It's kinda sad how a lot of people equate science with the philosophy of materialism. Disregarding any other metaphysics that's not materialism as anti-scientific is ironically quite irrational and dogmatic. Not to say that there aren't people who really spout nonsense. Figuring out what is BS and what is not can be tiring but if one wants to be rational then one has to stop being lazy, start thinking and actually listen.
Bright hosting bringing earnest questions and push back. Brilliant guest with incredible sound argument for idealism. That said, Materialism collapses under its own weight. What is easy to miss is what we mean be consciousness and experience.
I'm only 20 minutes in but this is already the best video I have ever seen on RU-vid. Dude, whoever you are, thank you. I've leaned towards materialism my entire life and THIS GUY, Bernardo Katrup is the ONLY PERSON who has been able to make an argument in favor of metaphysical idealism that makes sense to me. He is right that the material world is DEFINED as that which is NOT experiencial! 100% agree. You made a statement that "computers DO create visualizations" or something like that. But, you are missing the point. Computer visualizations are JUST electrodes and diodes and the excitation of electrons and pixels and stuff. It is not AN EXPERIENCE. Only YOU or I and other conscious entities can EXPERIENCE the visualizations created by the computer. It is a COMPLETELY different thing, not like bricks and walls. Like Katrup is saying, there is absolutely NOTHING in common with the DISPLAY of a picture and the EXPERIENCE of the picture in consciousness. This *IS* the hard problem of consciousness. So, since we can't--even in PRINCIPLE--get from materialism to consciousness without some kind of magic, why not START from consciousness and see if we can derive the material world? This, I must admit, does seem MORE plausible. You asked in the beginning, why can't materialism just assume that matter is fundamental and consciousness comes from it? Well, that's exactly what they do as materialists, and they have failed and failed spectacularly, so far. I'm not saying I'm convinced. What I'm saying is that I'm convinced that Katrup's argument is cogent and makes sense. I'm convinced that it does seem easier to go from assuming consciousness and deriving matter than it is to go the other way around. Anyway....love this video. I've subscribed. Hope to see more interviews like this in the future. Thank you.
That's because you've probably never even heard of historical positions for idealism starting with Plato. Retardo is the only one who precisely doesn't make a good argument for metaphysical idealism.
Great realization! I would even go further and say that idealism does not even need to explain the existence of matter as strictly defined by materialism, because such a thing has never been proven to exist. However, what we colloquially refer to as "matter" does exist indeed. It is simply a kind of experience that is qualitatively different from other experiences such as emotions etc. Therefore, idealism only needs to explain the emergence of this different kind of mental experience we colloquially call "matter".
In order for idealism to work, you have to accept the insane premise that consciousness can invent and imagine things without actual perception. If reality is ONLY consciousness, then there is no external world, there is only an experience of the idea of there being an external world, and without there being anything to reference your experiences, an absolute originality is required to explain the content of your mind.
Once I understood materialism the spell was broken. You don't need Idealism to defeat materialism. Materialism defeats itself, actually I should've been buried more than 100 years ago with the advent of Quantum physics.
@@SebastianLundh1988 it defines consciousness in such a broad way that the term becomes meaningless. As soon as you define it as something, you are induldging in relational metaphysics. For consciousness to have meaning, it has to be referential i.e. it must stand in relations to something it is not. but if there is nothing external to consciousness, then it doesnt stand in relations and therefore, lacks a coherent definition.
Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force? Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles. 3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force. 4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory. 7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force. Question: What is the difference between the postulated soul (no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only) and quarks (mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts)?
This was my favorite talk. introduced me to analytical idealism! Expanded my understanding of how concepts are explained by other concepts and how that relates to how I see myself and others.
Damn, Kastrup really destroyed this guy, he was completely out of his depth. It was almost embarrassing to watch his incomprehensible rebuttals to Bernando's arguments.
T is a dumbass. He's very much out of his depth with nearly everyone I've seen him debate. He's literally said "because epistiomolgy" before as a response to someone (don't remember who) . A phrase which I doubt he even understands beyond being able to pronounce it.
"And we all have this feeling, that I came into this world. Well, it isn't true - you came out of this world, like a leaf comes out of a tree." - Alan Watts
30:50 Kastrup begs the question, assumes that when an arrangement of material becomes conscious (say, as an embryo grows) that is dualism. No, the material simply gets arranged consciousness-wise.
I follow you all the way upp till 1:09 when you start talking about experiencial states out there. In my experience these are also projections. But still good presentation. In my personal experience everything happens in Me, and Me I can acess. It’s a deliberate process to overcome the last hurdel to become one, but it is doable.
Wow! Absolutely loved this talk even though I didn't really understand Bernardo's idealist view! I am definitely more on Thomas's side as a materialist (consciousness derives from a certain level of complexity and an appropriate material machine as an emergent property) and think, until whoever gets proved right, it is somehow more useful for us humans to manipulate the world "out there". How can one's consciousness engineer the physical world and therefore interfere and modify nature's mental state? But Bernardo's theory is compelling! Will have to listen to this again and immerse myself in all those terms and definitions! Thanks Thomas and Bernardo for this fascinating and, to me, slightly destabilizing and scary talk! 🌿
i've watched a few videos with kastrup in and i have to say i feel the same way you do, i don't really have a clue what he's talking about. it seems to come down to woo.
