Kastrup: Idea of the World

Regarding time, I hear a lot of experiencers (NDEs, etc.) describe how things do happen sequentially in non-physical dimensions, but somehow there's no time - it's all Now. Both of those things at once, seemingly incomprehensible to our minds while in this virtual physical system.

Well I'm sure that anyone in that situation may have difficulty describing such a situation. As I said, I rationalise that by suggesting that there are two time axes - one for their benefit, and another one for our use!

When you say NDEs are "dualistic", though, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean they imply dualism between consciousness and matter, or are you referring to another kind of dualism?

Well I guess I didn't express myself very well, but you need Dualism even to describe an NDE. However Idealism can be said to 'contain' Dualism as a special case (just as it also contains materialism as a special case), so it isn't unreasonable to say there is strong evidence for Dualism, but very little for full Idealism, so I think it would be better to wait until there is some real evidence that matter is simply a form of consciousness before asserting the idea.

David

This conversation was recorded during a live session on Clubhouse @philosophybabble Professor Carr engaged in a thought-provoking debate with Bernardo Kastrup on the subject of why we have our unique identity. The conversation evolved naturally and was a delightful experience. If you want to stay updated on upcoming live sessions on Clubhouse, please subscribe to the channel. And, don't forget to share, mention, and like!

Topic of discussion : Why am I me and not you?
1. What implications does this have for our understanding of individual identity?
2. How can we reconcile that we experience ourselves as unique individuals with the fact that we are all part of a broader collective consciousness?

Summary: The conversation covered a variety of topics, such as the link between physics and philosophy, the history of philosophy, the multiverse and many-world interpretation, Newton's gravity as a convenient fiction, the relationship between matter and mind, the key prejudices in physics, the definition of the physical universe, psychical research and mysticism, precognition, the new paradigm, the nature of time, near-death experiences, the fragmentation of consciousness or God, Cosmic Uroboros, and the bending of time. Professor Carr expressed his enjoyment of the debate, and Sam expressed his utmost appreciation. Kyle brought up the Dalai Lama and Buddhism.

They talked about infinitesimal time and how time is the answer to everything out of nothing. Professor Carr gave an impressive explanation of PK, and he made a joke about transcending time that made everyone chuckle. They discussed reincarnation, lucid dreaming, and the nature of identity. They talked about the differences between simulation theory and the laws of nature and defined the concept of God. The conversation also touched on creativity and collective consciousness with time, and they concluded that we are a product of nature.

Timecodes
00:00 - Intro
03:25 - Carr on, Why there is a link between Physics and Philosophy
07:49 - Bernardo’s views on the history of Philosophy
13:55 - Carr on controversy around the multiverse and many world interpretation
18:09 - Bernardo on Newton’s Gravity was a convenient fiction and it helped us landed on Moon
21:59 - Misinterpretation of Schrodinger’s equation anger Bernardo
22:59 - Carr defends the important of physics
25:19 - The relationship between Matter and Mind
29:54 - The key prejudices in physics
35:01 - Define the meaning of Physical Universe?
37:45 - Bernardo’s definition on Physicality
43:13 - The most difficult problem in Computer Science
44:28 - On psychical research and mysticism
47:09 - Bernardo on precognition
50:23 - The new paradigm!
52:30 - How can you be me? The answer is TIME
53:24 - The fundamental of the universe is a Cosmic Mind
54:30 - How can you be Bernardo and not Bernard
56:42 - Brain can’t generate consciousness
01:01:56 - The nature of TIME
01:05:45 - Near Death Experience (NDE)
01:07:14 - Specious Presence
01:13:01 - The Fragmentation of Consciousness or GOD
01:20:16 - Cosmic Uroboros
01:21:52 - The bending of time
01:26:06 - The model is the only game in town
01:28:49 - Professor Carr professed he enjoyed the debate too much!
01:29:13 - Sam expressed his upmost appreciation
01:30:33 - Kyle on Dalai Lama and Buddhism
01:34:28 - Bernardo on Heraclitus, once said, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.”
01:37:04 - Infinitesimal time
01:39:15 - Time is the answer to everything out from nothing
01:43:00 - Carr’s impressive explanation of PK
01:52:05 - Carr joked on transcending time made us all chuckles
01:52:20 - Martin’s question on reincarnation, lucid dreaming and consciousness
01:56:26 - What’s the nature of identity
01:58:26 - Alexey’s question on lucid dreaming and virtual reality
02:03:27 - Bernardo’s view on mental state and simulation theory
02:07:02 - Simulation Theory vs The Laws of Nature
02:13:59 - Defining GOD
02:17:37 - Creativity and the Collective Consciousness with TIME
02:25:50 - Humanity are a product of nature

[Ninshub]

Didn't watch this but just noticed it on my youtube algorhythm.

