Kastrup: Idea of the World

[Laird]

Oh, hurry up and make up your mind! 

The problem is that in my reading of him, Bernardo is not entirely clear on what he means by "experience". My best attempt to make sense of him is that he uses it in two senses - one is subjective, i.e., qualia ("the redness of red"), and the other is objective; that which I would refer to as the "mental energy" within/by which qualia occur, though I doubt that he would like that term (he objects to the existence of "mind stuff"). The objective sense is that in which he talks about the "excitations", "protrusions", "vibrations", and "mirrorings" of "the membrane of mind". So, if one wants to read him charitably, then one has to pick the best fit for the occasion, and when the occasion is those "ripplings" of "the membrane of mind" which lead to the experiences of "the external world" by "psyches", then it seems apparent that a charitable reading would take those (the "ripples") to be "experiences" in the objective sense, rather than the subjective sense (of qualia) - but should Bernardo be granted this charitable reading or should he be expected to use a word consistently, and should it be expected that when he talks about experience, he means qualia?

So does the Woolley Stannoth see now that my uncertainty is partly a function of Bernardo's lack of clarity?

Hi Folks, interesting discussion as always!!

Whilst I haven't actually read a book or heard an interview with Bernado Kastrup, I have read quite a few excerpts here and there, as well as a very few blog posts. With that limited exposure, I personally really appreciate Bernado's attempts at reformulating the mysteries of consciousness and creation within a conceptual framework. I get the feeling I like his approach and am in general agreement with his viewpoints, but with the implicit understanding they are merely maps and not territories. I guess the reason I haven't read his books or looked into his output more closely, is because I believe I am already much in accord with his message?

The reason I'm commenting is because I stumbled upon a brief comment in a blog post from Bernado a few weeks ago which I found quite revealing and interesting, and now see this thread which I think touches on a similar point, albeit perhaps tangentially:

"The only thing I do know is my personal experiences: I have cultivated psychedelic-containing organisms at home, legally, safely and very easily. The experiences they provided me with years ago have been of tremendous learning value and considerably helped my personal development."
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/45...strup/blog

On the old Skeptiko forum about 5 or 6 years ago, I wrote up a post on my personal experiences with "psychedelics", and how they related and compared to my "natural" experiences of "non-dual awakening" and simultaneous "kundalini awakening" phenomena. I got into a somewhat heated discussion with the poster LoneShaman, an advocate of the supremacy of psychedelics in generating "mystical" or "spiritual" experiences, whereas I was stating that based on my own quite considerable experience that my own "natural" experiences appeared to me to be far more powerful, full of "Grace" and "clarity" etc, whereas "entheogen" induced experiences felt more sideshowy or hierarchically parallel to the normal waking consciousness state, rather than spiritually superior. However, since that time, I have found that extremely high doses (7g+ dried) of good quality psilocybe mushrooms do indeed engender experiences comparable if not identical to non-dual awakening and kundalini visions/ecstasies! This is, for me, quite a momentous statement to make, a change in belief or perspective I would never have guessed I would make for the first 35 odd years of my life! Nonetheless, over the past 4 odd years I've taken large doses of psilocybe mushrooms on around 6 (?) occasions, and I now do feel a deep sense of reverence and respect for these allies, and their potential to radically alter perception and behaviour, elicit universal love, joy, awe, perpetual astonishment, coherent conceptual and intellectual insight (albeit as a sideshow to the main event . And for these effects to last for considerable lengths of time, if not permanently at least on some level. That said, I still do not agree with LoneShaman that these are the only or best methods to "realisation"! I actually consider this idea to be an extension of materialist philosophy, that seeks to reduce the irreducible mystery of consciousness to matter, chemicals and brain reactions. I genuinely believe the "mystery of consciousness" can be revealed by almost anything, from a NDE to meditation in any of the thousands of various methods and schools, to a lucid dream, from reading a book intensely to simply looking up at a flock of birds in flight, as well as by using entheogens. Everything literally is the mystery of consciousness, and there is imo no limits or rules to how it can be encountered without the intermediary of the ego-self. All paths lead to Consciousness! 

Errr, okay point was meant to be this! I notice a lot of people have an aversion to the notion or concept of "Oneness", or as Bernado puts it in the quote from Laird above "the one universal subject exists".

