LOL

So true... I can't stand when hosts pointlessly interrupt the guests. Unless there is a lull or you're trying to hit specific topics and keep things on track, you're doing your job by not doing anything.

yeah totally agree. And Fidas is good he really plays his part of a ingranat pupil. the part without his question was best. 1 or two is good here and there but not to many is best

@fahad 56297 Kind of accidental brilliance !

i think is at least 10-15 years that there are some cracks ... recent books/interviews from top scientists reveal that the big materialist wave of end of 90'sstart of 2000s is over.

I think substance dualism.

@@tim59ismat first yes but I think people will figure that problem out quickly

@@oopleboo3067 Figure it out ?

It's really unfortunate that materialism/physicalism has taken over the modern mind, including outside academia (but also inside academia of course). Being an intelligent being is about dealing with ideas in a sophisticated manner, that includes being able to step back and accept that not everything can be or will be empirically proven. If one can "believe" in M-theory, they certainly can believe in idealism. Empiricism's great flaw is that it denies the existence of the conscious observer from the experiment.

I agree Christof was great. I will definitely be checking out his new book.

I need to read up on that. Thank you.

that's not what's happening here. koch is helping bernardo formulate and clarify. he apparently has had a change of mind and that's the most interesting thing going on here. i'd like to know what exactly changed his mind and if it had anything to do with that beach story in brazil - 1:11:00 koch has previously really struggled to understand kastrup, he does understand now but he's playing the devil's advocate with his former world view, and doing him a favour with that. koch wants to be convinced, his gut instinct is that idealism is correct. i think it's just shocking and emotionally difficult for him, and he has to square it all with science as he knows it. what we see here is great, koch lets bernardo rise to the occasion and shine. a great guest.

@@notexactlyrocketscience I slightly disagree. It is clear that he is doing some work to let Bernardo describe general aspects of idealism. Yes. But it is equally clear that Koch is often assuming that when Bernardo says brain that he means an actual object that plays a role in generating consciousness. So I think both are true. It was very fun seeing that last moment where Koch corrected himself before Bernardo jumped in to say it.

it seems to me that koch really is playing the devil's advocate there. he is saying what he expects the opposition would say, in order to let bernardo refute it cleanly. @@rooruffneck

@@notexactlyrocketscience Maybe. There are a number of times that he doesn't seem to be pretending. But we won't ever really know! Like, at 37:30. And, for me, the moment that he says it and then corrects himself, near the end, reveals that it is just starting to sink in. And, he admits that he is still working hard to really grasp it. But, anyway, they were wonderful together.

@@rooruffneckright. For example, he says magnetism is more physical than chemicals. Doesn’t even make sense under physicalism… so, he’s clearly a bit confused still about idealism/not incorporating its language/conceptions

I was watching this last night, thinking of the implications of 17 quantum fields with energy waves oscillating,😅 cresting to "diamonds, creating our subjective feeling of materiality and suddenly have become disoriented, the whole world seemed 10:05 immaterial, abstract. I felt like I was on pscilocybin again for a few moments.

To me, the opposite experience was true. A nice dialogue all the same & I understand BK better, even though I still don’t fully agree.

Yeah, funny because I find myself more on Koch’s end now as well. I don’t agree with lots of Kastrups ideas for instance that the universe at large is “less conscious” than we are- why wouldn’t it be so conscious that we could never understand… I wouldn’t put our consciousness over and above a mind at large

​@@starxcrossed I've heard Bernardo in some podcasts over the years suggesting that, even if mind at large is not metacognitive (not self-reflective), it probably is still cognitively superior and richer than our limited "monkey minds." So there's a difference between complexity and metacognition. What I personally think is that all aspects of nature are a form of self-reflection at many different levels, and what we usually refer to as "meta-conscious" is just the layer where our thinking mind resides, which is just the top layer of abstraction. So I'd agree that "thinking" is something that only we humans (and a few other animals) do, but the thinking is a very little and very new tool which still needs a lot of development in nature.

He has been quite aggressive in attacking some folks....e.g. Sean Carroll (of many worlds fame).

Presupposing two substrates is the defintion of dualism. Calling them both mental phenomenon under your reasoning does not resolve duality. Perception of physical necessarily envokes the need for mental and physical. You would be hardpressed to deny existence itself. Denying existence itself can only ever be done by existing. Which is self-defeating.