Bernardo is starting from pretheoretic phenomenological reality: what we know, what we see everything through, and what we cannot escape is consciousness, he argues. He would ask how immaterial stuff like consciousness, quality, perception which seems different in kind from matter could arise from materiality? He would say that materialist posits an extra ontic category (I.e. matter) that is a mental abstraction of consciousness, so idealism is more parsimonious. “One’s” consciousness does not create external reality - external reality is real and objective with its own deterministic order in a sense. He just thinks that everything including the stuff outside of our own minds is made up of the same *substance* as individual consciousness, as opposed to matter. That’s what I’ve grasped so far 😂
bernardo needs to get better at destroying arguments of emergence. eg. a pattern on a shell is an emergent property of the shell. when we observe the basis of emergence ie. that shell we necessarily observe its emergent property ie. the pattern, and vice versa. likewise blue is asserted to be the emergent property of a particular neural correlate in the brain. however no such emergent property is observed upon observing the neural correlate that is asserted to be the basis of emergence for the emergent property blue. furthermore after splicing billions of mammal brains christof koch failed in his decades long heavily funded research to locate the neural correlate for consciousness itself, let alone its emergent property of basic consciousness. so even he now no longer maintains are hard physicalist position openly admitting it requires a total collapse into magical thinking.
23:50 - So is this idealist denying the concept of emergence? Because it sounds like he cannot understand that matter is not having experience on its own just like that. But a specific type of matter in specific combination can have experience through emergence characteristics of this complex system. This is what materialist prove, and idealists ignore. Or can he prove what he is saying? Doubt it, as most idealists hate empirical evidence.
He is just positing that matter and consciousness are qualitatively different; therefore, you cannot reduce one to another without saying that one of the two is an illusion. And he is more prone to consider matter as the illusion because he, as possibly every human being, experiences his consciousness and cannot negate it.
@@ElijahFate-b5o Sounds very close to solapsism, or reality denial. Saying that consciousness and matter are different doesn't mean you need to reduce anything. As I said emergence exists. Also those concepts "matter" and "consciousness" are bonded by our language. They are just terms not necessary different beings. It could very well be that the "consciousness " is just a property of specific organization of matter.
@lexter8379 Mm, no, he does not support solipsism. He supports the existence of an external independent reality and the existence of multiple independent minds. He just says that external reality and internal mentation pertain to the same ontological category. Moreover, yes, emergentism does exist, and one can support the idea that the mind is an emergent property of matter if you don't believe they are of incompatible nature. And this is what he claims. Whatever the complexity level, he believes it cannot bring a third-person description of things to a first-person reality experience. In his account of the problem being the two concepts qualitatively irreducible one to another, you have no other move than considering one of the two an illusion.
Same goes for physicalism, you have only correlation, rendering the physicalist argument only based in logic, not maths, not fact. The same can be said for idealism, it's just that the idealists are aware of this, the physicalists, conflate belif in a metaphysical system as fact. It's a faith based argument you are pushing, much like flat earth or the easter bunny.
@@ricochetsixtyten What has that to do with anything? Idealism = belief in magic. That is why it is science denial. No-one have ever shown that magic exists, therefore it is silly to believe it.
@@ricochetsixtyten Nope. Reality isn't magical and Idealism is as well supported as moon landing denial or flat earth. "Consciousness first" goes against science.
So when a materialist says that maybe a complex interaction of matter is consciousness that is begging the question, but when Bernardo asserts that it is impossible, absurd, that a complex system of pressure valves produces experience that is somehow valid argument and not at all question begging.
No, because BK is not making a deductive argument. He is making an inference to the best explanation. And his justification for this is: the explanation that invokes the fewest ontological categories is the "better" explanation. There is no deductive argument, so there is no begging the question happening here sir.
Haw could you not understand with this masterful explanation?, The way Bernardo speaks is so solid that is almost perfect and the arguments for me are so coherent, a great mind.
34:34 "Life is the image of dissociation"-Kastrup. This is Chopra level woo, just vacuous terms strung together. 38:06 "Matter is what conscious inner life looks like across a dissociative boundary"...Ok, I don't think I can take any more of this. I can only stomach a limited amount of woo gibberish. Bernardo sounds like a guy who is on acid, thinks he has solved the riddles of the cosmos, writes it down, but then when he sobers up, instead of realizing what he wrote is nonsensical blather he just keeps repeating it in his deluded state of believing he is uttering profound truthful solutions to ancient riddles.
“Materialism is Baloney!” And I was a militant atheist, until I encountered Bernardo’s work. My life makes so much more sense now that I let go of this ideology
I absolutely love the part 1:03:34 where TJump is being humble and listening to what Bernardo is saying. This shows that he is actually trying to understand him vs trying to debate him. Bravo 👏🏿 TJUMP there’s not many like you.
18:06 i just realized how incredible stupid the idea is that we can make consciousness that will emerge from complexity. Materialists lokt their own brain and then are basically saying add some stones and pots and pans and u get consciousness lol
Thrilling debate that I think I will keep coming back to over the years… The only thing I wish, is that you 2 spoke in allegories less. No allegory is quite on par with the hard problem of consciousness. I get the most kick out of when you directly speak about how atoms can create consciousness as opposed to how computer parts could.
Poor materialists trying to convince themselves that experience can be generated by matter which does not have experience in potential. I've heard about something similar in history called alchemy
If you do some research on Analytic Idealism, you'll see that it accomodates our current scientific understanding perfectly. Different from materialists who are quick to dismiss any rigorous scientific studies in order to preserve their narrative.
