Need Help: Upcoming Interview w/ Bernardo Kastrup

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Feb 4, 2018.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    hi Laird... there is a lot of great stuff here. I particularly like to the idealism v. panpsychism critique... then again I wonder if all of this kinda falls under Mike's point about "recovering materialists."

    do you think you could find a vid clip that hones in on the idealism v. panpsychism thing? I can then use that to get to yr question.
     
  2. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    hey Jim... great points re the spirits. I too have gone round-n-round with B on this. can you take a look for a quote from his blog, or books or vids that I could use to tee up this question.
     
  3. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    the forum represents a tiny fraction of folks who listen to the show. contributions have been great so far.

    I don't want to lose the spontaneity of the interview by inviting Bernardo... but I don't think we have to make the conversation private either.
     
  4. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    would you (or someone else) mind finding a Christof Koch clip... either from his skeptiko interview or on Closer to Truth.
     
  5. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    thx KG... would you mind drilling into the "free will" thing a bit and see if we can find a question and vid clip.
     
  6. The first point, about not assuming mathematical analogies (you could also say physical analogies) apply to consciousness relates to any time he mentions "Mind as a hyper-dimensional membrane" http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/08/as-part-of-online-debate-in-discussion.html (August 05, 2012 )

    I am not an expert on his writings and especially not on his recent stuff so I don't really know if this is still relevant.

    In my post (above) I included links to the thread at mind energy.net where we discussed the spirit interacting in the physical.
    http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skeptiko-podcast-forums/skeptiko-podcast/4295-the-big-hurdle

    I don't know if he discussed that anywhere else.

    Maybe he is reading this thread and can comment?
     
  7. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    I'm looking for a video clip (ideally) or a quote from his blog. this is a video interview, I would like to tee up the question by referring to something specific he has written.

    I'm not going to ask him beforehand... I like the spontaneity of an interview.

    for ref... this is exactly what I'm looking for:
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...nterview-w-bernardo-kastrup.4089/#post-121605
     
    hypermagda likes this.
  8. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,232
    I really like Mike's point: a new terminology independent of the prevailing materialistic terminology would indeed be very helpful.

    Not sure whether I can find a video clip but I do know of a couple of blog posts. Would those be at all useful? I could offer a brief commentary as to how my questions apply to them.
     
  9. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    yes, the would be great. think in terms of a quote on the screen that B would then be asked to respond to. like:
     
  10. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,978
    I guess I'd like to hear about Bernardo's views on non-dualism (perhaps especially the non-dualistic A Course in Miracles (ACIM) if he knows anything about that) and its relationship to Idealism.
     
  11. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,232
    OK, here are a few quotes which you might use, accompanied by my brief comments.

    In Bernardo's article, The threat of panpsychism: a warning, he acknowledges that panpsychism is a broad tent:

    He then limits his focus to the following two interpretations which for brevity I've truncated (emphases and underlines in the original):

    He distances himself strongly from these interpretations in these two quotes:

    According to the current SEP article on panpsychism, the two interpretations Bernardo discusses seem to fall under the label "Constitutive Micropsychism":

    However, as Bernardo acknowledges, these are not the only interpretations of panpsychism. What he doesn't acknowledge is that there are interpretations of pansychism that are compatible with idealism.

    One such interpretation is that which that SEP article labels "Non-constitutive cosmopsychism", according to which:

    The archived SEP article on panpsychism is explicit about the potential compatibility of idealism and panpsychism, as per these two quotes, the second of which seems to describe something very similar to Bernardo's idealism:

    And that archived SEP article gets as explicit as it can get in the following quote without actually mentioning Bernardo by name (as I understand it, Bernardo sees himself as updating George Berkeley's idealism):

    Another source which links George Berkeley's idealism with panpsychism is the introduction to the book (which I have not read), Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives (emphasis mine):

    That's probably way too much, but I can provide more if you need it, or if it's too much you can pick and choose what you like. I hope this helps!
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
    KindaGamey likes this.
  12. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    3,884
    He is, of course, a member of the forum - so he may have viewed this discussion!

