Implications of Metaphysical Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup 

So great to live in a time where I can stream conversations like this into my bedroom.

Dr. Mishlove is probably the best interviewer on the Internet today. He has a delightfully warm, amazingly intelligent and precise way of conducting the interview and turning it into a feast for the intellect. When he teams up with Bernardo Kastrup, what else could you ask for?

Another fascinating conversation between Jeffrey Mishlove and Bernardo Kastrup. Thank you for including us.

Bernardo (or should I say, Dr. Dr. Kastrup?) is one of my favorite guests on your show. You two seem to explore a lot of depth topics with ease, and it's a great pleasure to listen. Thanks!

Always a pleasure to hear you converse with Dr Dr Kastrup - please keep it coming!

I love listening to Dr. Kastrup - and congrats on that second doctorate!

Jeffrey, your interviews are an amazing archive and a gift to us all. Thank you.

"why materialism is baloney", i have to get that book just because i love the title!

Your a legend Jeffrey....your words are always so loving and uplifting for the spirit😁

Bernardo is so clever its frightening.

Metaphysical membrane… this conversion is so stimulating my hearts racing. Let’s bring back truth! Droppin the mic . . . Over & over & over

We're can't say that Bernardo has found the ultimate truth, but we can surely say that materialism is clinically dead

Mr.Kastrup is perhaps the most well rounded authors on this subject ever. Phd in A.I., philosophy of mind and ontology, regular contributor to Scientific American(of all papers) with his metaphysical idealism and his philosophical skills in a largely post philosophical world. Very impressive.

Powerful point! As today is my bday, I was just having thoughts about "how over-idealistically " taking metaphysical/philosophical stuff, can become dogmatic...thereby I can get kinda trapped in it. I find building relationships and trying to development emotional literacy and integrity in my character

The defense of his thesis before the peers is watchable on youtube, very impressive

Wonderful questions, Jeffrey. Thanks!

Hey Jeffrey I'm looking forward to this! Thx for posting!

I really love this video because it brings out a lot of my thinking and the way I feel about this life. I have learned through time and experience that the human experience is more then just collecting more and more material things to fill a empty void. To me, loving who we are and why we are here that there is a purpose to life to help oneself and one another is more important to gain the love and satisfaction that we need to help us grow to be a better people.

Fascinating interview. Great job as always Jeffrey.

LOL I gotta say that I love the nostalgic Early Eighties vibe to the credits!! Too bad we didn't have these kinda shows then -- not even on public access community cable!!

My Peeps!! Lovin this.... heaps! Thank you for this life affirming, reality confirming conversation.

Super excited to have Bernardo on my podcast Monday!

I saw one youtube video a while back where a lady described her DID inner world. She had a number of alters, and one of the alters actually manifested a permanent world with a set of homes on an Island that the rest lived on when they weren't 'In control'. Very interesting stuff.

Cynics don't believe in "having as much fun as possible". That philosophy is about living a simple life in agreement with your nature.

I love your show!

Shoutout re: the Douglas Adams "trilogy" on the bookshelf in the background. :-)

Thanks,v interesting interview 👌💐

So good!

Deep stuff...great talk.

Superb Content as per usual ! imho B.K. is among the smartest individuals "out there" that I'm aware of. Btw, the overlaps with Campbell's Idealistic VR are quite abundant & profound. The more metaphors in alignment the merrier. Likely a sign that we're finally closing in on a bigger/clearer picture of "reality". EDIT among the most significant would be an almost entirely dissociated alter Vs. a nearly fully immersed node/copy/partition/object-template instantiation etc. of mind @ large Vs. the LCS. & a shared consensus/objective world via individual data streams Vs. variable permeability alter boundaries. & @ like 17.20, Although "everybody's got, mixed feelings, about the function & the form"(N.P. of RUSH), I'd argue that we're "alive" & the universe exists to perpetuate(or help to) existence itself(thE something rather than nothing which clearly "is"). & if the psychology metaphors turn out to be a more accurate ontology say as opposed to say, "information" that("images of") could somehow put a hell of a twist on "realism" in a very unique way, as Vs. Idealism its typically strictly thought of as an either/or kind of thing. Edit: again, such interesting topics I'm compelled to keep adding. Being aware of intrinsic limitations of subsets Vs. sets & such & the seemingly ever present paradoxical dualities that one encounters contemplating some of the big Q's, I always(at least since retrospection of my psychedelic youth lol) "felt"/knew it was some sort of Idealism that connected the most dots & by far, yet had no way to precisely contemplate & convey such notions until the advent of such models/ideas that at least somewhat resonate with me. Also, evidence for PSI being "real"(a measurable phenomenon) is ample imho, even if just mostly based on PEAR & Radin et al. Belief(in materialism) is so strong that naturally you'll find plenty of rejection, denial & even ridicule but virtually(no pun) ZERO contrary data. The current official/public/mainstream/consensus paradigm(s) have NO room for such things whereas such Idealistic models practically require them though as BK says thats simply an added +. Also, Even though at the nano-scale the simplest cell is arguably even more complex than our biggest high tech computer chip factory, I'd agree that only a single biogenesis(here on earth anyway) is a clue to life requiring more than just molecular/mechanical chance. That is, knowing what we know(however limited), it ought to have already been done(again) in a test tube of amino acids + electricity lol. but it probably isn't impossible in principle. Also, Biologist Bruce Lipton is "big on the blanket" lol, that is, he argues that the cell membrane as a demarcation/boundary/interface to the environment is just as or even more crucial that the nucleus itself. So, given what we take as axiom here, & previously always being a bigger fan of the "hard" sciences & less of a fan of the "softer"(which in reality are typically more difficult due to their intrinsic extremely statistical nature), It is actually logical that psychology as opposed to physics(never thought I'd say such a thing) is ultimately the "better" path, especially as an academic move at this time. Really Great stuff ! We gotta keep an eye on this guy, 2 Ph.D.'s, damn !