@@semi-mojo There are many ways you can look at things to imposes duality, and I am not here to resolve them all. I am not saying that physical = mental. What I am saying is that psychical existence = mental existence, and that is a big difference. I am not denying existence itself, I am just pointing out that it is a mental phenomena. If you accept duality of physical and mental existence, how is it possible for physical existence to reach consciousness? If you see a rock, does its existence travel on photons to your retina, and then is carried by electric signals? In what form? Definitely not in the same form supposedly held by the a rock. That is quite obvious, but completely disregarded fact. Physical existence is a mental phenomena, that we project onto our experience, no matter if it comes from sense organs, or directly from our mind. "Denying existence itself can only ever be done by existing" We can say that to deny a particular existence, one needs to have an underlying assumption, to support the negation. But there is a third option, which is not to assume it in the first place. In other words, existence is not denied by the projection of its opposite, as this is also a form of existence, but rather by no projection at all. In a physical world, you would have a rock, and no rock. On a mental level both "rock" and "no rock" would be based on mental projection of existence, so this is not where the negation of existence occurs. It occurs at one level higher, where one can exercise formless lack of existence, knows as not knowing. In this "not knowing", there are no dualities.

@NeoShaman is this not just idealism? To say existence is a mental phenomenon. I dont see how not asking the question addresses the point. It's true that I can not confirm existence if i didn't exist to ask the question in the first place. But the fact is that I can ask the question, this is what we call existence.

@@semi-mojo This is not idealism, because I am referring to existence only. I am not saying that all things are mental, but that their existence is mental, generated by me, for my purposes. Existence is not a essential part of things, it's our mode of perceiving them. Only when we establish their existence, we project it, and assume it was there all the time. What I am doing here is limiting the meaning of the notion of existence to the scope it actually covers. Based on the fact that you can ask question, you assume your own existence. But what about times when you are not asking? You stop existing? This clearly shows that your existence is an assumption, and how can assumption function independently in the world? Now, my definition does not create this problem, and it shows that even the existence of entities like "myself" are just constructs, temporal fabrications. Something that Buddhists knew since 5 century BC.

Agreed. Many people think fear of immortality doesn't make sense, and must therefore be the fear of oblivion hiding behind a complicated facade. The idea of a just God is the only thing that makes immortality palatable to me. The idea that one could be trapped in a meaningless accident that is painful and never ends is too horrible to imagine. Even a simple pain like stubbing your toe, feeling lonely, or having a drop of water splash you on the forehead becomes unbearable with infinite repetition. It awakens my faith in God.

To your second point. The idea of analytical idealism is that we all contained within this single Mind At Large by means of dissociatve boundries. So a NDE event is less of an "expansion" outside/inside of the subject and more so a partial integration of an alter (us) through the dissociative boundry occuring within this single subject (the MAL). When you say "the expansion of consciousness only broadens the subjective consciousness of the NDE patient" thats sort of the point. We, as MAL, are broadening our understanding of MAL itself. The universe viewing itself through our eyes kind of thing? This process of integration through the dissociative boundry between what we call us and MAL is non instantaneous. And so, when we are brought back during this process of integration, it is stopped and i guess we keep this experience? Essentially what we are recalling is this experience of the process of integration occuring within MAL. We *are* MAL, just dissociated, which means there is no actual occurrences of experiences outside of "our" subject when undergoing these "out of subject experiences". If that makes sense.This would be my intuition, not sure if it holds or is satisfactory to what youre trying to point out.

@@semi-mojo The allusion I tried to illustrate in the above point of mine is that idealism does not advances the understanding of philosophy of mind or existence that much - to me it rather complicates the matter to a point of dealing with dubious epistemology. Mind at Large, we will agree, is exponentially or combinatorially complex. Dissociation, it seems to me, is limited to a certain bound of entropy. Brain is complex organ; yet it cannot comprehend greater complexity of, say, black hole - if not in a physical form then logical (understanding of; what is it to be like...). Re-integration leads 'prior' dissociative mind to be exposed - if you will - to parsimonious complexity of the Mind at Large. Given that Kastrup's ontology falls on the soundness of NDE - a claim that needs further scrutiny - the mind that came back to dissociative state, experienced the parsimonious complexity. If this claim is to be taken seriously then one must come in terms with the following: recollection of NDE cannot have information that is greater then NDE's personal subjective point of view, which I would argue, the NDE never left. For if NDE subjective point of view indeed integrated with parsimonious complexity than recollection would not be possible. Since NDE does have epistemological awareness, it cannot possible claim to be re-integrated to Mind at Large, for recollection falls within the scope of what "Anne told her husband of what she experienced while being dead", which is a dissociative perspective. After all, Mind at Large has the information of all dissociative aspects. The trees, the ran over cat that a few seconds ago bit off my peanut butter sandwich. Heck even peanut butter sandwich has certain ontological perspective. NDE recollection, as we can see, falls within the scope of the first person perspective, just like one remains in the first mode perspective in a dream, I claim. Despite that dream characters and the entire dream universe where conditions evolve - the happening of the dream - is constructed by the brain (the analogy to Mind at Large), one yet will be able to claim with deterministic absolute what the other dream characters was feeling like when they pushed me off the suspended bridge between two clouds.