@@inglestaemtudo "If you do some research on Analytic Idealism, you'll see that it accomodates our current scientific understanding perfectly" - How? We *know* that the mind is an emergent property of communicating neurons. "Different from materialists who are quick to dismiss any rigorous scientific studies in order to preserve their narrative." - You got it all wrong. I am ready to change my mind as soon as evidence comes in. Idealism is just philosophy that don't conform to reality.
@freddan6fly Neuroactivity CORRELATES to experience. NOBADY to this day has proved any causation in that regard. I'm sorry to inform you that you don't know that mind is generated by an emergent property of communicating neurons, you BELIEVE it.
I found Kastrup incredibly frustrating to listen to: 1) Assertion after assertion with highest confidence and no reasoning 2) shaky interpretation of computing. Displays are computers. Computers send signals through a series of relays. A relay may be another processing unit or it may be a lamp that turns on or off. Displays do the latter.
@@thomaslodger76751:30 that it is impossible for the materialists to ever solve the hard problem of consciousness. He doesn't give any argument for that claim beyond "Hehe, it's impossible"
@@stenlis you didn't listen to anything beyond that first 2 minutes then... Their whole discussion around pipes of water large enough to create consciousness, or enough speakers to create an image, or how you can logically deduce the emergent property of sand dunes from it's constituent sand and wind but you can't with matter and consciousness - that's much more than a "hehe it's impossible". I didn't see TJump come up with any answers other than "yes I believe a series of pipes large enough will be conscious" i.e. an assertion.
All knowledge that comes from science is based on an experiencing consciousness. Conscious experience is not a one-to-one image of reality itself, but a representation of an unknown reality "X", where the mental representation is a survival-useful space/time model.
@@Vanta_Zen It isn't tough. Idealism is like believing in flat earth or moon landing denial. It has no supporting evidence, and a massive amount of evidence against it.
I must be hallucinating, I think I actually understood Dr Kastrup's main argument. Very thankful for how he iterated on that until it clicked in for me. (UPDATE: at around 31:00 I got lost again)
Consciousness is an irrefutable fact. . Everything and I mean EVERYTHING else is a belief. What has beliefs ? Consciousness. Ergo Idealism is logically consistent.
A belief is a dynamic process. Motion is a property of a substance. The substance =/= Motion. Thus, idealism makes a category mistake. Becoming is Not Being. Mental States are Physical Events. Thus, functionalism and nominalism makes physicalism true.
@@highvalence7649 They are not necessarily non-sequiturs. Explain what makes them non-sequiturs This argument follows a logical sequence, but it might be more accurately described as a philosophical critique rather than a non-sequitur. It proceeds as follows: Premise 1: A belief is a dynamic process (a common view in philosophy of mind). Premise 2: Motion is a property/Aspect of a substance (a common view in metaphysics). Conclusion: Idealism makes a category mistake by conflating dynamic processes with substances. This does not contain a formal logical fallacy. Instead, it presents a philosophical criticism. Mental States are Physical Events. Thus, functionalism and nominalism make physicalism true. Similarly, this argument can be seen as a philosophical proposition rather than a non-sequitur. It can be outlined as follows: Premise: Mental states are physical events (a claim often discussed in philosophy of mind). Premise: Functionalism (a theory about the functions and processes of mental states) and nominalism (a view about abstract objects) support physicalism (the view that everything is fundamentally physical). Conclusion: Physicalism is true While the argument could benefit from more elaboration and justification for the conclusion, it does not contain a non-sequitur because there is a logical connection between the premise and the conclusion
@@highvalence7649I made some corrections. When I refer to something as mental, I was referring to a substantial change. The process of considering a proposition or having a particular propositional attitude involves an unfolding of events. This unfolding of events represents the concept of becoming. Becoming is grounded in being. A substance which changes. This substance is ontologically independent meaning it doesnt require anything for it to exist. It is a functionalist view on the philosophy of mind.
Dr Bernardo Kastrup is one of a kind! Next you should have his friend Dr. Donald Hoffman. But your push back seems that you did not understand Bernardo, really.
Very enjoyable exchange, only wish Bernardo would have pointed out the disctinction between consciousness and its content. It would have smoothed things along.
It's a semantic distinction so we can have a generalized description or reference about what consciousness means. But in actuality, consciousness and its contents are the same. You could also say in some sense that consciousness is "the continuum." But there's a problem with language, it always lose the full picture. Consciousness can only be truly understood by consciousness itself, beyond semantics.
This should read as: When attacking your opponent, use the Donald Trump maneuver by using base insults because you don’t have anything more substantial to say.
Materialism can never tell us WHY we are conscious or answer the hard problem. All it can do is draw correlations between two physical states e.g. brain state Y is correlated with physical state X which is self reported consciousness. But since physical state X of self reported consciousness could also occur in a philosophical zombie, this tells us nothing about why we are conscious and not just philosophical zombies with the physical states we associate with consciousness eg emotional displays, language, etc being correlated with certain types of brain activity and not with others. At best, materialism can draw correlations between one physical state and another (brain states and physical bodily behavioral that we normally associate with consciousness but it can NEVER tell us why consciousness is accompanying those physical, behavioral states in the first place.
