Kastrup is onto something big here. I believe that he is on the right track showing that the physical world is not really physical and is simply an expression of consciousness.

Great talk. But I have to request in the future that the camera be kept on the speaker/presentation. All this camera angle switching is both unnecessary and distracting.

@s.muller8688

2 жыл бұрын

You could turn of the visuals and just listen. What is the problem here?

@nietztsuki

2 жыл бұрын

@@s.muller8688 I agree with Infinitifyr completely. The problem is that the viewer (that would be me) would very much like to follow Kastrup's important discussion, which includes the visuals. Focusing back to the moderator is not only distracting, it detracts from the presentation significantly. Furthermore, the image of the moderator at this point is irrelevant to the presentation. Whomever is producing the video, and/or operating the camera, should rethink their ideas about cinematography.

A very good example of how mainstream media with regards to these subjects can very easily give the general lay public a misrepresented view of what the research actually says and what it implies. Of course, these streams of news are the majority source for most people, so it's vital that it shows accurate information. Regrettably most of these sources are prioritising public interest and stories that will sell as opposed to less headline-making raw science.

@atthehops

2 жыл бұрын

It sounds like you did not bother to check the references for yourself and simply take Kastrup at his word. Enhanced repertoire of brain dynamical states during the psychedelic experience The study of rapid changes in brain dynamics and functional connectivity (FC) is of increasing interest in neuroimaging. Brain states departing from normal waking consciousness are expected to be accompanied by alterations in the aforementioned dynamics. In particular, the psychedelic experience produced by psilocybin (a substance found in “magic mushrooms”) is characterized by unconstrained cognition and profound alterations in the perception of time, space and selfhood. Considering the spontaneous and subjective manifestation of these effects, we hypothesize that neural correlates of the psychedelic experience can be found in the dynamics and variability of spontaneous brain activity fluctuations and connectivity, measurable with functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). Fifteen healthy subjects were scanned before, during and after intravenous infusion of psilocybin and an inert placebo. Blood-Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) temporal variability was assessed computing the variance and total spectral power, resulting in increased signal variability bilaterally in the hippocampi and anterior cingulate cortex. Changes in BOLD signal spectral behavior (including spectral scaling exponents) affected exclusively higher brain systems such as the default mode, executive control, and dorsal attention networks. A novel framework enabled us to track different connectivity states explored by the brain during rest. This approach revealed a wider repertoire of connectivity states post-psilocybin than during control conditions. Together, the present results provide a comprehensive account of the effects of psilocybin on dynamical behavior in the human brain at a macroscopic level and may have implications for our understanding of the unconstrained, hyper-associative quality of consciousness in the psychedelic state. Hum Brain Mapp 35:5442-5456, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

@Pindi44

2 жыл бұрын

It´s no different from their political coverage. The WaPo and Gaurdian are experts at reporting that black is white.

@Sam-hh3ry

Жыл бұрын

​@@atthehops You realize Kastrup has addressed this exact study multiple times? "Misreporting and Confirmation Bias in Psychedelic Research" and elsewhere.

@atthehops

Жыл бұрын

@@Sam-hh3ry How is your comment related to mine?

@Sam-hh3ry

Жыл бұрын

@@atthehops Think hard enough and I’m sure you can answer your own question

Excellent. Thanks for the uploads here. Very much appreciated.

Thank you for doing the research! This is precious information.

I would have liked for this amazing presentation to have less distractions from the various camera angles that served no purpose by focusing on the facilitator sitting and staring at the screen or fiddling etc. It would have been better to focus on Bernardo's slides and presentation until the end. Whoever the camera person was for this, please take into consideration for us trying to stay focused on the presentation and what Bernardo is speaking of. thank you!

@SchibbiSchibbi

Жыл бұрын

Definitely

Another brilliant presentation by Dr Kastrup.

Enough with the camera angle switching, if it can't be done professionally please! It makes it harder to focus, especially when Bernardo shows some small detail and then the camera switches.

@desertportal353

2 жыл бұрын

I thought it is kind of cool - some vitality that normally does not exist in this kind of thing. I was not distracted. Even kind of illustrated his points without pushing back on it.

Bernando is trying to show and explain details on his presentetation and we are shown a lady who sits in her yellow chair.

This was extremely interesting. I wish I could have done more with my life. The research y'all are doing is the future. I appreciate that y'all took the time to clarify the misrepresentation of your research by the media.

