When We Die and The Meaning of Life (Ep 6) - Analytic Idealism Course - Bernardo Kastrup 

you either will experience it or know nothing at all. Lol one or the other. But i'm guessing is the one you fear the most is the one you will have.

That's interesting, can you elaborate? Is it to do with the early christian idea each individual contains god, or universal consciousness? Is that what you mean?

@@gavaniacono "Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with Yahweh of the Old Testament) who is responsible for creating the material universe." Haven't thought it through, but the Gnostic hidden god would be MAL, and the images of God as presented by religion are human mental representations.

He actually discovered Advaita Vedanta through pure reasoning. Though a westerner he arrived on the truth discovered in the East. Just look up “Ramesh Balsekar and The Cosmic Law.” It is the “Perennial philosophy.” Hari om ❤ This a a modern sage. 100 years from now people will truly appreciate him. I hope it happens in 10 years.

Absolutely. I believe Jesus was fully conscious.

​@@ShallowedOutGolf Mark 13:32 King James Bible But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father

That’s a very good question. I actually buy into idealism although I have some big questions about it. I can add this one to them.

Also, if death is the erasure of the psychic boundary within Mind at Large that you identified yourself with, and now you are not that small localized fragment with all your insights anymore but, yes what do you become? One with all contents of Mind that is not incapsulated by the psychic boundary that we call life? How broad do you actually become? Are you immediately the whole of Mind? Or could there be psychic boundaries within psychic boundaries? Are the contents of only the dead accessible to you , or also that of currently dissociated parts of Mind? That would mean I’m could be being watched all the time, but maybe not because Mind at Large is not meta-conscious.. Even if Mind at Large would be meta-conscious, it/you would seem to be as attached or detached from your accumulated insights and contents as Hitlers ones to name someone. Meaning is a tricky thing though, it requires object and subject. It requires distinction, something that refers and something that is being referred to. If truth is one, it just is, it doesn’t point to anything. It has nothing outside it to point to. Maybe that’s totally fine, but the word meaning doesn’t apply anymore. It only applies in an (illusion of) dualities type of reality. Maybe all of these questions can be answered, maybe some questions turn out wrong questions, but it’s interesting to explore further. Thanks for bringing up your critical question!

Thank you for your response! I buy into idealism as well. Coming all the way from Islam, skepticism becomes second nature in how I approach these discussions. The premise of what Kastrup is proposing is very appealing to me rationally. However, once you really get into it, it can feel like a hallucinogenic trip mindset haha, so many rabbit holes.

BK says that consciousness is instinctive, and although not metacognitive, it knows itself naturally, by being itself… instinctively! I think he might say that consciousness/nature in a manner of speaking evolves instinctively through “feelings”! I guess you could say it’s our feelings that are released into consciousness.

But who said Buddha is right? There is no proof of "karma"

There seems to be at least two levels of "consistency" here, and both tell us something. One is the consistency of the accounts of NDE's themselves -- how much they're alike or how different they are. The other is the percentage of people "dying" who report an NDE. According to a fairly quick google seach on this, only about 4% of folks who "die" (and come back) report any NDE at all. That's not very consistent. Of that 4% reporting NDE's, about 25% report the "standard" experiences of OBE, experiencing a tunnel, seeing bright lights, and a feeling of peace. 25% is not a super-low number, so qualifies for at least some level of consistency. But that means 75% are NOT fitting into that "consistent" narrative. So, I dunno. For me to regard NDE's as a potential window into some reality beyond the "every day" reality that we live in, I''d like both of those numbers to be significantly higher than they are. Say, 60%-70% of died-and-came-back folks reporting NDE's, and at least 50%-60% of them reporting the "standard" experiences. As much as I want to believe they tell us something significant about an afterlife, those numbers just aren't high enough to rise above the noise of imagination.

@@dougsmith6793 One explanation could be that the afterlife is "fluid", basically you take your belief with you

@@dougsmith6793 So, how about psychedelics, the numbers are much higher there. Most people who take them actually have experiences and many people describe them as more real than "normal" experiences. There are similarities in the experiences across cultures and across time. Does that indicate there is something real there, a plane of consciousness that is actually there whether we visit it or not?

@@Some_Deist In that case the number of experiences should be higher, no? Religious people still outnumber atheists.