I think if we were to be more precise materialism doesn't answer anything really. Neither does any other metaphysical position. However science does provide answers to some things. Many things in fact. For some things science didn't provide an answer, and then it eventually did. Metaphysics are sort of these weird things that have hardly any consequence in the daily lives of most people. They may have some impact, but when a materialist, or an idealist is thirsty they are likely to go get a drink without consulting their metaphysics first. The science of sanitation does improve our water quality though, and therefore impacts the water we drink.
I'm a computer engineer as Bernardo. Every computer can be emulated with pipes, valves and water; that's what transistors and chips do. To emulate a brain we'd need a computer the size and height of a state with today's technology. With pipes maybe a planet sized contraption. But it's DOABLE. What he never mentions is that biological brains are LESS sophisticated machines than computers. Brains are basically statistics calculators of enormous capacity. They are evolutionarily optimized for guessing and practical results.
@goran586 Explain it, no. We use the statistical approach to "envelop" complex processes, but to understand, we need a more detailed approach. In the brain, each neuron uses a statistical method to calculate its output/behavior, so to understand the whole brain (consciousness, feelings, intelligence, etc.), we can't just use statistics.
If you were to make a shopping list for mere minerals and organic compounds, which would have the longest list: the computer or the brain? If you were to count the amount of unique structures (e.g. neurotransmitters, enzymes, phospholipids, cellular transporters, ion channels, etc.), which would have the most: the brain or the computer? So how is the brain less sophisticated than the computer?
@@raz0rcarich99 The brain is functionally simpler than a computer, not talking about chemical composition. Just like a cave is simpler than a house. The cave chemically more complex than a house, right? But the house and the computer have more sophisticated parts. The computer has cpu, clock, bus, "perfect" memory, data storage, online communication, radio communication, peripherals, stack, registers; and te brain has neurons, glial cells and blood vessels. The brain wins against a computer (at the moment) because those neurons are arranged in 3 dimensions and the computer parts are mostly arranged in 2 dimensions. Also, the brain is faster because doesn't use a synchronizing clock. The phospholipids and enzymes are the necessary building blocks, just like transistors, resistors, magnets, copper cables, plastic, etc. in the computer.
Materialist’s minds just work differently. There are two camps, for them there is dualism, they don’t acknowledge non-dualism, i.e. top down as opposed to bottom up.
Kastrup is a bit too denigrating to me. He sneaks in insults all the time, and talks down to TJump, as if he, the BIG Kastrup, represents the wisdom of the universe. Many of his "kind" seem to use the same modus operandi. I started out neutral with this video, but ended up seriously disliking him.
To be fair, first 20 odd mins was tjump failing to grasp kastrup's point and keeps repeating same erroneous argument analogy. Kastrup is actually a really good guy if u look more at his stuff
Kastrup’s view seems to be based upon the difference between the description of conscious events and the experience of conscious events. This seems to me to be a category error that begs the question. No one thinks that a complete physical description of the experience of a rose - from sensory input, to comparison with memory, to linguistic assignment, to the production of dopamine and pleasurable hormones in the body, and the further processing of all these into a single perception - no one thinks that an exhaustive description of this process is the same thing as the experience. The latter is the entire set of effects, a representation to awareness of all the causal factors.
I’ve been subscribed to you for years now and I literally had search for your page in order to confirm you’re still making videos/debates. RU-vid has not recommended your videos or notified me that you’ve gone live in months for some reason. What the fuck man. I’ve missed so much good content. Not sure why they suddenly stopped… EDIT: Never mind I read another comment where you said they demonetized you. Makes sense now. The people running RU-vid are so sensitive these days.
28:00 BK says if you're born blind you cannot appreciate what colour is. This shows how the experience of consciousness varies according to the number of material processes available. So consciousness is the compound result of material processes.
@@davethebrahman9870 And how do we know this entire enormous edifice to be true? If you answer with perception or experience, you have just become an idealist.
@@harlowcj Nope. Perception and experience are physical events. We can know this to a very high probability from knock out tests, in the same way we can prove that cigarettes cause cancer.
@@davethebrahman9870 Lol uh huh. You "know this" because of your perception of very high probability from knockout tests. We know what cancer is because of our perception. We know what cigarettes are because of our perception. We know that cigarettes cause cancer because of our perception.
This is kind of an oldie, isn't it? Anyway Bernardo made the point that no matter how complex of a system you make, it will never acquire inherent properties beyond those of the parts it's made of. Tom then replied that it's not the system itself, but the processes the system runs, one of which would be consciousness. If true, that would solve the hard problem of consciousness. The problem is there is no evidence that consciousness is just one process running in the brain, or indeed the accumulation of all processes. In fact everything we experience is IN consciousness, never outside of it.
@@CMVMic Right well that's the old materialistic stance though isn't it? In order for awereness (or rather consciousness) to be a dynamic process, matter has to be the fundamental reality. Like bernardo states, you now have created an entire ontological category besides consciousness for that to be true, when all you need is consciousness to be the ontological basis for everything. So all experiences (which all we have) are then excitations of consciousness.
@@payt01 How is change an ontologically different category? Idealism does the same thing. It makes a distinction between what things are made of and what things do. Physicalism posits that there is one substance and this substance changes. Therefore, there is being and becoming but becoming is not an ontological category. Not necessarily. Idealism either conflates becoming with being or dissolves the distinction entirely in a meaningless way.