This is understandable, it is a most difficult concept to comprehend intellectually and intuitively, especially in the face of our seeming everyday experience as an individual disconnected from everything and everyone around us. However, I do think it is worth noting a few things:

1) That the essence of these sorts of claims are not conceptual or intellectual, they are direct & immediate experiences understood on a non or pre-conceptual level, beyond the limits of language, time and space. The linguistic representations of such experiences, often shared out of joy, astonishment and the overwhelming beauty and love of such an "experience" in contrast to the perpetual suffering that one directly realises comes from the illusion of duality or individuality, are not it, and there is not too much need to understand it conceptually, because that is like trying to appease hunger by reading and understanding a cook book.

2) This "non-duality" does appear to be the pinnacle, ultimate or absolute teaching or concept in most metaphysical schools of thought and practice, and that even includes the ones deeply grounded in dualism!

3) In a dream, OBE or vision, preferably lucid, one can encounter thousands of seemingly autonomous sentient beings, but with increasing lucidity, clarity and experience of such states, it becomes obvious that all these "sentient beings" creating vast narratives across considerable time and space are in fact simply different facets of one's own singular consciousness. Yet, for the vast majority of people, the illusion within the dream of being a "person" with a body, and having all these apparently independent sentient beings around them, all with their own bodies and narratives, persists quite stubbornly   In the more mind blowing experiences, one can literally experience moving from one body to another, and in each "incarnation" remembering the life, history, thoughts, desires etc of that "individual", just as convincing and "real" as your memories of your actual "real" life's consciousness! This can even extend to animals, and types of beings we have not yet encountered in earth, the potential is almost infinite. And we're talking about thousands if not millions of apparent "existences"! What I write above is simply a fact of my experience, and if anything under-stated not exaggerated. So if my own puny "singular" consciousness can do all this, how can we even conceive of God's Grand Dream? Ahh, perhaps we partake of it in every moment....

4) If it is understood what I'm hinting at, I believe it explains ALL so called paranormal, spiritual, mystical phenomena far better than any other model. I know this is not a opinion that most would appreciate, who think individual souls are the cause of certain phenomena, rather than being caused by the inherent connection between all things seeing as it is all just ONE thing.

5) This is not an theory, concept, belief or idea. The words above are an attempt at capturing the unfathomable, non-conceptual, deeply ecstatic direct and immediate experience within a linguistic framework. However, for me, the words are worthless and mean nothing and can be discarded easily. Like Bruce Lee's finger pointing to the moon......don't look at the finger or you miss allllll the heavenly glory 

6) Forgoing words and concepts, perhaps do as Bernado did and dive deep into some sort of technology, like psilocybe mushrooms, and experience what he points at directly. Conceptual models and arguments may then cease to hold the same gravitas they once did, and one sees them for the jokes they are! No words can contain the mysteries of consciousness and creation! Having a direct experiential encounter with the "level of reality" Bernado is hinting at, one is then in a better placed position to evaluate the legitimacy or truth of his claims?

7) Regardless of anyone's particular beliefs or perspectives, I deeply wish all of you love, happiness, joy and laughter in your lives 

The problem is that in my reading of him, Bernardo is not entirely clear on what he means by "experience". My best attempt to make sense of him is that he uses it in two senses - one is subjective, i.e., qualia ("the redness of red"), and the other is objective; that which I would refer to as the "mental energy" within/by which qualia occur, though I doubt that he would like that term (he objects to the existence of "mind stuff"). The objective sense is that in which he talks about the "excitations", "protrusions", "vibrations", and "mirrorings" of "the membrane of mind". So, if one wants to read him charitably, then one has to pick the best fit for the occasion, and when the occasion is those "ripplings" of "the membrane of mind" which lead to the experiences of "the external world" by "psyches", then it seems apparent that a charitable reading would take those (the "ripples") to be "experiences" in the objective sense, rather than the subjective sense (of qualia) - but should Bernardo be granted this charitable reading or should he be expected to use a word consistently, and should it be expected that when he talks about experience, he means qualia?

So does the Woolley Stannoth see now that my uncertainty is partly a function of Bernardo's lack of clarity?

No. I’ve decided to adopt Trump’s successful method, by simply stating facts that suit me.

Bernardo Kastrup is God.

Although the idea that it is (those which I presume to be) the qualia of mind at large which can "ripple in the medium of mind" is in my view an unclear one and is arguably nonsensical, so I might still be with you, malf.

Do you think telepathy testing garners a "hit" if I see something related to your thought process? For example if you are thinking of a rabbi and say you are thinking about Judaism.

If so, this seems to be akin to what Bernardo may be talking about. Admittedly, and it's a long standing criticism, the mechanistic-lite metaphors reach a point where one begins to think Idealism is a variation of Physicalism.