    David
     
  13. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    90
    Here is Bernardo's take on Free Will:
    http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/freewill-explained.html
    http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/05/a-brief-general-definition-of-freewill.html

    And my favorite article about Free Will (which shows that no matter what is true, 'belief' in free will leads to more efficient neurons so you might as well believe):
    http://bigthink.com/artful-choice/do-you-believe-in-free-will-maybe-you-should-even-if-you-dont

    Ok, that's fine. Slapping materialists is always fun low hanging fruit. And I agree, materialism is a slippery slope there with determinism. I can't remember the interview where the scientist basically told us he doesn't believe in free will. Hell, I was just watching Jim Carey in Jim & Andy and even in his new age enlightened state he still alludes to determinism when he says, "your stomach tells you you're hungry, are you really making a decision when you go get a sandwich?" (I believe, yes, you are.)

    Bbbbbut... why not? Why wouldn't they all be part of the same ocean? Are subatomic particles hard detritus in the ocean of mind? Wouldn't they be made up of mind too?

    Eh. Gobble gook. If god is elegant simplicity I think he could do better than this. I would think the 'laws of mind' even if they are variable and changing would be the causal factors in the resulting physical plane, no? If it's all consciousness that is. And nature being fractal why wouldn't it be that the tiniest particle, as a piece of thought, also has its own internal emotional struggle as we do?

    He admits to a bit of word salad in the comments. Let's read the second article (2014) and see if that states it any better.

    Yes! Terminology we can agree on. Go on..

    .

    Except that you cannot choose B because it is not your perceived essential nature. So it isn't really a choice/exertion of will? Even if you tried to psyche yourself out and said, "My nature is A, so I choose B! Take that, universe!" ~ you would only do that if your perceived essential nature was of an anti-authoritarian who would try and subvert their own pre-determinism. That's pre-determined!

    In this conscious universe do subatomic particles not alter their 'behavior' based on observation? True randomness is almost unheard of in this universe except for the 'probability patterns' of the subatomic world and we might even crack that one day - that is, unless they're truly making decisions and are ultimately the source of free will. Do virii (who we're not sure if we should classify as alive or dead) seek (desire) to reproduce or is it just a causal process? Why would the universe utilize carrot and stick for larger beings/forms/constructions, but keep the smaller ones a causal process? At what level of resolution does causality become free will? Do cells contain an internal motivation? Do they have little emotional lives? Do water drops seek to be back together again because they're family? Is gravity love? If you put my 'soul' into a squirrel wouldn't I be just like a squirrel in every possible way? I'm fairly certain that animals basically have internal emotional lives as we do, why would that stop at a certain level of development (e.g. the ant) and not be carried all the way through all of creation? That includes ideas and thoughts. They reproduce, they spread, they do all the same things as virii do. It seems to me that the nature of the universe is not built like a watch-maker who constructs different pieces and assembles them, it's more like a fractal creation where there is one idea (equation) and every inch of creation is reflective of it throughout.

    We all accept that human-level is most likely where free will is occurring. Here's a silly Matrix video game where thousands of Agent Smiths combine into one giant robot.


    Now imagine we have an actual building-sized robot in our world and we as a society determine that it is too powerful to put in the hands of one human being. Therefore we will allow any human being at any time log in to a 'game' where they can control one aspect of the robot (finger joint, knee, etc.) We establish a communication network so that we can work together to accomplish tasks that we never could as a tiny human being. We figure out a democratic way to establish motives. We now have a giant building-sized perspective - we can see farther, lift more, construct projects we never could before. The robot's behavior is far more causal than any individual human's is because all of the opposing minority wills would kind of cancel each other out, but it would still ultimately be free because it was controlled by free wills. We are still using an aggregate of all of our free wills (and you would inevitably get some random troll who f*'s with your knee cap, but then again you'd probably have a process to log him off and ban him just as quickly), but for the most part, an external viewer of the robot might concur that HE has free will -- and he does! His free will is the AGGREGATE of all the free wills that are controlling him. And creating an aggregate of free wills is obviously an important piece of universal technology that is extremely useful in navigating scale.