@@CMVMic I was responding to your claim that awareness (or rather Consciousness) is a dynamic process. This implies that consciousness arises as a result of that process running. In other words: it's emergent. Which brings us back to the old hard problem of consciousness. Physicalism can't even begin to describe what consciousness is, other than in the vaguest of terms (change, a process) or how it comes into being. It certainly hasn't been replicated. If you look at it from an idealist point of view, all we have is experiences in consciousness. You can explain everything from there without the need to invoke different ontological categories such as physicality, as all experiences are excitations of consciousness. It's physicalism which then goes on to posit that there's actual matter out there, independent and outside of consiousness. Hence a different ontological category. Therefore it's the less parsimoneous explanation.
@@payt01 Functionalism and Nominalism solves the hard problem of consciousness. Consciousness is not an ontological category, it is what a substance does. Therefore, you are making a category error. *Physicalism can't even begin to describe what consciousness is* False. Consciousness is a set of brain activities of a substance in a particular arrangement. idealism cannot establish the transition between stages of development in humans. How does a baby gain consciousness? Or bridge the explanatory gap between reproduction. Do two people's consciousness merge through intercourse to create a single consciousness? How do you even define consciousness? An idealist redefines existence as consciousness. Therefore, engaging in semantics and tautologies. "we" is a collective gender neutral identity pronouns. Identities are the result of a collection of physical events which is why when the brain dies, there is no more identity. Experience is an activity, not a state of being. You have not explained how physicalism presents more than one ontological category. Infact, it only posits one ontological category. This is further made tenable by accepting nominalism and functionalism. We know there is actual matter out there, we have hands than can change the form of objects. If the consciousness was responsible, why would anyone needs hands or work to get things done? idealism is incoherent! it makes a category mistake and it makes too many ad hoc assumptions. it doesnt explain evolution nor change.
Great sharing of different 'points of view' without losing it. Thank you both, immensely. It wasnt this obvious to me a decade ago that consciousness pervades and surveys its own experiential creations. And is probably infinitely more creative and aware than sapiens can comprehend yet. Fascinating how a non material focussed conscious awareness developed this global communication experience to reflect on its no thingness, like no AI can.
When PhDs want to bullshit you, they say "Oh, hohoho, if you only understood what you are saying". Bernardo's magical entity, Consciousness, must be cherished and protected against every attempt of explanation; keeping it mysterious is what keeps him relevant.
@alansquire3566 I'm saying that Bernardo claims Consciousness exists outside of brains, that it is immaterial (he rails against Materialism), and when asked to show how he DETECTS that Consciousness he immediately goes on defensive mode. That is magical thinking, just like Astrology, gods, and ouija boards.
@@goodquestion7915 He doesn't have to 'show how he detects' consciousness because he doesn't believe consciousness is material object that can be measured through material means. That is for the materialist to prove. You cannot demand material measurements when you've never proven something was a simple material object in the first place. You are presupposing consciousness to be material yet you cannot define or measure it, which means you've actually weakened your own position... What is your best measure? A pulse? Well that doesn't work when we have documented cases of people without a pulse for prolonged amounts of time under close medical supervision who are able to perceive information that should be physically impossible. Hell, the sheer number of long running military programs by world powers focused on remote viewing should tell you there are very well paid scientists and a lot of money is going into research under belief that consciousness is NOT explained by the materialist conception of consciousness. All I ask is that you look into the Pam Reynolds case, and give me a materialist explanation for that.
@NOCOMPLYE In my opinion, the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is hard because, at the moment, we lack the tools to precisely map all the spots in the brain that engage when a particular idea is evoqued (even my words betray me). We had exactly the same problem understanding how inheritance worked from progenitor to offspring, or how feelings triggered a change in heart rate. Now we understand them thoroughly. It's the idea of Materialists that with better tools (like DNA sequencers helped on inheritance) that allow the precise mapping of brain states while avoiding harming the subject of study, we will be able to solve the Hard Problem.
@NOCOMPLYE About the map and the territory The map of the brain will not "touch" or "reveal" The Consciousness. The consciousness will evaporate from the human lexicon just like witches evaporated as an explanation for storms and earthquakes. About Phenomenal Consciousness Phenomenal Consciousness is the integrated representation of what a mind is. With it we can predict what other individuals might do next by observing our own motivations and actions. Just like the impression of seeing in 3 dimensions, both 3D and consciousness are usefully practical mental constructs that allow us to navigate in the world and have a theory of mind. Without them we'd be less succesful at surviving. About Pain and Exhilaration Yes, pain is pre-theoretical and pre-know-how fact because it predates complex brains. So long you have a primitive nervous system, Pain (capital p) is a really useful abstraction for many types of signals that come from negative physiological causes or sources. Nothing Idealistic about it. Exhilaration is a newer type/kind of mental construct in the evolutionary history. Mammals and some higher IQ birds experience it; not reptiles or insects.
@@darkyodd "He doesn’t deny neuroscience or biology, don’t know where these inferences come from" - Because biology and neuroscience shows without doubt that consciousness is not magic but natural, as Tom Jump claimed. Conclusion: Both you and Kastrup are science deniers.