Exactly my point. But that is consistent with an interaction with an external reality. It seems less consistent with whirlpools of consciousness experiences in a river of consciousness experiences. If the (oft-used) "redness of red" isn't fundamental, what is?

What do you think is happening when different wavelengths of light interact with retinal cone cells? I don't think we can regard this as a neuronal correlate of consciousness... This well understood process does seem very suggestive of an "external reality".

There are a number of important points presented in the above.  How can red's instantiation (qualia) be different for different agents when the physical signal is a standard frequency range?

I would suggest there is a theoretical model (currently undefined) that explains why this is normative and obvious.

Reality is an inclusive term and suggests a single field of interaction.  While there is this holistic aspect to reality, it is fair to divide fields of experience involving agents, apart from strictly physically measurable fields.  Those fields involving the experience (both conscious and unconscious) of agents is measured by information science tools.

The tools of physical science detect external physical aspects to reality.  The tools of information science detect internal mental aspects to reality.  The redness of red can be measured as to the meaningful aspects resulting from the natural experience.

Those meanings are causative, in the natural environment.  They are the missing ingredient in the formulation.

The problem is that in my reading of him, Bernardo is not entirely clear on what he means by "experience". My best attempt to make sense of him is that he uses it in two senses - one is subjective, i.e., qualia ("the redness of red"), and the other is objective; that which I would refer to as the "mental energy" within/by which qualia occur, though I doubt that he would like that term (he objects to the existence of "mind stuff"). The objective sense is that in which he talks about the "excitations", "protrusions", "vibrations", and "mirrorings" of "the membrane of mind". So, if one wants to read him charitably, then one has to pick the best fit for the occasion, and when the occasion is those "ripplings" of "the membrane of mind" which lead to the experiences of "the external world" by "psyches", then it seems apparent that a charitable reading would take those (the "ripples") to be "experiences" in the objective sense, rather than the subjective sense (of qualia) - but should Bernardo be granted this charitable reading or should he be expected to use a word consistently, and should it be expected that when he talks about experience, he means qualia?

So does the Woolley Stannoth see now that my uncertainty is partly a function of Bernardo's lack of clarity?

Have you presented your criticism to Bernardo directly? I suspect at this point in time you may be the most up-to-date on his writing so not sure how much I or anyone else can do to stand in for BK?

[Laird]

Have you presented your criticism to Bernardo directly?

Not yet - I was trying to get it properly proofread first, but since it seems my proofreader has gone MIA, I will probably go ahead soon.

Not yet - I was trying to get it properly proofread first, but since it seems my proofreader has gone MIA, I will probably go ahead soon.

Heh, not sure if I'm the MIA reader but I am a slow reader when it comes to dense stuff. Give me a little time and I'll soon be in a position to better review it.

How does it suggest a truly external, independent reality, exactly? How exactly is it more consistent, supposedly, with a truly external reality, as opposed to an entirely unknown objective reality filtered unconsciously through a subjective lens?

Of that, I don't think you have any answer or evidence.

And no, "different wavelengths of light interact with retinal cone cells" isn't satisfactory evidence of anything.

You have to explain how retinal cone cells fundamentally work to translate raw light into subjectively perceived shades of colour.

Retinal cone cells send an electro-chemical signal.  A signal which contains limited information.  As a physical pattern channeled by the optic nerve to the brain, these signals are called an afferent stimulus.   The meaning of the inbound vision is not translated from the signal.  The meaning is detected and mirrored by the mind, as a result of the signal and the context of the agent embedded its environment.

 Afferent neurons are sensory neurons that carry nerve impulses from sensory stimuli towards the central nervous system and brain, while efferent neurons are motor neurons that carry neural impulses away from the central nervous system and towards muscles to cause movement.

 

Current research is aimed in one direction and not adapted to reciprocal activity.  While the search for the neural correlates of conscious is productive, the real discoveries will be when focused on the mental processing of information.  Instead of NCC physical functionality, science can observe how minds can relate current stimuli (including stimuli about perceived future events) to a database of personal experiences.  And from the data interchange build information objects that can change real-world probabilities.

[Laird]

Heh, not sure if I'm the MIA reader

Nono, I had no arrangement with you, I just shared it with you in the hope you'd take a look at it given your interest in these sort of topics. This was somebody who responded to my social media call-out for a proofreader and had agreed to do the job.

but I am a slow reader when it comes to dense stuff. Give me a little time and I'll soon be in a position to better review it.

I'd love it if you did that, but please don't feel any obligation or pressure.