Mod+ 248. BERNARDO KASTRUP SAYS MATERIALISM IS BALONEY

But then he said everything is conscousness, but that's equivalent to saying that my toaster is consciousness.

I said that everything is in consciousness. Yes, your toaster is in consciousness, and in consciousness alone as far as you can ever know for sure.

I like my interpretation better. It goes like this. Infinite Consciousness exists and we call it God. God creates universes to experience because that's what consciousness does, it experiences. But since God can't fit directly into our universe, God created souls to experience His creation. God gave our souls are given free will and we do the best we can. This way, we are the spark of the divine. We are brothers and sisters, and God is the Father.

This is a nice story, a Myth, and I don't put it down as such. Myths are extraordinarily important pointers to truth.
 
I think dualism is a lot more workable as a philosophy - even if it ultimately needs to give way to Idealism (which I suspect it will). This is just like physics, where Newtonian mechanics is still used for most purposes even though it is inexact. Science could not have developed by simply missing Newtonian mechanics out and going straight to S/G relativity! Indeed, neither can youngsters learning about physics!

I don't disagree with it. I even acknowledge it in the book.

In the same way, I think it is quite unrealistic to 'convert' wavering skeptics to his form of Idealism - the jump is too great

Here I disagree. I think dualism is a useful metaphor for the majority of the people, especially those with valid religious inclinations (they do intuit more of the truth than fundamentalist materialists). But I absolutely do not think that dualism will ever make more sense than idealism for extremely rational, truly skeptic, scientifically-inclined people. Parsimony and rigor plays too great a role in their (our) way of thinking.

I think that is why Bernardo likes his metaphors, but are these starting to obscure his message?

David

Even science is largely based on metaphors, 'convenient fictions' like force-carrying subatomic particles. Metaphors are nothing new: selfish genes anyone? The only difference is that the message behind my metaphors is now something most people are not used to.
 
Some form of idealism can be true even if Bernado's explanation is not right (or comprehensible to some of us). It is also helpful to understand that idealism could look a lot like dualism. I think Bernardo has said that idealism can approximate dualism. For most practical purposes dualism is fine.

How did God create the physical universe? Through an act of thought? That is how non-physical entities do anything - through thought. What we consider matter is a thought, it is part of the mind of God, it is consciousness. Consider an analogy to a computer simulation, there would be no real matter only data in a computer but to the entities "living" in that simulation it would seem real. I don't mean the universe is a simulation, only that matter is not solid matter like we think. It exists in the mind of God and our own consciousness is part of that same consciousness.

I don't believe the second law of thermodynamics applies in the non-physical realm.

 
Sorry, but consciousness has to be physical at least in part if the the findings of the GCP and Radin's double slit experiment are what they are. Something that is entirely nonphysical, cannot have an effect on the physical. It is for this reason that I think Radin's description of mind and matter being two sides of the same coin as the most parsimonious explanation for consciousness.

You are correctly denying a fundamental separation between consciousness and matter. But there are two ways to avoid the separation: consciousness is in matter (panpsychism) or matter is in consciousness (idealism). Since consciousness is the primary datum of existence, the latter seems to be the obvious choice: have you ever known matter outside your consciousness? Panpsychism is a psychological projection of properties that are obviously ours onto abstractions and inferences of a world outside mind. As such, it is an adolescent form of thinking.
 
I'm going to argue it this way. God creates spirit. Spirit is an invisible substance that can manifest a phenomena depending upon what rules, laws or characteristics are imprinted upon it. So the laws of physics are not written in stone, they are written in spirit. When God imprinted the laws of space-time upon spirit, the result was the big bang. The details of how spirit is created or how it is imprinted by the "thoughts of God" is a project for someone else to work out. I suppose once we figure out how it's done, we'll be able to create our own "physics upgrades".

This illustrates why I think parsimony is critically important.
 
In is my belief that God, Infinite Consciousness, created souls out of "spirit" or "spiritual substance". Souls are given free will and are witnesses and observers to whatever they see and experience. What they witness is also witnessed by God. How God, Infinite Consciousness, divides up His observational resources is beyond anything that we can understand.

To answer your question, there are lots of mysterious details, but then the soul is able to be interfaced with the biology of a physical body, one cell at a time. Cells build up a potential energy across the membrane. This potential energy is used to confine the "energy body" to the physical body. The energy body or etheric body somehow holds the soul.

And this too...
 
In other breaking news . . . lol.:D

But . . WTF? He doesn't even seem to know what materialism is! :eek: In fact, what he speaks of in his description of materialism is oppositional to materialism. It's more like phenomenalism.

I will call your cheap bluff: What exactly was my supposed mischaracterization of materialism?
 