You can help support the ongoing production activity of the New Thinking Allowed channel by (a) letting your friends on social media know when you have watch a video you particularly enjoy, and (b) allowing the advertisements to play through to completion. Would you like to contribute non-English subtitles for this video? If so, please visitru-vid.com_video?ref=share&v=hcN4gzXKJ78.

God bless you guys. ❤❤❤

Idealism is the only metaphysics that seems to help my depression

I'd like to congratulate Dr. Kastrup, on his great achievement of attaining a 2nd PhD. As my unrequested contribution to this discussion, I'll forward my best guess, that we are currently experiencing the rise of a new Kingdom of life. We've had the Fungal Kingdom, the Plant Kingdom, & the Animal Kingdom - and, now we're witnessing the rise of the Machine Kingdom. (Please excuse my coining of the term...) Some might argue this is different, because it's derived from us via our deliberated actions - but, do we really know what we're doing? If we don't, then can it still be considered deliberate? The Abrahamic philosophies seek to separate us from nature, but IMO their contentions can't change what we really are; integral parts of the planet's capacity for life. As such, the rise of the Machine Kingdom is manifestation of the planet's gestalt evolution. The first question is, are we are evolved enough to recognize the process for what it really is? If the answer is yes, then the second question arises, do we want to survive? Our actions will proceed, based on the answer to that 2nd question.

Your training for the octogon also Bernardo wow...😀

59:36 I WONDER WHAT JEFFREY MIGHT MEAN, EXACTLY!! Part of what makes the discussion hard to follow at times is the "switching back and forth" between a physicalist perspective, such as when speaking of drugs and their effects on pain, and the idealist perspective, where the drug is an "image" of "something deeper" in the Field of Mentation.... Would Jeffrey's implications of metaphysical idealism for language make it easier to discuss such things??? Like how hard it was for the ancients in their various times to think in terms of fractions, then rational numbers, then negative numbers, then zero, then variables, then limits (calculus), then complex numbers...but eventually we as a species can converse with such concepts now -- is that what Jeffrey has in mind when he speaks of the linguistic implications of metaphysical idealism?????

Bernardo sounds to me like he wants to be both a materialist and also a non-materialist at the same time. Always seems to me like he is ever sitting on the fence. He launches into idealistic concepts, and 10 minutes later is talking about "material." Then grabs something from Schopenhauer. Bernardo is fun, I love listening to him speculate.

Aside from the (speculative) model of dissociative processes (with accompanying Markov blankets to keep them warm), are we any closer to a testable mechanism of creation with idealism than we are with materialism? Whether you are trying to understand how matter creates consciousness or consciousness creates matter, there is an 'explanatory gap' when it comes to how it's done.. Perhaps it would be better to start with the idea that the only thing we can count on is our imagination. Then, any imagined universe is completely imagined, and it is only necessary to imagine an 'interface' - permanent/sustainable or not - to manifest a shared, tangible experience.

Some people's lives are predestinated and are here to serve God through his word. xo

so, could AI not learn how to have a first person experience? Or is that entirely the preserve of a conscious being.

