Neurologist Challenges Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism

Comments · 152

• AL

  @Alahandrokeykubat · 6 months ago

  Helal olsun sana bu bilgilerini çok güzel buluyorum kutlarim

  1

• PI

  @piddidysucky · 6 months ago

  Changing the brain changes experience, but that only shows correlation, not that the brain produces consciousness. It could just as well mean the brain is an interface or filter through which consciousness is expressed. Since the brain itself is only known within consciousness, claiming it creates consciousness is circular. The evidence is compatible with both materialism and idealism, so it doesn’t dissprpve idealism.

  16

• BE

  @Berend-ov8of · 5 months ago

  Watched the video, and read the comments. Response in short discussion.

• JU

  @Julio_Siqueira · 3 weeks ago

  Due to the thumbnail, I was expecting a debate with Bernardo. I got conned! 😢

  1

• PP

  @ppike__ · 3 weeks ago

  Besides placebo, do you understand how aenesethesia works? Btw I never heard him claim that materialist sciences don't work, he has said its a great predictive method, however they cannot be used to resolve fundamental issues in quantum physics, metaphysics and the study of consciousness

  2

• SU

  @supernaturalabilities · 1 month ago

  Let me recommend three books by Franz Bardon (1909-1958): 'Initiation into Hermetics,' 'The Practice of Magical Evocation,' and 'The Key to the True Kabbalah.' Step 10 of 'Initiation into Hermetics' represents the true goal of spirituality—merging with that which is infinite and eternal (Absolute/Tao/Akashic realm/Brahman/God). 'The Practice of Magical Evocation' (Franz Bardon’s second book) and 'The Key to the True Kabbalah' (Franz Bardon’s third book) are integral to step 9 of 'Initiation into Hermetics.'

  1

• TU

  @turbance_Gtag · 3 months ago

  In this, and other videos on analytic idealism, I've heard the idea of our brains  only being tuned to pickup the parts of reality that were useful for us to have through evolution.  But if the idea of analytic idealism is that everything is one consciousness viewing and experiencing itself through multiple interpretations (ie us) then where does evolution even come into play? If were just beings of consciousness and matter as we see it isn't real, then  why would the forms that we observe each other as (physical bodies) need to "evolve"? Couldn't this universal consciousness observe itself as monkeys one moment and humans the next, no adaptation for survival would ever be necessary if the physical world isn't real

• SU

  @supernaturalabilities · 1 month ago

  To understand the nature of consciousness, one must explore supernatural abilities, or siddhis, such as telekinesis, levitation, and other extraordinary phenomena.

  2

• TH

  @The_Turiya · 2 months ago

  Just as my subjective experience of sadness, which is indisputable and true, is a subjective experience, it is seen in the world as representation, or symbolically,  as tears. My tears do not give you my direct experience of sadness, like how a picture of a thing does not have all the qualities of the thing it is a picture of. So my subjective experience is experienced objectively as tears. This is true with the world at large, what we call matter, which is something defined strictly as non experiential, cannot explain the subject of experience. However, the world as experience can be described as something mental, and not mine or your individual mentality. Imagine youre having a dream. In the dream there is an inner and outer world, and during the dream you think youre only that one little person in the dream. However when you wake up, you realize you weren't just the one person, but all of the dream. There where inner mental contents, and outer mental contents (the world as a different kind of mental contents) its not too difficult. But materalism makes a grand assumption, yes idealism does think there's stuff outside your individual mind, but it doesn't assume its of a different Ontic category than mind, even if physicals where some how true, your experience of the world at least could only ever be mental, eyes to brain, representation in mind. However we have no grounds, and no evidence as such, to suggest the world is independent of mental states, the physics doesn't suggest this, nor can it.  The physics only tells us how our observations of these events behave. And physics is consistent with idealism. The thing is, lots of scientists are great scientists, but bad philosophers honestly, while Bernardo himself has a PhD in computing (worked at CERN) and a PhD in philosophy