Kastrup in a head to head match with Susan Blackmore!  




Verdict before watching: they're both wrong!

Verdict before watching: they're both wrong!

I appreciate the open-mindedness

[Ninshub]

I appreciate the open-mindedness

A bit seriously (just a bit!), when you start the video you hear the clip of Bernardo saying "consciousness is not a personal self, it's not the soul". So yeah, he's wrong (at least partially). And Blackmore? Well I'm familiar enough with her ideas to already know I'm not on board with them!

A bit seriously (just a bit!), when you start the video you hear the clip of Bernardo saying "consciousness is not a personal self, it's not the soul". So yeah, he's wrong (at least partially). And Blackmore? Well I'm familiar enough with her ideas to already know I'm not on board with them!

Fair comments. Admittedly I've not yet watched this, but I remember long ago when Blackmore had something interesting to say; nowadays mostly she seems to demonstrate how poor the available arguments are for the viewpoints she espouses. As for Kastrup, I don't dislike him, just that at his best he doesn't inspire me, which may simply be a case of different people each following a different scent.

Fair comments. Admittedly I've not yet watched this, but I remember long ago when Blackmore had something interesting to say; nowadays mostly she seems to demonstrate how poor the available arguments are for the viewpoints she espouses. As for Kastrup, I don't dislike him, just that at his best he doesn't inspire me, which may simply be a case of different people each following a different scent.

Kastrup as an advocate for Idealism I think was a moment of some import, in tandem with the increasing openness of scientists to state their doubts about the Materialist metaphysics.

I get the feeling he has purposefully toned down some of his prior "Weird" commitments that we find in his early book Rational Spirituality in order to make further advances against Materialism as the scientific default.

Though at the same time as criticism I will say there are days it's unclear what the differences between his Idealism and Materialism are at the level of human living.

We’ve hit 10K subscribers to our channel, thanks so much! As a small thank you, in this video we discuss your questions with the director of Essentia Foundation, Bernardo Kastrup. It gets pretty wild as the conversation will range from the consciousness of bacteria, to our minds being ‘time traveling machines,’ to Hans asking Bernardo if Eve performed the first quantum measurement when she ate the apple. Also: why is meditation, literally speaking, an egoistic thing to do? Did Job suffer more than Jesus? And, this one is personal for Bernardo: what is the real danger of idealism if life hits you really hard?

Analytic Idealism is THE new worldview that can make sense of anomalous phenomena, whether it is NDE's, altered mental states or UAP's, whilst remaining 100% compatible with our current understanding of physics. In this video Hans Busstra discusses questions from viewers of our channel with Bernardo Kastrup (director of the Essentia Foundation) Physicalism offered an equilibrium for around two hundred years. But if one closely looks in the fields of neuroscience, physics and philosophy, anomalies are piling up. The only way to still entertain the idea that physicalism can make sense of unexplainable empirical phenomena—ranging from loophole-free Bell inequality tests, to altered mental states, to undeniable new evidence around Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP’s)—is to literally ‘don’t look up,’ to paraphrase the hilarious Netflix film that actually was a painfully accurate cultural critique of our times. In this Q&A Hans Busstra and Bernardo Kastrup discuss questions coming in around anomalies in the fields of NDE’s, UAP’s and fundamental physics. Though analytic idealism can’t offer clear-cut answers to most of these questions, it can—and this is a crucial difference with physicalism—in principle build testable theories around these phenomena. For instance, if nature consists of mental states, it is not unthinkable that when dissociative processes weaken—for instance, during NDE’s—that people can experience other people’s experiences. And if UAP’s in some cases seem to present themselves as mental phenomena, under idealism it doesn’t follow that they are imaginary. If we want to continue the scientific endeavour of accurately describing and predicting the behaviour of nature, we need to ‘look up’ under all circumstances; analytic idealism offers us a new telescope to do so confidently. Our YouTube channel is the place where we look through the telescope playfully, allowing ourselves to be troubled as well as excited: a revolutionary shift in science seems ahead and we want to report it to you from the forefront.

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