@@lievenyperman9363 [LIEV]: "So, how about psychedelics, the numbers are much higher there. Most people who take them actually have experiences and many people describe them as more real than "normal" experiences. There are similarities in the experiences across cultures and across time. Does that indicate there is something real there, a plane of consciousness that is actually there whether we visit it or not?" My best experiences there definitely put me in a place where spiritual experiences should be. The experience is definitely "real" in intensity and depth and profundity But I'm not convinced that those experiences are "real" in the sense that they are glimpses into some actual reality outside of scrambled physiological signals. But I sure wish they were, especially xtc. A feeling of the most profound sense of connectedness -- "now I get it!" All my experiences have been from inside a body -- I've never had an OBE on psychedelics. To cross that threshold, I'd need an OBE that could be objectively substantiated -- not so much where folks could actually see some apparition outside the body, but where the OBE could actually see something that would not have been possible to see from inside the body. These types of experiments have been conducted in operating rooms. A simple image or word was place in a location in operating rooms that would be hidden to anyone on the operating table, but visible to people experiencing OBE's where they float above the operating table and look down at themselves being operated on. None of these experiments has returned a positive result. Darn it. No one wants that stuff to be true more than I do. But wanting it to be true is not sufficient reason to believe that it actually is true.

great question! Emergentism is within idealism because if "cosmic consciousness" has no intentionality, will, none of that. so she created something new when she created our minds because we have all that

@@fabiano600 Thanks. Interesting approach. But I think this puts a huge limit on what mind at large can do. As alters, do we have more power, capability than the source where we all came from (and where we will return)? Per ontological argument of Anshelm, the God must not only exist (as a concept) in an abstract domain, but it must be ACTUAL AND REAL in every sense of these words. The God I believe is the greatest conceivable being and omnipotent, whereas the alters are not!

How can a dream person be conscious 😂😂 are you insane

Our perception is limited, death is not an ending but a transition. We are the universe experiencing itself, and as such nothing is ever truly lost or forgotten. This is why we know all life is sacred, otherwise it would be meaningless. The illusion is believing anything other than this could be true.

👍 Finally someone can see it !!! 100% true!!! Thank you

What meaning are you talking about? Meaning can only be experienced through subjective experience. Whatever kind of fantasy meaning you are talking about: There wouldnt be anyone to experience it. So the statement that "meaning exists withouth subjectivty" is illogical and makes no sense as we could never have any proof of it.

@@shauncy7 This is what philosophers call anthropocentrism. Meaning and purpose are subjectively experienced only because a deeper, objective truth exists independent of the distorted experiences of the subjects. Read the example I gave again and try to understand it. Bernado's philosophy offers consolation, but no credible scientific or philosophical import. It's the oldest trick in the book of fraudulent philosophy to say that since we can only be sure of subjectivity, everything else has to be subjectivity. For example, if you ascribe some deep meaning to a phenomena which is later objectively explained in a totally different way, then retrospectively, you have to admit that the ascription of your meaning was just a fantasy. Bernado's philosophy is convenient because it avoids confronting any such possibilities, and whatever doesn't fit into his schema is dismissed as fantasy and misinformation.

Idolatry and living in sin mean the same thing as believing that the world we experience could possibly be the cause of anything. Just like believing that our dream worlds could be the cause of anything. Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. I feel he said that because all knowledge is made entirely of imagination. E equals MC2 means energy is everything and this equates to one thing is everything divided by energy. Energy is equivalent to everything so one thing is energy divided by energy but this would be more accurately stated I think as one thing appears as energy divided by energy. One is the Universe, God, the all and it's division is the expression of it's divinity. I realize it takes a little getting used to. 🙏

@@imaginaryuniverse632 Ahh yes, The language of Charlatans. Also, I am not even rejecting God as an actuality or potentiality. What I am rejecting is this guy's spinning techniques and dogmatic assertion of a certain naive interpretation of QM, without having any proper ground in philosophy (a true indication of the fact that earning a PhD these days doesn't really signify much) or the history of science. He serves ignorance and fantasies on a platter to the ones who are desperate. I empathize with the desperation of people wrt meaning and purpose and all that, but not with fraudsters like this who capitalize on their vulnerabilities.

Meaning in materialism!?? Oh you mean my S6 s7 neuron series firing for 10micro Seconds? Inside my skull? Lol ppl who belive that Consciousness is epiphenomenon of 'real' 'physical' brain has no right to blabber about meaning. Or in Bernados words 'materialism is baloney'