Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, Debating the Nature of Reality |574|

[Alex]

Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, Debating the Nature of Reality |574|
by Alex Tsakiris | Oct 18 | Consciousness Science
Share
Tweet
Bernardo Kastrup is director of Essentia Foundation and one of the world’s leading experts on metaphysical idealism.

 

[Robbedigital]

"The Great Debate" Dream Theater (Released: 2002)

"...Human kind has reached a turning point poised for conflict at ground zero ready for a war.
Do we look to our unearthly guide or to white coat heroes searching for a cure.
Turn to the light. Don't be frightened of the shadows it creates.
Turn to the light. Turning away would be a terrible mistake..."

 

[blaise]

I have always loved Bernado's talks. He is still clearly struggling with the difference between Materialism and the Imaginal, I cant quite put my finger on it but it could be fear of death, the same fear that has gripped the world for the last nearly 3 years now, philosophy vs "present reality" is a Bitch.
I look forward to the day he breaks through that !

 

[Robbedigital]

(not a response to blaise's comment above)
I find it difficult to criticize BK because of how obvious it is that he does his best to stand firmly upon whatever's best for the world. And no serious person could claim he's not sufficiently thinking through any of his positions.
That said, one telling moment was when he played a hypothetical defense of Radin by invoking the idiom "lesser of two evils". Which leads to me ask
how much of our "planting our flag" on any given issue has to do with our available mental bandwidth, lesser of two evils judgement calls, and following with defense of the flag rather than defense of the 'perceived lesser evil' itself. Like how much are we defending the side and not the actual cause?
I would propose (up for debate) that a great indicator of default flag defending could be when someone pretends the other side isn't a valid side.

 

[Pachakuti]

Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, Debating the Nature of Reality |574|
by Alex Tsakiris | Oct 18 | Consciousness Science
Share
Tweet
Bernardo Kastrup is director of Essentia Foundation and one of the world’s leading experts on metaphysical idealism.

Oh boy, Alex, you must stop doing such compelling interviews that demand I should visit the Skeptiko forum, instead of doing what I'd planned to do after listening to it. This one provoked a veritable carousel of responses in me, as my heart and mind rose and fell with every topic both of you discussed. I have the greatest admiration for Dr. Bernado Kastrup and I understand the calculus that he's using to try to change the current scientific/academic/societal paradigm, but will it be enough? We're living in times that may well demand something far more radical.

I'll start with anthropogenic global warming, since that was probably the most contentious section of the whole interview. It's simply not true that the rapid global warming is, "unprecedented", as Dr Kastrup described it. There was a most abrupt increase in temperatures at the very end of the last Ice Age 11,500 or so years ago, for which this paper is just one of many sources of evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/34346 (The word Pachakuti means 'world overturned by water' in the Quechua language, by the way,) Beyond that, how is it that the scientific consensus is seemingly predicting a future catastrophe when it consistently denies any climate catastrophes in previous epochs? Does it have anything to do with the fact that such events could not have been generated by human activity? Leaving aside how fear changes our consciousness, the real issue is how the flow of information, and therefore our understanding, is controlled. Perhaps Dr Kastrup should try a search engine other than Google, because it's a lousy research tool .

I didn't wish to sound so harsh, but that brings me to my main observation. If, as idealists, we acknowledge the primacy of consciousness that is non-local, then we must acknowledge the power of the group mind. I'm not talking just about woo stuff here, though I certainly don't deny it, but an academic consensus - on climate change or materialism - is equally a kind of group mind. Perhaps a collective manifestation of consciousness is exponentially more powerful than may be realised on an individual level. If so, then we'd better watch out, especially if we do have a hand in creating our own (physical) reality. After all, empathy is actually the realisation of heartfelt non-local consciousness, which brings me to the moral element in all of this.

I suppose I'm essentially a Platonist, so I'm going to broach the subject of geometry. In my research into Pre-Colombian cosmology in South America, I found it somewhat exotic that the geometric figure of the Andean Cross (see my logo left) included moral precepts, as well as statements about the nature of time, the cosmos etc. There was a comparable moral dimension to Plato's thinking on geometry as well, and - I suspect - Pythagoras too, though very little is really known of what he actually taught. The moral dimension (a word not chosen casually) to geometry is something that a modern western mind finds alien, perhaps even characterising it as primitive in some vague way. Yet, if geometric figures are somehow agents of both non-local and local consciousness, which has primacy, then why would it be ridiculous to think that geometry could apply to conscious moral choices and behaviour?

I'll resist the temptation to repeat your rant about Dean Radin, except to say that his interpretation of the collapse of quantum superposition does tend to emphasise personal observation over the non-local mind in the process. Is it any wonder then, that he may lack empathy for others in seeking to enslave them in a reductionist and mimetic artificial hive mind? If nothing else, including morality within geometry gives a deeper meaning to the term moral compass, which is surely lacking in the world today!

 

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I was surprised how hysterical Bernardo sounded about Global Warming.