Parsimony is not subjective like fashion taste or food preferences. It's quantifiable in an objective manner.

Bernardo,

Isn't creation by God more parsimonious than the multiverse theory? God is one entity. A multiverse contains an infinite number of entities. Some people believe they have met God and that He confessed to creating everything. But I'm sure many people would say that the multiverse theory is more parsimonious than creation by God. So isn't this an example of parsimony being subjective?

Thanks,
 
Parsimony is the logical pathway if I want to find a mechanical solution to why my car doesn't work. To arrive at a state of total experience? Yes, less is more. Less thinking, more experiencing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Alex's assertion. Alex, is this what your referring to? http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/simplicity3.pdf
I'm also tuned into Michael's post.
The ideal state of total realization is bullshit. It doesn't exist. However, hovering in a state of contemplation/meditation seems natural. Is not bullshit. Talking about it bullshit? No, It's pleasing and helpful. By the way, thank you Barnardo. Your either on the East Coast or early riser.
 
If we take (for example) that Mind generates Matter, then this is not pure idealism.
For then we have both Mind and Matter existing, and that is dualism of some kind (a 'mind-generative dualism' to be precise).

Precisely. I hold to monistic idealism: all qualities and properties of matter I or anyone can ever know are in mind (after all, all knowledge is in mind). Therefore, by denying that matter exists outside mind I deny nothing we know, or can ever know, about matter. To say that mind creates matter as something outside mind is not only unnecessary and an appeal to magic, it may be even incoherent, for if mind is the starting point and sole prima materia of all creation, nothing can exist that is not 'inside' or 'made of' mind.

Pure idealism is that Mind generates the appearance of Matter.

Put this way, you implicitly accept that there is something more to matter than the 'appearances.' I deny that. There is nothing to matter but the qualities and properties we experience: the solidity, concreteness, continuity, size, shape, color, etc. These are all qualia in mind. There is nothing to matter but what you call 'appearances.' Therefore, the 'appearances' aren't appearances at all, but the whole story about matter.
 
Kastrup has to get into complicated stories about shared dreams, just to explain how two people in the same room can both agree that a chair is on the floor.

I don't see the complication you refer to. Care to tell me why it is complicated? I anticipate that, after you reply to this question, I will show to you how you are begging the question.
I do see complication in postulating a whole universe fundamentally outside the sole undeniable carrier of reality anyone can ever know, which is our subjective experience.
 
Bernardo,

Isn't creation by God more parsimonious than the multiverse theory? God is one entity. A multiverse contains an infinite number of entities. Some people believe they have met God and that He confessed to creating everything. But I'm sure many people would say that the multiverse theory is more parsimonious than creation by God. So isn't this an example of parsimony being subjective?

Thanks,

The problem is there is no way to test objectively the people's experiences of meeting god. And for god, you have to explain where 'he' came from.
 
In the idealist chair, you only think you are sitting down. You are not actually, since you do not have actual body.
In the dualist chair, you think correctly that your body is actually sitting down.

This is non-sensical. All you can know is what is in your consciousness. The chair of idealism is precisely the chair you experience, by the very definition of idealism. What you are implicitly saying is that things are only real when they are outside mind. That, of course, is non-sense, since the only carrier of reality anyone can ever know is subjective experience. Reality is what is experienced.
 
How does that help me, if I haven't had the experience?
Are you saying that all philosophy and science are useless?
It might help you understand why I think parsimony is subjective.
I don't understand why you replied to my other post with the link to your video.
I don't think philosophy and science are useless. Philosophy is a wonderful way to justify anything you want and sound convincing. Science is an excellent tool for suppressing new ideas.
 
According to Kastrup, our bodies do not actually exist. There is no physical world. Only the varying appearances and images that change as if bodies and physical things actually existed. But in reality they do not.
The appearances are the same, only causes and existing are different.

You are putting words in my mouth. It's you who makes an utterly artificial split between 'appearances' and 'substance'. The 'substance' part of your split is purely an abstraction of your mind, since all you can ever have any access to is what you call 'appearances.' To use your flawed terminology, my pint is that only 'appearances' exist because 'appearances' are all we can know to exist. 'Appearances' are the 'substance.' As such, they aren't appearances: they are all there is to reality. Reality is experience. There is no need to postulate or infer anything beyond it.

Rather, both Minds and Matter actually exist, but all the causal generation comes from Mind.

Your notion that mind creates matter outside mind is not only unnecessary, it is incoherent. If mind is the sole starting point, it cannot create anything that isn't in it or made of it. This form of dualism is a contrived and unnecessary intellectual game; a game of words and abstractions. Reality is much simpler and less contrived.
 
Back
Top