Carlos Castaneda offered that philosophy should be practical (philosophical/practical paradigm) without even distantly rubbing any notions of “consumerism” or materialism as ideology. In fact he asserted that philosophy should be practical if man wouldn’t wish to continue dwelling endlessly on empty idealities, labyrinthical cogitations and putting many words in pleasing order from 9 to 5 then going home and being the retarded, egotistical imbecile he ever was. What, however, this practicality he suggested should be based on is the most interesting and essential part: he explained that it should be derived from the most basic, irreducible axiom about humans--->the fact that before all we are Perceivers! We are sentient beings who perceive! Then, we should admit that some forces and conditions are clouding, limiting, reducing the birth given span of our perception, we should perceive and be conscious of much more as it can be empirically revealed. So, the most crucial and innermost purpose of man should be enhancing and regaining his consciousness and span of perception! So he based the pragmatic and practical essence of philosophy around the precept of this energetic fact! He gave the example of Husserl: a brilliant philosopher who discovered the most crucial clouding factor of human awareness - the inner dialogue - and consequently offered a method of looking at the world by suspending judgment, priory and personal, associative chains. He called this method epoché. The problem is that when his students asked him “how do I do it” he replied “how would I know??” - he never practiced his philosophy! Thus all the mighty potential of his extremely powerful finding went a waste: just words put in a pleasing order. A seer, a being who strives to perceive, does practice his philosophy with the same fierce consistency that everyday man practices the imbecilities of the social order, such as incessant mememe inner dialogue!

54:40 "...life we've created ourselves; life created through artificial means." Why? Should we? For what? What will the failures look like? Will artificial life be aware that they are different than their creators? Can we make sure that they don't entertain thoughts of anger or resentment? Negative emotion is part of being alive. We're really good at that already. Should we create our future adversary?

does Bernardo's philosophy touch on Upanishadic notion of Turiya anyone??

Is the internet a disassociated alter? Does it know it is?

Conciousness IS a parallel universe.

doctor doctor !!!!

Does this mean that cosmic consciousness is fundamentally pathological? That might explain quite a few things. 😉

We are the next generation of cells and much be can learned by working in symbiotic and cooperative ways. The systems are open-ness. Time is huge a reduction down, to a uni (one) directional line. Nature works in spherical, bi-directional ways, as this opens up an omni-directional potential. Time was 'designed' as a control mechanism. Bernardo is on the 'right' track.

If the universe has a meaning, then what? What to do if that meaning is achieved? Reality collapses, because it's 'done'? Also, a meaning (in the proposed way) has to be something outside of what perceives the meaning - "something other than", "a goal", "a purpose". Well, whats other than the universe, what could be the universe a purpose to? I think the universe _can not have_ a meaning, because it would lie outside the universe, and that's impossible. With universe i mean everything, whatever the ontology. The meaning can always be just now, we are supposed to dance while the music is playing i think...

Creation is the meaning of life xo

Neville Goddard, Rev Ike and others explain reality as being that which you're being which is also the infinite of many names (God etc.). Essentially we're all being our own version of God. One reason for this is so that we learn who we really are before we go back home. Nothing is impossible unless you are being impossible in your own way.

To be, is to be perceived.

I don't know... but there is something about the way Bernardo explain ideas, perceptions & knowledge that saddens me 😔 & at the same time questions my short term memory(known fact, actualy) - not simple to follow. Can it be he tries too hard (struggles in understanding that which is his fundamental question, also mentioned in this interview)?

I have a suggestion. Our thoughts are mostly products of stimuli of our surroundings. Our programmed mind , which was basically downloaded from our parents from ages 1 -6 runs the show most of the time unless we focus our immediate present consciousness on the now of existence which is out of time and not continually use our minds as playback devices and future video cameras. That being said the thought is very powerful when harnessed and use as a tool to produce a physical reality. But ultimately this is also fictional and inclusive to only a small portion of reality which we call the individual. We are the creators. The reason . The Tao. God . We have be given some of the things of consciousness as Jesus said in so many words. As you thinketh so shall you become . The seeker is what is sought. Be a light unto yourself. Peace and light Namaste

Bernardo is amazing. It’s nuts tho -this channel - filled with commercials & talking about about materialism

Lotta andriods walkin around already. We don't need any more.

I would say 95% of academics and people don't understand the nature of reality.

Understanding will hold the world in order. Obviously none here. XO

25:56 How can Bernardo keep saying stuff like this?????? India is widely regarded as quite a "spiritual" place where the cows roam freely among starving and malnourished children -- and yet there is no shortage of Indian materialists (in both senses of the word!) who are also devout Hindus that understand all is Brahma, etc. (i.e., are metaphysical idealists)!!! I just don't understand how Bernardo can keep saying stuff like this without elaboration because on the face of it, many of his historical and cultural claims are patently false! I also don't understand why interviewers never challenge him on such silly pronouncements!

You can ask God but you choose not to. xo

It's time to move beyond physicalist nonsense. Idealism is king now ;)

Sol-liu-gree-um

There are no practical implications. Any benefits or negatives are psychological projections, whether Idealist or Materialist. These theories don't come packed with prescriptions for how to behave or feel about the world. They should just leave it at that.