The email release was in 2009, and was never fully explored to see what it meant. However there was clearly heavy pressure being put on researchers to conform to the warming narrative - e.g. email discussions included pressurizing journals that dared to publish information contrary to CAGW, and discussions about blocking a woman's PhD for similar reasons.

However to me, perhaps the clincher is the details about Venus. Originally it was discovered that the atmosphere there is almost entirely CO2 and the temperature at the surface is hot enough to melt lead.

Perhaps this is why the Magellan probe was equipped to measure the temperature and pressure all the way down through the atmosphere. Here are th eresults.




From the second graph it is immediately clear that the pressure at the surface of venus is enormous - approximately 92 Atmospheres, and that you have to read the temperature at 49 Km to get a useful comparison with Earth. The grey line on the first graph shows the temperature in the atmosphere at that point to be approx 66 C.

Thus Venus has an atmosphere which is mainly CO2, and receives about 4 times as much energy from the sun (because it is so much nearer) and yet it is only modestly warmer than earth.

I wonder what Bernardo has to say about that.

I'll discuss other aspects of this interview later.

David

 

[blaise]

Alex, I really liked your Judith Curry clip and Bernardo's reply.

Bernardo, the total warming so far is 1.2 C over the last 140 years. Bernardo doesn't seem to realise how useless complex computer models really are, and how 'tunable' they are.

David

The Romans were very happy being able to grow grapes as far North as Scotland, CO2 levels in greenhouses are 5 times higher than outside for growing ( Bernado should know this as the Netherlands is a leader in this field ). Saying that, Destroying Forests, overfishing, polluting and collecting as much shit as possible before we die shouldn't be celebrated. I live close to an ocean , 50m up the mountain just under the surface are a line of shells, obviously a shoreline in the past.....either the sea level was higher, the mountains were lower or a combination, there are no local studies on that fact. Please Question Constantly, especially Ourselves.

 

[David Bailey]

The Romans were very happy being able to grow grapes as far North as Scotland, CO2 levels in greenhouses are 5 times higher than outside for growing ( Bernado should know this as the Netherlands is a leader in this field ). Saying that, Destroying Forests, overfishing, polluting and collecting as much shit as possible before we die shouldn't be celebrated. I live close to an ocean , 50m up the mountain just under the surface are a line of shells, obviously a shoreline in the past.....either the sea level was higher, the mountains were lower or a combination, there are no local studies on that fact. Please Question Constantly, especially Ourselves.

I agree, although I later modified my post because I realised there was a much more cogent argument against CAGW - I hope you don't mind!

David

 

[David Bailey]

I liked the fact that Bernardo seemed to reject Dean Radin's concept of making DNA changes in people to try to change them mentally. Fortunately, I think this has a very low chance of success - basically for the reason Bernardo pointed out - Science has made very little progress at providing pharmaceutical treatments for mental conditions.

Listening to Dean and Bernardo gives me an uncanny feeling that I am listening to some of the madness that seems around right now. Dean has no background in pharmaceuticals - just as Bill Bates has no background in vaccines, and Bernardo has none in the field of 'climate change' or ecology.

I don't object to people talking outside their field - we all do that here - but their hysteria and messianic fervour scares the hell out of me.

David

 

[Alex]

how is it that the scientific consensus is seemingly predicting a future catastrophe when it consistently denies any climate catastrophes in previous epochs?

Brilliant! I've never thought about that, thx.

Perhaps Dr Kastrup should try a search engine other than Google, because it's a lousy research tool .

Haha it's funny how this connects with your next point...

an academic consensus - on climate change or materialism - is equally a kind of group mind. Perhaps a collective manifestation of consciousness is exponentially more powerful than may be realised on an individual level. If so, then we'd better watch out, especially if we do have a hand in creating our own (physical) reality. After all, empathy is actually the realisation of heartfelt non-local consciousness, which brings me to the moral element in all of this.

Interesting... I'm somewhat undeniable... let's hope the effect size is small enough do not matter

The moral dimension (a word not chosen casually) to geometry is something that a modern western mind finds alien, perhaps even characterising it as primitive in some vague way. Yet, if geometric figures are somehow agents of both non-local and local consciousness, which has primacy, then why would it be ridiculous to think that geometry could apply to conscious moral choices and behaviour?

I don't understand. Can you expound a bit?

[/QUOTE]I'll resist the temptation to repeat your rant about Dean Radin, except to say that his interpretation of the collapse of quantum superposition does tend to emphasise personal observation over the non-local mind in the process. Is it any wonder then, that he may lack empathy for others in seeking to enslave them in a reductionist and mimetic artificial hive mind? If nothing else, including morality within geometry gives a deeper meaning to the term moral compass, which is surely lacking in the world today![/QUOTE]

Dean Radin sounds a lot like many of the atheists I've talked to over the years.

his hive mind solution makes perfect sense in a blob of consciousness, meaningless universe.

of course, to the rest of us who live in the real world of love, light and Free Will it sounds like a nightmare.

