhibit a striking degree of specificity and convergence across individuals, pointing toward possible archetypal universals.

In my humble opinion, dumping a specific but huge chemical change on the human brain/body will always have similar effects across most of the population. Toxins and poisons usually do. I'm not surprised that they want it to be some archetypal pattern being exposed. That study would start off biased. We get the same or similar mental, emotional, or physical responses when people catch diseases and infections as well, because we are chemically alike, and reactions to chemistry are similar or the same. The serotonin syndrome in rabies causes the same reactions. LSD and DMT are uncontrolled bursts of chemical change, and produce wild results, but the bottom line is that the difference between normal human experiences and these drug experiences would be like a garden hose compared to a firehose. 
To check for archetypes, in my humble opinion, you would need a population that has never been exposed to the ideas or concepts of archetypes as a control group. Most of the world's population is already bombarded with this type of archetypal data from birth, so of course it is a shared societal thing that could or would be a foundation for hallucinations. I would bet that you get similar religious experiences when you expose the fundamentalists of the same religious beliefs to these drugs as well. As noted in some NDE's, a strong religious belief will often generate an experience that uses these beliefs as a foundation.

In my humble opinion, dumping a specific but huge chemical change on the human brain/body will always have similar effects across most of the population. Toxins and poisons usually do. I'm not surprised that they want it to be some archetypal pattern being exposed.

Psychedelics are nothing like "toxins" or "poisons". Psychedelics have very unique effects according to the overall psychology of the individual ~ and are very unique even among each other. DMT is very different to Psilocybin, even ~ and they are both not far from Serotonin in composition, so what gives?

It has nothing to do with "wanting" there to be some archetypal pattern ~ it has to do with the recognition that there the same psychedelic can have a wide range of different, yet similar sets of effects on different individuals, and no-one knows why. It can only be accepted for it is ~ a mystery.

That study would start off biased. We get the same or similar mental, emotional, or physical responses when people catch diseases and infections as well, because we are chemically alike, and reactions to chemistry are similar or the same. The serotonin syndrome in rabies causes the same reactions. LSD and DMT are uncontrolled bursts of chemical change, and produce wild results, but the bottom line is that the difference between normal human experiences and these drug experiences would be like a garden hose compared to a firehose. 

Comparing psychedelics to "diseases" or "infections" is, frankly, absolutely hilarious. It is completely nonsensical.

DMT and LSD are not "uncontrolled bursts of chemical change" nor do they produce "wild results" ~ they produce consistency peculiar sets of experiences that cannot be explained through a Materialist worldview.

The difference between normal human experiences and "drug" experiences is but a couple differences between molecules.

To check for archetypes, in my humble opinion, you would need a population that has never been exposed to the ideas or concepts of archetypes as a control group. Most of the world's population is already bombarded with this type of archetypal data from birth, so of course it is a shared societal thing that could or would be a foundation for hallucinations. I would bet that you get similar religious experiences when you expose the fundamentalists of the same religious beliefs to these drugs as well. As noted in some NDE's, a strong religious belief will often generate an experience that uses these beliefs as a foundation.

That is not how archetypes are experienced ~ people aren't "taught" to act like archetypes are real.

People act in similar sets of patterns, even with the variances between them ~ that is what composes the concept of an archetype.

https://www.carl-jung.net/archetypes.html

What Are the Archetypes According to Jung

The archetype is an innate psychic tendency which molds and transform the individual ego/consciousness.

It is rather a natural tendency to shape things than a collection of inherited contents such as images, ideas, concepts; it is a matrix which influences human thinking and believes on the ethical, moral, religious and cultural levels.

Jung talks about the archetype (also called "primordial image") as of the biologists' patterns of behavior (inborn behavior patterns). In short, archetypes are inborn tendencies which shape the human behavior.

"The archetype concept - Jung writes - derives from the often repeated observation that myths and universal literature stories contain well defined themes which appear every time and everywhere. We often meet these themes in the fantasies, dreams, delirious ideas and illusions of persons living nowadays".

These themes are representatives of archetypes; they are based on archetypes. They impress, influence and fascinate us (our ego). This is why we call their tremendous effect numinous - that is, able to arise deep and intense emotions.

Archetypes do not have a well defined shape "but from the moment they become conscious, namely nurtured with the stuff of conscious experience." Basically an archetype is empty, purely formal, nothing else but a pre-shaping possibility or an innate tendency of shaping things.

We can say that archetypes resemble the instincts in that that they cannot be recognized as such until they manifest in intention or action.

Archetypes are both negative and positive, that is they have two sides. One may figure out the archetype dualism by comparison with the symbolism of the well-known yin-yang principle. Though Yin and Yang are parts of the same unity - the T'ai chi t'u - they have separate and opposite meanings: decline and progress, below and high, night and day and so forth.

and they are both not far from Serotonin in composition, so what gives?

Serotonin syndrome is also a thing. Look at the stages of rabies for more data there. Neurotransmitters are finely tuned and controlled substances.

You be a fan, but my opinion is my opinion.