@apzzpa

2 жыл бұрын

never too late to make a difference

Excellent thanks 🙏🏻 🥰🙌

My problem with the approach in this video is that Bernardo defends his analytical idealism stance by searching for materialistic arguments that support his position. Whereas if he would be consistently true to his idealism he would maintain that the brain is in consciousness and as consciousness. Bernardo is trying to have his cake and eat it at the same time. By the logic of idealism it doesn't matter if causation and correlation perfectly align.

Well done, Bernardo! 👏

Its almost like instead of just saying the car slows down, you say its deceleration is speeding up. When in fact, 1st off vel & acc are indeed different things & secondly, you're introducing a 2nd thing(albeit related) other than what you're supposed to be addressing. People will say or do ANYTHING, consciously or otherwise, to cling to their assumptions. Its even a BIGGER deal IMO, than BK is letting on, in this particular situation. How ANY scientist could be OK with a miscommunication so severe that the VAST majority would conclude that it means the exact opposite of what was intended, is disturbing.

Super interesting, but much too short. I'd like to see the hour plus version of this subject by Bernardo. I would like to see more emphasis on near death experiences in this arena of thought. Like mystical experience, deep meditation and psychedelic experiences, they are often described as more real than real. Someone would have to do some kind of formal analysis to increase confidence, but it seems like of those experiences, they are probably the most intense. Subjects often say that they felt unbounded by what they experience in everyday life as a sort of lumbering, limited consciousness, often not wanting to return to such a narrowed and limited existence. In considering how much brain activity accounts for experience, of course those people are dead and have no brain activity, at least not measurable. If their experiences do rate as the most subjectively real or intense, that supports the idea that limiting brain activity increases the richness of conscious experience, like get the brain out of the way and look what happens. The science on NDEs is limited and relatively new, but I can't see a more interesting area in which to study this question. Someone has already compiled hundreds of accounts showing out of body awareness that can be corroborated with other witnesses, times etc. Only a frightened dogmatist could look at the information available and completely dismiss it out of hand. We won't have more science on it until someone does it. The predominant stuff we see from those opposing the idea are that can't work because it doesn't adhere to physicalism and there is not enough reliable data. Well there won't be more good data until someone collects it. A predominant attitude seems to be that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Well, how about extraordinary claims that could upend current paradigms, attended with extremely compelling evidence, are worth putting time and resources into. It looks more like an excuse to not look where you don't want to find answers. All roads to truth lead away from belief. What this really shows is how much we are mired in a belief paradigm, where it is considered normal to go all in on an idea and resist other ideas to the point of ignoring contradictory data, until it is so overwhelming that you have no choice. It is an absurd, immature and very inefficient way to conduct inquiry. Stop believing shit and it suddenly becomes easier to navigate information, because you don't have to neurotically try to shoehorn and filter everything through a rigid belief system. I think NDE's will probably be a major area of study and upend a lot of worldviews soon. It could be sooner and if it weren't for materialism, we could already be deep into collecting data and figuring out what they are about.

Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death/body, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.

@tomatoversace3427

Жыл бұрын

their subjects all say the same things independently as well. that’s what gets me. they all converge on the same narrative of after death experience, having never heard of the others’ accounts.

kastrup finishes an amazing presentation and the lady at the end is like "got any other ideas?" 😂 😂 😂 cold as ice

Interesting reference to the Guardian . There are a shared set of values across the met-elite left which includes a deep hostility towards religion ( and I mean religion in its wider sense ) . Of course Richard Dawkins is the ' guru ' of that world view . I would point out that I was once a fanatical reader of the Guardian .

A very good presentation by Dr Kastrup. Shame about the distracting video editing.

Your link to the 'Science of consciousness" conference does not work. Could you please correct it? TIA

@johncallaghan3097

2 жыл бұрын

@@essentiafoundation Thanks. I've checked and the link is now OK.

Kastrapo is the voice of nature. 😮

Apart from the fantastic intellectual content , I have to compliment the various speakers on their beautiful English . As an Englishman I am somewhat embarrassed by this eloquence of people for whom English is a second language .

The crux of the BK argument differentiate between consciousness and metaconsciousness

26:53 concluding remarks 28:42 the ultimate conclusion

@pepedestroyer5974

Жыл бұрын

7:07

Creative Intelligence - Creative Process- Brain = Creative medium

If a computer can predict rather precisely what I'm dreaming based on specific neuronal activity in the brain, could this eventually be reverse engineered to stimulate particular neurons to give people dreams that correspond to a narrative (a sort of movie delivered to the unconscious mind)? Sounds like it would just need the Edison who could develop that product, though it's a little scary, too.

