Excellent. This man covers a huge territory in just eight minutes and does so with remarkable clarity. If you don't get it on first listening, it's worth a repeat or two, especially if you take the trouble to research some of the terms he uses. You rarely find the fundamentals of science and metaphysics presented so concisely.
The end is really the key: physicalism is a presupposition and most if not all of the arguments in its favor start with the assumption that it is true.
Perhaps that was ultimately meant by the idea that man is at the centre of the universe, not the narrow idea that the sun and planets revolved around Earth.
@@user-zc4yd9ss7h Man isn't the center of the universe. The universe doesn't give a frell about us. We are one asteroid or comet impact away from being completely removed from the universe. Just ask the dinosaurs. Their bones can tell you just how "central" they were. ;-)
@ballisticfish1212 after a while playing the video game you immerse with the characters unaware you're participating immensely engrossed ,that's why we might be a pawn in a video game by and large .....
@@ballisticfish1212 W/ all due respect, that's quite a silly comparison. No one says that game characters are themselves conscious or have an inner cognitive world of their own.
@@ballisticfish1212 Hi there - I would hesitate to dismiss the original point as quite so silly. Video game characters have an immediate material explanation (a particular projection of light, graphics formed by the televisual technology and game algorithm, a clear link between console and display TV, etc.). Thoughts, abstractions, and all over data or indeed qualia from conscious experience seem to be, by all accounts, categorically removed from the material apparatus by which they are known.
Where do we begin to disentangle the organism and its consciousness? If I am conscious, so too are other apes who similarly observe the world, maintain family units, and hold memories. My pets are conscious and they reason how to obtain things which they desire. Is a worm conscious? Are plants? It seems that as the complexity of the organism grows, so too does its depth of whatever we wish to call consciousness, suggesting a fairly direct corollary to biological/evolutionary factors. I won’t claim to know enough to have any confidence in this, in fact my admittedly dismissive thoughts here give me pause that I know quite little on the topic, but it seems to me plain from observation that consciousness resides on a spectrum and that we can directly measure that against brain size/complexity. I’m not sure where that leaves room for some ethereal realm to be holding some distinct consciousness which seats itself conveniently in our brains. This seems needlessly complicated and presents more challenge than it does explanation.
We’re pre-Socratic moving into Socrates, and you know what democracy did to him. Will the Constitutional Republic hold fast and not have the same result? The rate of meaningful dialogue in the culture is the measure.
Nah, the Sophists were correct even if they didn't understand why. Why have these great metaphysicians never contended--or better--put forward a powerful theory of language?
@@marcushagey4110 When metaphysics is dead, as Nietzsche fundamentally meant with “God is dead,” then the metaphysical is not part of the zeitgeist. In other words, all knowledge is remembering. So if your attention is not placed on metaphysics, then you won’t remember because you never knew about the knowledge found in the metaphysical.
If 'mind' does not need a physical substrate, show me a single disembodied 'mind'. He's also using 'more and more researchers' think something with no real evidence. Finally, 'phsyicalism' may be a bit of a presupposition, if only because there is no evidence otherwise.
How could you know that there exists a physical substrate apart from consciousness when the very thing we're talking about is exclusively accessible through consciousness?
Max Planck: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
@@Phylaetra There was a time when we couldn't see sub atomic particles, or gamma radiation. Maybe one day we'll be able to detect disembodied consciousness. I'm not saying it definitely exists, but I don't think we can dismiss the possibility because we can't see it. Science is very poor at explaining the unseen. E.g. Based on our understanding of gravity, Scientists reckon only 5-10% of the matter in the universe is visible (given our current instrumentation). They know there must be 90-95% more matter than they can see, but they don't know what this matter is. So they've called it dark matter. In a sense it's a religious belief to fill a gap in our knowledge.
I quite liked Kastrup's stuff ... for a while. But he's getting a bit too adversarial for my liking these days (and not in the good kind of adversarial that he blogged about recently), and it's distracting. I wish he'd just stick to The Stuff. Regardless, even if he did there is no comparison. In this area, Kastrup is to Bentley Hart, what a pea shooter is to a 15-MIRV RS-28 Sarmat.
@@KT-dj4iy I think if BK were to read your comments he would say yes, you’re probably right about everything you just wrote. BK is fond of saying “no process in nature is perfect“! He also likes to say “we are doings of nature“. And lately he’s been saying it’s like “we’re all violins and we have to allow ourselves to be played by nature, (with supervision) instead of resisting. I love the way he communicates. He and Christoph Koch recently did an interview together and CK now says he’s come around to Bernardo’s “analytic idealism”. I recently started putting the comment “ you need to interview Bernardo Kastrup” at every site I visit. Have a good one!
A very fine exposition of the issues but for the normal viewer this is densely difficult. Because it is difficult and assumes the viewer knows something of philosophical terms. Judging by the comments below, the previous viewers know little and want to know even less.
The issue is he's limiting his audience to the subset of people who have read the same books as he. But his points are very fundamental: consciousness, the scientific method, truth... why can't he explain these concepts in his own terms? Presumably he's doing podcast interviews to get his message out - but he's making no attempt to speak in a vocabulary most people would understand.
I think the reason Hart isn’t more popular is twofold: 1. He’s incredibly boring to listen to 2. People have short attention spans If you get past the boredom he’s really saying something interesting. It’s something which has really been echoed for years now in small pockets but only “recently” has become mainstream. The mechanism of the scientific method, which has been so successful in our technological advance as societies, is impotent to explain the teleological processes of mind. And the more radical proponents of such mechanism rule that, rather than reconsider the place of mechanism in the explanation of the world, we should eliminate consciousness as a valid data point to be explained. Is this laziness, or just blind marriage to a sinking worldview? Anyway, people who leave brainless comments with absolutely no detail or reasoning betray their own criticisms by being self-contradictory. It’s humorous and sad at the same time to see such self-contradiction
I fail to see how DBH can make this assessment. Just because quantum mechanics (and potential multiverses) exist doesn’t seem to imply or require the necessity for any spiritual realm, let alone one even remotely connected to the bologna that ALL theology and religious myth significantly more clearly are. I wasted decades of my life attempting to understand reality through theological windows until they finally shattered and permitted me to see that there was a whole world outside for my mind to explore.
I’d love to see Neil degrasse Tyson discuss this topic with you because I’m sure it wouldn’t be long before you discovered some new truths together. Your brains work similarly. 😉
He’s being pretty clear if you have a background in philosophy. If you don’t, you probably should start reading it instead of expecting every philosopher to explain knowledge that’s prerequisite to what they're talking about. Your complaint is like going to into a Calculus class and getting mad the teacher is not explaining the fundamentals of algebra
If he was a chemist talking about chemical reactions would you say the same thing? Sometimes you have to understand a field of study. But if you don't it's not thereby nonsense what he's talking about.
The single dumbest comment I've read today. No serious Christian believes that there is 'a' god. God isn't a being or any kind of 'thing'. He is the ground of being itself, or that which provides and determines the being of all that exists. Therefore He could not be any type of being or thing or else He would be dependent on something prior to Himself for His own being. Silly atheists can't even accurately define the classical conception of God that people like Bentley-Hart believe in. It's tiring to have to constantly correct atheists who think that orthodox Christians like Bentley-Hart believe in the 'powerful sky daddy' caricature of God simply because morons like Richard Dawkins think that's what Christian's mean by 'God'.