 

[Alex]

Saying that, Destroying Forests, overfishing, polluting and collecting as much shit as possible before we die shouldn't be celebrated.

agreed! that's why we can't let the psychopathic globalists control the environmental issue with their bullshit global warming alarmist narrative

 

[Hurmanetar]

of course, to the rest of us who live in the real world of love, light and Free Will it sounds like a nightmare.

Maybe he's an incel? Hate to speculate meanly about someone, but perhaps the desire for intimacy and the inability to find it pushes someone toward idealizing the hive mind... and other trans-human pies in the sky.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Bernardo... SMH... come on man... you're naïve... not a joke...

Increasing CO2 has a logarithmically declining affect on Earth's heat balance and it is almost negligible now. The disastrous IPCC models required speculative positive feedback loops which Alex correctly points out have failed to pan out year after year.

Global temps and sea levels do swing wildly... see Younger Dryas. But the idea that more CO2 is going to bake us is just the "noble lie"... a myth the elites (who view themselves as the guardians) have crafted for public consumption... something so simple any idiot can think he understands so that the population will be goaded towards reduced energy consumption... because the elites have surmised (and I partially agree with them) that humanity has entered a progress trap where cheap energy has led to a dystopia of sorts.

You cannot lie with rocket science. Dishonesty is immediately apparent: the rocket blows up.

You can lie with science when effect sizes are very small and don't show up for many years and when your science agrees with the prevailing accepted paradigm and when there are billions of dollars available to those who support the prevailing paradigm and social stigma or moral hazard is assigned to contrarians. Climate science and COVID science are two recent examples of this.

 

[Robbedigital]

Beyond that, how is it that the scientific consensus is seemingly predicting a future catastrophe when it consistently denies any climate catastrophes in previous epochs?

And you never hear these people talk about which populations need to start relocating, to where, and by when.

….. maybe because they’d be on the hook to spend some of that climate money on relocation efforts. And that requires real final confirmed science.

 

[Vortex]

As for the global warming, I have my own largely (but not entirely...) jocular "theory" (if this joke of a hypothesis is worthy of such a proud name): the reason it is getting warmer, is that the humans dress less nowadays then they did earlier.

Once everyone wore heavy, thick, multi-layered suits and dresses, it was only suitable when the air was cool, since heat was unbearable. But, as mores became more relaxed and lenient, and people start puttting on less and less clothes even in urban settings, even less so on a natural landscape or on a beach, they start collectively willing, largely unconsciously, for the climate to warm itself to fit their new dressing and lifestyle habits. And the climate was only happy to oblige.

Well, as I said already, this idea is mostly a joke... but only partially so.

 

[Vortex]

You cannot lie with rocket science. Dishonesty is immediately apparent: the rocket blows up.

As I recall, once I made a similar reply to you already, in some old thread... But it won't harm to repeat it: one can lie about pretty much anything, even about the matters happenning right before the eyes of the audience being deceived, as long as one is in the position of (enough) power and thus have the repressive and propaganda apparatuses at one's disposal.

If people are being constantly and inessantly brainwashed into believing in the obvious falsehoods - not by arguments and evidence, but by hysterical emotional blackmail, ridicule and innuendo - while anyone who dares to ask questions, let alone oppose, is immediately gagged and publicly destroyed, this will make most people start genuinely believing what they are told, while the stubborn opposing minority will become too afraid to speak out (and won't be heard even if they do). In such a case, a power structure in control of the repressions and the narratives can produce and spread lies of such evident baselessness and absurdity that it defies imagination, and it won't meet much of the resistance.

 

[Hurmanetar]

As for the global warming, I have my own largely (but not entirely...) jocular "theory" (if this joke of a hypothesis is worthy of such a proud name): the reason it is getting warmer, is that the humans dress less nowadays then they did earlier.

Once everyone wore heavy, thick, multi-layered suits and dresses, it was only suitable when the air was cool, since heat was unbearable. But, as mores became more relaxed and lenient, and people start puttting on less and less clothes even in urban settings, even less so on a natural landscape or on a beach, they start collectively willing, largely unconsciously, for the climate to warm itself to fit their new dressing and lifestyle habits. And the climate was only happy to oblige.

Well, as I said already, this idea is mostly a joke... but only partially so.

So all we need to fight climate change is a bit more modesty? Seems to me the Saudi Arabian women break this theory... lol

 

[Chris.Smith]

Wow climate change touched a nerve with Dr Kastrup, it was hard to watch because I admire his other work . If he feels blindsided by the climate change debate, invite him back when he is prepared ( and not "empty handed" as he legitimately complained ) - turn him into an ally once he has properly digested Dr Curry's CV and her current views.

 

[William Wood]

“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish Radin's mRNA empathy jab, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”

;)

 

[Michael Larkin]

At present, nothing can convince me to criticize BK when it comes to his proselytisation of idealism. That said, I believe his scientific background -- coupled with his natural leaning to empathy -- has closed his eyes to the possibility that his views on climate science might be wrong.

His defence of "models" leaves me uneasy. We get "models" everywhere, even when they're not explicitly named as such. What do models model? Usually, an accepted consensus narrative, and often people just accept such narratives without question.