@moesypittounikos

2 жыл бұрын

I couldn't see the computer images on my phone screen so couldn't judge. If you check out the reverse speech stairway to heaven video's, it shows very conclusively that the researcher can see patterns that are not even there. Maybe the eyes can be led astray as easy as the ears? Also, as Terence McKenna quipped, 'the box is too small'! If was funnier coming from McKenna.

I am a physicist and I will provide sound arguments that prove that consciousness is not generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is not physical (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). This implies the existence in us of an unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it can be proved that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge and implies logical contradictions. There are in fact 2 arguments that prove such hypothesis contains a logical fallacy. 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. An approximate description is only an abstraction, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself; an approximate description is an idea that exists only in a conscious mind. This means that emergent properties are concepts that refer to something that has an inherent conceptual nature (abstract ideas). 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstraction which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. Therefore, any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently arbitrary because it depends on the arbitrary choice used to define the set. Arbitrariness is a precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. If a concept refers to “something” whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, such “something” cannot exist independently of a conscious mind and can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example consider the property of "beauty": beauty is intrisically subjective, abstract and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties are of the same nature as beauty; they are intrinsically subjective and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else; however, there is no objective criterion that allows us to identify what separates brain and non-brain. Obviously, consciousness cannot be a property of an abstraction, because an abstraction cannot conceive of itself. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction because it implies the arbitrary choice of including some elements in the set and excluding others. Physically the brain is not a single entity and therefore every alleged property of the brain is an arbitrary concept, a subjective abstraction. This is sufficient to prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the brain is nonsensical because it contains an intrinsic logical contradiction; consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of arbitrariness, and therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be a consequence of all that implies arbitrariness. An example of a concept that does not refer to something that is inherently subjective and presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Consciousness can exist only as the property of an indivisible entity, because only an indivisible entity does not imply any kind of arbitrariness; furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity cannot be physical, since there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. Marco Biagini

@marcobiagini1878

Жыл бұрын

@@Michael-qr6gu You wrote:”Matter is not just a bunch of particles interacting. There are many components beyond particles, including waves, forces (electromagnetism), spacetime, and nobody even knows what dark matter and dark energy are. There are still so many unknowns in physics that it leaves open many possibilities for consciousness.” False. First of all, science has never made no progress throughout history in explaining the origin of consciousness and therefore there is no reason to expect science to provide an explanation in the future. Neuroscience has shown only the existence of corelations between brain processes and mental experiences, but correlation does not mean causation. Indeed, science is unable to explain the existence of consciousness even in principle; science does not even provide a clue to justify the existence of consciousness. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics already explain all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes, without the need to introduce addictional hypotheses, independent of the laws of physics themselves. Developments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, processes that do not interfere with brain processes. In fact, a remarkable feature of the laws of physics, is the fact that the strong interaction among quarks is decoupled from the electromagnetic interaction between electrons, which alone determines all chemical and biological processes; the strong interaction simply holds nucleons together inside the atomic nucleous during chemical and biological processes. It is therefore unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes, just as science has never changed our description of the dynamics of macroscopic objects at speeds far below the speed of light, a dynamics that is still described through the laws of classical physics. Quantum physics represents a major breakthrough in the history of science because for the first time it has provided a set of laws capable to explain all biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, and such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics; conversely, my arguments prove that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. You wrote:”Beauty is not intrinsically subjective. It's been known for a long time that there are certain ratios and patterns that define how we perceive beauty.” Simply false. Beauty is subjective. You wrote:"The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity." Yes, part of this is what is known as the binding problem. However, again, this proves nothing. This video alone has shown how much evidence there is that brain activity, at the very least, controls our conscious experience to a high degree. “ The existence of correlations between brain processes and mental experience does not imply that brain processes generate by themselves mental experiences; correlation does not mean causation. My arguments are not meant to prove that brain processes are not necessary for our mental experiences and that the soul generates our mental experiences independently of brain processes. My arguments prove that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of our mental experiences. You wrote:”There are many possible solutions to the binding problem. The two most commonly mentioned are electromagnetism and quantum explanations for consciousness, both of which could possibly solve the binding problem.” Simply false. As a physicist I know very well that neither electromagnetism nor quantum physics provide provide any clue for an explanation of the existence of consciousness. You wrote:”Your view that the brain is merely a bunch of independent particles is highly flawed.” False. My view is confirmed by the laws of physics. You have raised no valid objections to my arguments; therefore I see no reason to continue this conversation. Best regards.