    Osmosis Jones
    Inside Out
    Iron Giant

    --
    Still, I don't think you can ultimately lance Bernardo here. He will twist in wind as he does in the comments of that thread. I'm just typing to hear myself think. Sorry I'm wasting people's time. :(
    Maybe someone can take my word salad and make it palatable.

    One thought I have had is, does it matter if the physical universe is made up entirely of thought or if the matter universe is what contains thought and information (the way a hard drive contains the works of shakespeare) ~ isn't what really matters (with matter) is that both matter and thoughts are derivatives of the same thing? It seems to me that even a materialist could start to understand that a certain configuration of information (e.g. words stored on a hard drive) CAN influence behavior, words in the mind change the electro-chemical state of the brain's hard drive, so therefore quite obviously thoughts DO affect matter and matter DOES affect thoughts so we should stop pretending like they're these vastly different worlds. It always makes me laugh that (the majority of) religious people are basically materialists with God inserted onto the stage or as a magic dust imbued in everything, but with the same underlying premise.

    Skeptics like to chastise 'believers' as believing in invisible pink unicorns, but if I believed in invisible pink unicorns (you believe in the unicorn, but you have faith in their pinkness) and convinced all of America that they exist and like to sleep in the threshold of a doorway then everyone will be stepping over thresholds and that is NOT an illusion. That is, behaviorally, a REAL thing. Totally, undeniably REAL. Belief is real with real-world effects. If you extrapolate that to the idea of tulpas and that sort of thing then you're really starting to see the big picture. Thoughts are real. Information is real. We're not talking steel balls versus fairy dust.

    We might as well say both matter and thought are constructed of flim-flam rather than fighting over which one is dominant since they both seem to be elements on a sliding scale from causal to less-causal. It's the same as biology vs technology -- they're the same thing! The Earth creating us creating technology is the Earth evolving a greater technology. It's also us. Yes evolution is experimental and based on many attempts, but it is also free-WILFUL. That fish wanted to get up on land to escape predators and even if it wasn't his generation that made it, the idea carried through the day.

     
    hypermagda likes this.
  14. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    great suff... many thx. lots to use here, including "Eh. Gobble gook"... I gots some good ones for that... hint Moogi.
     
  15. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    63
    I agree completely. While I do love full blown idealism, it does fail to get to grips with a whole range of unusual human experience (ie. spirits/aliens/NDEs/reincarnation/etc.).

    Weirdly, I think the traditional emanationist philosophies of Christian Hermeticism/Jewish Qabalah/Islamic Sufism (stripped of their baroque philosophical excesses) might provide a more usable conceptual framework than full blown idealism. They all hold that a unitive God splits into increasingly concrete levels of dualistic being, with all levels still being contained within the whole. At least this conceptually provides us with the room to fill in some gaps between here and infinity.

    By the way, I think many eastern 'non-dual' religions admit the existence of these intermediate levels but consider them to be unimportant..... a distraction, even.
     
  16. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,489
    great point.

    another great point... thx... but I often wonder if the non-dual perspective fully comes to grips with the above reality as well :)
     
  17. If you can see how idealism can produce the physical universe, then by a similar process the spiritual realms are produced as well.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

    It is all mind.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  18. Bernardo Kastrup

    Bernardo Kastrup New

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    303
    Home Page:
    I, for one, think these are pretty good questions that I'd love to discuss.

     
    Laird likes this.
  19. Bernardo Kastrup

    Bernardo Kastrup New

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    303
    Home Page:
    I addressed the second question long ago, here: http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/09/apparitions-ghosts-and-mediumistic.html
     
  20. Bernardo Kastrup

    Bernardo Kastrup New

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    303
    Home Page:

    This sounds interesting to discuss as well
     

Share This Page