Consciousness is a relational concept. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. It would therefore seem more appropriate to adopt self-consciousness as the primitive in an Idealist metaphysics, with the result being that the universe possesses an experience of what it is like to be the universe. If we're determined to chase parsimony, undifferentiated energy would seem to have an advantage. Also, if matter is incommensurable with consciousness, isn't it true the other way around - precluding either metaphysical view from success?
i don't know what you mean by the first part, but as for the latter, it's infinitely easier for mind to "produce" matter than for matter to do the same, in that it doesn't have to; it only has to provide the illusion of matter. matter cannot make the illusion of consciousness, because an illusion necessarily *requires* something to perceive the illusion in the first place. and the only thing we know of that can do that is consciousness.
To become conscious of something you have to be conscious already so consciousness can't be a relational concept.. Perceiver, perceiving and perceived are all relational concepts.. Take this example Right now as I am not eating anything there is no taste in my mouth,but the power/ability to taste is there in potential.. If I choose to taste something then I experienced that taste but that taste goes off after sometime and there is no tasting going on but the power to taste is still there as latent or potential.. I don't know if I explained well
@@natanaellizama6559 "I don't think so at all. In which way?" - The whole claim of idealism is pure BS and science denial. You got any scientific education at all? Do you know what chemistry is? Do you know what medicine is? Do you know what biology is? Do you have any education in any of these fields, more than mid school? It is obvious that Bernard don't have any education in any of these fields.
@@natanaellizama6559explaining Bernardo's deepak-chopristic properties: 1. He doesn't care about what other Idealistic philosophers think, and even less what other general philosophers think. 2. He doesn't address the criticism directly. 3. His analogies don't address the point of the issue at hand. 4. He uses flourished language for simple concepts. 5. When asked a direct question with a simple answer, he never fails to go "around the bushes". 6. When cornered he misdirectes. Now, what makes Bernardo un-deepak is that Bernardo insults his critics and, in the same paragraph, complains of being mistreated and misunderstood. At least Deepak Chopra swallows criticism like a man.
Evidently this guy has never heard of a dialysis machine, which defeats his entire argument about something that simulates something else not being able to have some of it functions.
It seems to me, Bernardo is considering the experience of reality as the driver of reality, yet it is likely little more than a novel byproduct of materialism. Perhaps like the peahen that is mesmerized by the shimmering, iridescent tailfeathers of the peacock. The evolutionary process that led to the feathers is driven by the natural effects upon the peahen's sensory processing in her brain. Our sense of self, is likely similar. A novel niche of evolutionary development where a predictive brain can watch, experience and be mesmerized by our own cognitive processing; much in the same way a movie is made by a crew behind the scenes in the brain, then a few micro-seconds later, is watched by the same brain's audience. The novelty of watching a movie that represents ourselves in real time would be as fascinating (and self affirming) as those shimmering feathers to a peahen. The added utility of being able to assess and self correct within that cognitive 'production' would also aid and abet our ability to readily adapt to external pressures and cooperate within our species. Our allure and self gratification of our own performative abilities would certainly fuel Bernardo's arguments for a meta alternative to materialism.
@@mulgavephisinism6733 I understand what he's getting at with idealism, but it seems to me, it's little more than any other human superlative that posits there must be something 'beyond' the self because the self fails to offer a better option of how it works. If I had to guess, humans have become more susceptible to this unfulfilled cognitive prediction as language evolved. The evolutionary gap between intuitive reactions to manage internal and external pressures were elevated to include an internal dialogue that would have seemed separate from this archaic subconsciousness that we deem as consciousness. It has been suggested that one of the physical manifestations of this transition are the moai statues on easter island. placed to aid in the reception of conscious guidance from the home gods and since most islanders found no response, their priest assumed that role of interpreter. In any event, Kastrup is remiss to place a higher focus on what is known about consciousness and self critical analysis of his own ideas. Both of which I have never heard him state, which leads me to believe he is motivated/enamored by his own imagination over contradicting facts.
@@CJ-cd5cd I'm not saying I have answered the problems of consciousness. I am saying every bit of evidence we have for it seems to be 100% reliant on the material brain, so that seems to be the best place to start to understand it's foundations. The difference between sub conscious and conscious is likely the brain processing predictions with a existing schema, while the conscious adds the step of making new predictions based on novel data from the senses. This is why intuition seems to come naturally and is separate from our perception of free will to evaluate this new data. Even at that, the conscious experience of this process is evidently several nanoseconds behind the active process. Much like the sub conscious brain writing, directing and acting in a movie and the conscious being the audience after the fact. It's so close to 'real time' we consider it as a homogenous because of the neural nearness of all the working parts. Also, the hard problem of consciousness is far softer than the granite hard problem of continuance, spatial containment, energy management and data transfer in and out of consciousness that is divorced from a brain.
since when has a CD been analogous to a brain? i wish they'd stop using this analogy, brains are way more complex and work in an entirely different ways to electronics.
@@darkyodd " Lots of arguments from incredulity in these comments 👀 " - Especially from you. Good that you have some self awareness. Why not go to school, child?
@@darkyodd Have you ever studied any science, or are you just a child (or a person with the education of a child?). To claim things about science without having any scientific education, makes you a fool, a loser and a science denier.
Bernardos' trick is to play the "you are reducing BEAUTIFUL ME to a bunch of chemical interactions" card. He doesn't correctly explain what's wrong with Materialism.
@alansquire3566 he says no one understands, and he asserts Consciousness is primary or a philosophically necessary property of the universe; but he NEVER SHOWS how he DETECTED Consciousness outside brains. Metaphorically, he just affirms there is a rabbit under a hat at the bottom of the ocean, and some people just believe it, and those people get offended when skeptics ask to see the rabbit.