  2

• TH

  @thejazzcatman · 1 month ago

  Hi Doctor! I’m a BA in psych, MA in cognitive science with an emphasis on philosophy of mind. I’m more familiar with Kastrups work than you are. I don’t say that to belittle, just to demonstrate my understanding. I was interested in his work a few years back and read all of his papers and listened to all of his podcasts.<br><br>All three of your central claims are false. I’ll address each. Please feel free to respond with a rebuttal! I’ll do my best to answer from the POV of Kastrup, with a little of my own experience thrown in there. <br><br>1. Lack of Predictive Power <br>To appeal to physicalism and the technological progress it has helped to achieve commits a mountain of fallacies. is<br><br>First, youre committing a fallacy of assuming the consequent. The fact that physicalism has predictive power does not imply much about its truth value. “Theory A predicts X. X happens. Therefore theory A is true.” This argument is not valid. My theory of invisible gremlins predicts the effect of gravity. Gravity follows my prediction. Therefore, invisible gremlins control gravity. This argument is always invalid. <br><br>It’s a cherry picking/suppressing evidence argument because there are plenty of pieces of predictive power from an idealist perspective, you just haven’t engaged. <br><br>Next, and many scientists do this, unknowingly, it’s not your fault, but your error is begging the question. You’re conflating methodological physicalism for metaphysical physicalism. For your claim of physicalism’s predictive power to have any relevance whatsoever, you need to assume the truth value of physicalism. Physicalism could just be a great tool without having any relevance to the ontological ground of being. To make this clear, I’ll present a basic gedankenexperimenten. Imagine you’re transported inside World Of Warcraft. You forget that you’ve been transported inside. You still have your knowledge of science and you conclude physicalism to be true. You do tests and experiments and assume physicalism whilst doing so, and it works. But one day you suddenly are given knowledge of World of Warcraft, and you realize there is a deeper reality underlying the appearances of physical reality you assumed to be true. You weren’t engaging with anything truly physical, only 0s and 1s. Make sense? Metaphysics has very little to do with our naive presumptions about the world. <br><br>Make sense? <br><br>Anyway, now that I’ve cleared that up, it’s important to address the fact that Idealism has a lot of predictive power. I would recommend looking into Don Hoffmans work. Idealist based thinking led to the discovery of a new theorem of game theory. Idealism based thinking leads to testing DMT, testing PSI, examining NDEs, testing reincarnation. None of these things can have any reality under physicalism. You can’t even really have a model of basic experiences like the taste of chocolate under materialism. You can point to quantities we can measure… it still doesn’t capture what it is.<br><br>2. Placebo<br>The truth value of Idealism does not and never has relied on appeals to the placebo effect. I disagree with a lot of what you said about it. We have mountains of first person accounts of the placebo effect and the mind being able to affect the body and affect reality. However, just forget about that. It has no impact whatsoever on the truth of Idealism. Many models of Idealism, including Kastrups, can maintain that we don’t change the outside mental states because there are boundaries. I can’t impinge on the world just because it and I are both consciousness. It’s still subject independent ultimately in many theories of Idealism. <br><br>1. Circular Logic<br>Yes. Philosophers and philosophers of science have almost unanimously agreed that matters of the scientific method, that the observation of nature, can’t really give us any definitive answer about the nature of reality. Kastrups appeals to some science because that’s how the modern world works, we worship science like a religion, but ultimately he always acknowledges that the argument for idealism stems from logic and reason, not appealing to scientific facts. They can point us in the right direction, but ultimately what is fundamental about reality will probably always remain unknown. <br><br>So, to appeal to the circularity of philosophical claims lacking the ability to be tested is like appealing to a paintings lack of ability to be “proven”. What would it mean to prove the Mona Lisa? Doesn’t make sense. But… the Mona Lisa has <b>some</b> nature.<br><br>There are a million other things I could say. I have many disagreements with Kastrup, but his Idealism is vastly superior to any form of metaphysical physicalism on the table today. Not even close. Physicalism cannot and will not ever be able to describe the one thing that is literally our fundamental nature: experience. It’s a dead end physicalism. Great tool though! <br><br>Additionally, again I don’t mean to sound harsh, but if you’re interested in “debunking” Idealism, you’ve got a lot of work to do. And once you’ve done the work, you’ll realize how ludicrous materialism is. It’s a horrible theory of the world. Anyone within the field of brain/mind, whether neurology or neuroscience etc, just shooting down arguments from people like Dr Kastrup, with a clear gap in understanding, well it’s hard for me to take them seriously. Materialism/physicalism is false. It’s clearly false. It’s not a gap we can bridge. We’re only going to progress into new domains once we drop it. The realm of human knowledge, experience and truth is <b>barely</b> grounded in physical reality. Everything starts through the mind and through experience. To assume physicalism is already to make some unconscious and unjustified belief, because outside of your experience you’ve never encountered a world. Outside of your experience you’ve never encountered anything, so to then assume this physical world, use that physical world which is experienced from consciousness, and then abstract consciousness away as a byproduct of that physical world, well… it’s just silly. It’s silly. Cheers!

  5

• JI

  @jiggasnap · 6 months ago

  One thing i often think about is, along the lines of analytical idealism, if you shrink yourself to the scale of a virus or enlarge yourself to intergalactic scale (as a thought experiment obv) then these things that you mentioned - microphone, table, hand- would stop being those things, wouldn&apos;t they? Surely your hand can&apos;t <i>really</i> be a hand from the pov of someone the size of ten galaxies can it?<br><br>All of that is to say - cant physicalism and analytical idealism both coexist?

• AD

  @Adaerus · 2 weeks ago

  Analytical Idealism doesn&apos;t need to produce results, it just needs to solve absurdities at the edge of physicalism. <br>The problem with mind being physical is that you&apos;d have to categorize mind itself as physical and then imagination is also physical. That&apos;s the self check-mate move from physicalism. So Analytical Idealism swoops in with the rescue. Physicalism is still valid but it operates in the region of physicality; of patterns which the brain classifies as physical.

  1