@martam4142

9 ай бұрын

@marcobiagini: Materialism can't prove that our subjective perceptions correspond to an external world which causes said perceptions. So, if materialism is true, no one can know it. Materialism is a loser's philosophy. And it asserts that the brain 'creates' consciousness, but it can't prove that causal nexus either.

@marcobiagini1878

9 ай бұрын

@@martam4142 You are right: materialism can't prove that our brain creates consciousness, but my arguments go beyond that. My arguments prove that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of mental experience and that an indivisible unphysical element is a necessary condition for the existence of mental experience

@crassusthexll

Ай бұрын

​@@marcobiagini1878what's ur opinion on the simulation theory and base reality

@marcobiagini1878

Ай бұрын

@@crassusthexll In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values ​​for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values ​​for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.

Kind of a weird lie about the brain "lighting up" when the opposite happened. I remember reading that headline. Also, claiming supremacy of materialism seems quite provocative, considering the massive holes in the theory, brought on by empirical evidence.

Very interesting as a challenge to the mainstream physicalist, view but it would be more fruitful to discuss all these data along with all the data apparently showing just the opposite, for instance, brain lesions in the visual cortex correlating with impairments in visual experience, lesions in fusiform area correlating with impairments in face experience , and so on....

@josephgrace4725

2 жыл бұрын

All these phenomena are accounted for in Idealistic metaphysics. We perceive reality through the lens of our senses, our brains; nowhere is it stated that we perceive anything but sensory perception. Therefore, if the brain is damaged, there will of course be effects in perception. What is the real epiphany of Analytic Idealism is that we live within a wider universal mind. This is echoed in all spiritual traditions. Of course, if my brain is damaged, I will have impaired perception of the wider mind I am nested in. All of those examples you have cited correlate with Analytic Idealism.

@Essentia Foundation - Bernardo, would you be interested in a discussion with Firas Zahabi @Tristar Gym? He is a fabulous mind with a firm grasp of philosophy and idealism. He has expressed an interest in having this dialogue. Believe me, it would be very much worth your time and would benefit so many people IMHO. If so, please present available time slots and I'll try and put it together. BR, S

@jonpicojones4032

2 жыл бұрын

A man of culture, I see. Shoutout Firas, one of the best minds to ever be a part of MMA.

✨🙏🏻✨

Lá Chair de L’UNIVERS

📍19:50

*10:06*

She looked pretty bored during the psychedelic research part XD □

Consciousness creates matter. Matter does not create consciousness. The brain is the interface for Consciousness to come into our awareness through it's impact in our physical body.

Has there ever been a study of consciousness that does NOT, in some way, incorporate the idea of metaphysics???

@hypergraphic

2 жыл бұрын

No clue, but if you don't have any idea what the nature of reality is, how can you hope to explain what consciousness is?

@Sam-hh3ry

2 жыл бұрын

If you limit yourself to empirically observable data you literally can’t say anything about consciousness

@stewartquark1661

2 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-hh3ry True. I might like Beethoven but could never compose anything like him

@stewartquark1661

2 жыл бұрын

Ok, enough. Consciousness is the result of the embodying of the substance from which all things emanate. Coming to understand what aspects of the substance created the things that are the currency of consciousness facilitates ones further understand of the substance and consciousness itself

@stewartquark1661

2 жыл бұрын

@Mitthenstein Metaphysics is the only language that can explain consciousness

How come we don't have expanded consciousness experiences every time we have general anesthesia, i wonder...

@attilaszekeres7435

11 ай бұрын

Memories won't get transcribed due to drug induced hippocampal dysfunction.

@matswessling6600

5 ай бұрын

@@attilaszekeres7435😂

If we agree that our "reality" is just the dashboard, and that the TRUE nature of reality is much different that we can imagine.. And if you entertain the idea that ghosts, remove-viewing, telepathy, and reincarnation is real.. then doesn't this suggest that one's personality (subtle/causal body) continues after death, and does not return to a one consciousness (Atman?). And what does this say about the purpose of one's life or free will or the best use of one's time? Karma? Where are memories stored? For example, having no/kids, vocation / money / selfishness-passion, traffic/anger, etc. What might be the purpose of this one consciousness? Telos? Why would it need an individual personality to become enlightened? Michael Levin's work and split-brain experiments are spooky. BTW, Dolores Cannon / Anabela Cordoso suggest there are entities in the post-death dimension that are helping humans raise their consciousness!