@alansquire3566 his explanation of WHY Materialism is wrong/false starts immediately with the question "Tell me how non-mental can produce mental". That's not an explanation, that's called "shifting the burden".
@alansquire3566 Materialism is a simpler (Ocam's Razor) competing philosophical claim with better explanatory power because: 1. Idealism cannot show the claimed INDEPENDENCE of Consciousness from a material GENERATOR. 2. Materialism CAN SHOW that Consciousness can be manipulated via Material means to the extreme of severely degrading it or severely warping it, implying Consciousness is Material. 3. The claim that Consciousness DOES NOT FEEL Material is an Argument from Anecdote fallacy. 4. The claim that Non-Mental things cannot produce Mental QUALIA is a Special Pleading fallacy.
@alansquire3566 yes, there is no experiment that can adjudicate between Materialism and Idealism, but there is no need for one. Materialism is backed by experimental facts and everything that Idealism claims to explain, Materialism can also claim to explain. In a sense, idealism is unnecessary as a philosophical sink of attention, efforts and resources.
@alansquire3566 about "Matter is purely hypothetical" .... A hypothesis is a well-formed scientifically addressable proposition. Matter is the name we give to everything our imagination CANNOT directly affect, other than through action with what we call "our bodies". In all cases, the phrase "Matter is purely hypothetical" is only a well formed phrase in English without any content, just like "Sound is a flying rock".
I think I could actually do a better job of explaining the hard problem of Consciousness than Bernardo does, but it would take a careful presentation and an introduction to a few concepts and terminology. Briefly, the issue is that in 'physicalism' we implicitly assume two things: 1) matter exists and is not conscious 2) matter interactions and dynamics don't produce anything conscious. Then, we say: "ah, but brains are conscious". The latter statement is of course in contradiction with the first two premises, since the brain is a result of matter dynamics and interactions. When confronted with this, a physicalist usually tries to change premise number two, by saying that 'some' matter interactions and dynamics are conscious. The problem with that approach is that it is a lot more arbitrary than changing premise number 1. Either way, whichever premise you decide to change, you are talking about new Physics, not emergent phenomena from known physical laws.
*matter exists and is not conscious* Matter is just a concept for an ontological substance and the ontological substances is what things are made of. Doesn't matter what label you place on this substance. It has the same properties of what most people call matter. *matter interactions and dynamics don't produce anything conscious* Consciousness is simply the set of matter interactions. Mental states are physical events. How is does this defeat weak emergence? Functionalism and Nominalism makes Physicalism true.
@@CMVMic "Consciousness is simply the set of matter interaction" - that explanation is a lot less parsimonious than the one that posits only one ontological category - Consciousness.
@@plafar7887 Not necessarily. Physicalism still posits one ontological category i.e. Physical Stuff. However, physical events are not things that exist. They are what exists, does. In other words, functionalism and nominalism supports physicalism and substance monism. I mean sure someone can argue that events are ontological kinds of a sort but physicalism doesnt necessarily entail this, as one can also hold to a radical Parmenidean monism or existence monism. So there are no real advantages to Idealism. Even still, it wouldn't follow that a simpler theory is a more accurate theory. Also, I dont think existence requires an explanation. Existence is a brute fact. Explanations assume platonism and I hold to nominalism.
No he's a metaphysical naturalist that reduces everything down to mental states which naturalism does any ways if you remove the human brains all that exists is wave lengths of light oscillations of pressure different photons interacting with each other this is all reality is stripped of sense perceptions even on a purely naturalistic paradigm objective reality may exist but the idea you see fuck all of it is special pleading as fitness heuristics triumph over truth as consiousness=veridicality-fitness costs if it's more expensive in terms of caloric intake then it's less accurate this is mainstream science so weather it be naturalism of Bernard katsrups kind or sam harris kind you are not defeating platos cave you do not get objective truths from an subjective lense all you get is distorted waves imperfect reflections simplified cascades on an infinitely complex river bernado is not a psuedo scientific quack nothing he argues is agaist modern science
0:25 So Bernardo distinguishes between science and materialism. That's strange. Of course there are fields of science which discuss other things than physical phaenomena. These topics are not the field of physics. That's not what physicists talk about.
He’s more saying you can be a scientist and not a materialist. Everything in science can be interpreted experientially. After all, all we can know of them are their experiences.
Of course he distinguishes materialism from science. Materialism is the view that everything is matter or material. Science is a method for generating knowledge or at least for coming up with like technology.
He did the observations , have reached to the conclusion , assumed it was the case , because it comports to his biases, and proclaims it as if true 🤷🏻♂️ same thing that most scientists did , before the scientific method 😂😂😂 Bernardo , comeback to modern day , stop lying to ppl and yourself that you got it , cuz composition/division fallacy , personal incredulity, falce equivocation, special pleading and the rest of logical fallacies you commit , aint it
Bernardo is ahead of his time. The implications of his philosophy are so groundbraking that conventional materialists are grasping. His philosophy is absolutely coherent.
Bernardo, what is this consciousness stuff? What are its properties? Where is it? What are the mechanisms by which this consciousness stuff stores knowledge, sees images, and thinks thoughts? You have no answers. You have no explanations. All you are doing is waving your arms and wildly speculating magical stuff. Idealism is gibberish.