In my view , the western culture which otherwise also had wisdom , took the wrong term somewhere. Western materialism refuted idealism . Philosophy clinched to science for everything . Logic tookover everything without recognising its own limits.

When a brain think how he understand a brain. Genious

Consciousness is EMF

@LS-qu7yc

2 жыл бұрын

I have suspected that. Mostly because we have no idea how matter organizes itself to become animate. I feel like it has to do with EMF. Which we have labeled as something. But what is it really…? Just a hunch. How did you come to this notion?

@paulmccray4055

2 жыл бұрын

@@LS-qu7yc think of bodies as a meat radio, and what animates it is the soul which is not in the body

@paulmccray4055

2 жыл бұрын

@@LS-qu7yc actually i shouldn't say consciousness, i should say awareness, pure awareness

@LS-qu7yc

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulmccray4055 the words describing the phenomena are so tricky to navigate! Yes I think your analogy of the meat radio is accurate. So I always proposed that whatever organizing principal created rna/dna is what’s responsible for life and thus “conscious awareness” to develop… and the “scientists say” something like… electricity plus molecule soup equals life… I don’t know if they’ve got that hashed out yet though because it seems to be a very very sensitive process. Do you think the electromagnetic field is aware? Aren’t physicalists inching their way toward panpsychism ? I don’t know but it seems like progress at least

@paulmccray4055

2 жыл бұрын

@@LS-qu7yc i think it would be on a spectrum, like not all emf would be capable of awareness, example a man made radio frequency is not aware, think skynet from terminator, its a frequency that animates but is not natural

Consciousness arises from an aspect of the things that the eyes 'see'....there ya go! That's one part of it

That talk showed nothing about consciousness it showed a correlation between hallucinogens and a narrowly defined measure of brain activity. If brain activity isn't all about experience then the lack of it isn't all about experience. How does one quantify experience to start with ? Is taking LSD ''more experience'' than say looking at a white wall without LSD which would be "less experience" ? Or is that qualitatively different and so subjected to conditioning factors of liking one thing over another thing or is it so novel it's interesting. Any experience is an object to a subject who witnesses it. The subject is none other than awareness itself, so how does one quantify and qualify awareness ? Don't ask me I have no clues.

Wouldn't experts have less brain activity on average compared to novices on some tasks?

@matthewfuller9760

2 жыл бұрын

As an example, take two groups of chess players, one group has 5000 or more hours of experience, the latter are novices. Analogous to the situation, one must specify low effort in the highly skilled group. The trance channels have already put in their work, so of course it's complex and effortless. Though I suppose, going back to the analogy, one might also find more activity in the brains of experts if you were to ask them to try hard. Those who are good at trying hard become experts at whatever task is chosen, but when competing against novices they have lower brain activation since it's pre- computed, so to speak.

@pandawandas

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is that the results are inexplicable. It’s not that they just had less brain activity, it’s that when they started writing their brain activity reduced while the controls increased.

@matthewfuller9760

2 жыл бұрын

@@pandawandas but experts in general would have less brain activity. Children doing math versus adults, or a test of typing, or balance (gymnast versus novice) all experts would have less activity. Maybe.

@pandawandas

2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewfuller9760 I'm willing to grant that experts might have less brain activity (I actually don't think this is necessarily the case, chess grandmasters seem to use more brain activity than novices). But using less brain activity in comparison to controls is not what happened here. It's not like both the novices and the experts's brains became active, but the experts became less active. It's that the novices's brain became active, and the experts's brains REDUCED in activity from baseline.

@matthewfuller9760

2 жыл бұрын

@@pandawandas I cannot say exactly when expertise causes less activity other than through my own intuition. Its fascinating though!

Show of scatterbrains creating strawdogs, “ zis is visicalism to destroy”😂

@mrreyes5004

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, Kastrup knows what he's talking about. His "philosophy" is in fact more hard proven science than anything, which makes sense given his long-time PhD in computer science as well as philosophy and experience as a scientist at Philips Research Laboratories (the same facility where the highly-important "Casimir Effect" was discovered). So yeah, no way a mere rando scatterbrain like you can disprove him XD.

@mrreyes5004

2 жыл бұрын

And no, replying back with "well you're a rando too" does nothing to disprove Kastrup's facts XD neither will other petty insults you come up with. Tough luck, buddy, bye-bye now.