Title says Idealism vs Materialsm. Where was the guy on the lafte arguement????? Just a silly grin and some confused noise. Wont be coming to this chan again.
A simulated kidney doesn't pee because it wasn't spec'd for that. The usefulness of a simulation is predicated on its narrow functionality. But a peeing simulation can be produced, for sure.
It is an analogy about consciousness. The argument being that if consciousness can arise as a singular result of sensory based complexity it can translate to the materials that make up an AI machine. Which seems like nonsense to me even if consciousness does arise from the complex make up that is a brain.
In order for something to experience time, that thing must have mass. Massless particles travel at the speed of light and thus experience no time. Therefore consciousness is required to be reducible to matter or else it wouldn't have any time to experience with anything to begin with.
Time is not fundamental as it has no operational meaning below the Planck scale. We should only see time as a description of reality, which is practical but only to a certain extent. Also a description of reality is not what is described "Time" as a description comes from the difference between Sensory Now and Memory Now, that gives us the sense of time. And the measurement of time is the process of systematically assigning our contents of experience as subsets under supersets
I agree with Bernardo on so much, that it pains me when he goes into his absurd Biology and metabolism musings, which are painfully and obviously arbitrary. Are cells in my body privately conscious, or are they just part of my consciousness? And a protein in one of those cells? Is it privately conscious? What if I remove a protein and replace it with another one just like it? Did I change the cell's consciousness? What if I build a cell by taking atoms and placing them in the right place, with the right bonds, does such a cell have private consciousness, or does it simply mimic Consciousness because it's not "natural"? It's simply ridiculous. I do lean towards Idealism, but sometimes he actually makes that philosophical position look silly when he says such things.
Is the material world all there is? What is the nature of consciousness? I don't know. I do know that all examples of consciousness have come attached to a functioning brain. Damage the brain, damage the consciousness. When the brain dies, the observed consciousness (as far as we can tell) goes too. As soon as someone can demonstrate a consciousness absent a material brain, I will start taking idealism, panpsychism, Quala, and mind body dualism more seriously.
There are many more cases but have you ever heard of the Pam Reynold's NDE case? One of the most prolific neurosurgeons Robert Spetzler, (winner of the Nobel Prize of Neurosurgery, among many other awards) testifies to the veracity of it. She was induced into clinical death for an aneurysm surgery, she went under general anaesthesia, her eyes taped shut, body being chilled nearly to freezing and having the blood drained from her brain, and yet she could accurately describe the specific medical tools used in her operation, the sound of them, and the conversations that were had during the course of the operation. To this day he has no explanation and I've yet to see any materialist explanations for it.
You are putting ridiculous limits on your ability to speculate. If everything arises in consciousness it would still look like what it does. The brain is the set up as the filter for a complete dissociative personal experience - or sense of I. But put that aside and start by trying to answer the material problem that is the hard problem of consciousness, in its completeness, being careful to observe in yourself insubstantial beliefs and assumptions. Materialism is not obvious, it is what our experience looks like. Once upon a time we even thought that existence was made up of discreet parts like bricks in a wall. Science at best describes and predicts the behaviour of what is our phenomenal experience. It fails to explain what it is.
@@opinion3742 I don't see how framing the issue the way I did, limits ability to speculate. Rather, (as I am neither a philosopher or a neuroscientist), I am not personally much interested in endless speculation on the subject. You said, "If everything arises in consciousness it would still look like what it does." Is this not the same as saying that a universe where a materialism is true and a universe where idealism is true are completely indistinguishable from it each other. If that is not what you believe then how could we distinguish the difference as to which scenario actually represents reality. This is why I frame the issue the way I do. If we had a demonstration of consciousness absent a material brain, then this would clearly show materialism to be false. Again I am not asserting to know the nature of consciousness, or that the materiel world is all there is. I am just putting forward what I think we be reasonably falsifiability of materialism. If you think phenomenal experience is not a product of material process in the brain, do you think this is a falsifiable hypothesis? If so, how could it be falsified?
@@michaelstanet7453 "Is this not the same as saying that a universe where a materialism is true and a universe where idealism is true are completely indistinguishable from it each other?" No. In the material argument the hard problem of consciousness remains. In the idealist argument it is resolved. But your insistence that there is only one way to prove an argument is a mind not tied to a brain limits what is acceptable to you as an argument. You can have a material universe in which consciousness arises as a bi-product if you want but you have to be aware that it presents a philosophical problem. This is why there is debate. I take an agnostic approach myself. To date science can explain and predict behavior of phenomenon but it remains mysterious. Or maybe I'm too much of a hippy. You decide. It's your life.
Great arguments on both sides but im gonna have to say Kastrup was more convincing for me, although I am slightly biased as I believed in metaphysical idealism before watching this.
This guy bugs me. If we encounter a silicon based or methane based intelligent alien species or even a species that is not carbon based and has no DNA his theory goes out the window. He is just too earth-centric.
@@ancientflames Maybe they’re not that smart ;) Seriously, I love listening to brilliant scientist- philosophers like Christof Koch but Bernardo’s argument is superior. That’s all.
@@ElsadelValleGaster superior based on what? He started with a presupposition and never gave evidence as to why anyone should hold that same presupposition as him.
@@ElsadelValleGaster If the book has no new proof or evidence for a spiritual realm, God or anything outside of the observable and demonstratable, what could he possibly be brining to the table that hasn't been said better thousands of years ago by great philosophers? I would venture nothing.
