Bernardo is THE bridge between science and spirituality. So glad that, thru Rupert Spira, I found him on KZread.

Bernardo, this is BORDERLINE prophetic, brother. May God continue to use you and draw us closer!! You are not far from the Kingdom. 🙏🏻

@lynlavalight

Жыл бұрын

None of us is far from the Kingdom in fact. 🥰

@theautodidacticlayman

Жыл бұрын

@@lynlavalight True! But some have their backs turned towards it, and it shows. 😔 Others seek it, and it shows!! 🕊️🙏🏻

@ulrikewermann1268

Жыл бұрын

Interesting thought! It is said, that Borderline disorder is the attempt to heal the "fall of the angels" and the "first sin" (that one with the apple) at once.

@theautodidacticlayman

Жыл бұрын

@@ulrikewermann1268 Wow, that’s also interesting. I didn’t know about borderline personality disorder until you just mentioned it. I just meant that it almost sounds like God speaking through Bernardo. 😄 But since you brought up the fall, have you heard this take? The Genesis creation story says that humankind was made in the likeness of God from the beginning. Without any further requirement, humankind was like God. Then came a sneaky outside voice and said: “Do this, and THEN you can be like God.” This was like telling a person who is sitting down to sit down. And they FELL for it!! 😔 And they were unable to restore that likeness for a long time… but Someone came and restored that Likeness for all of humankind. 😌 Now it’s just a matter of understanding what He said. People like Bernardo help us understand Him. 🕊️

@ulrikewermann1268

Жыл бұрын

​@@theautodidacticlayman Yes I understood what you meant - I just was jumping in my mind ... it is said also, that it HAD to come to this "misunderstanding" because of the need of consciousness of this fact! So everything always was ok with this "fall" 🙂 WE - everyone HAS to "fall" when he grows up - and then raise again to be conscious.

Awesome explanation! Now, if only we could all learn how to better associate with our fellow disassociates. This would be an even more beautiful world. Keep going, Bernardo.😍

@conscious_choice

Жыл бұрын

Since we're already one we don't have to learn to associate. We just have to stop dissociating and then you're' again the oneness you always have been but were not conscious of bc of the dissociation.

@michaeldillon3113

Жыл бұрын

When Jesus said ' Love others as thySelf he wasn't being idealistic or sentimental - he was simply stating the Truth . As Sri Ramana Maharshi 🙏 said ' if people only realized that whatsoever they do to the world they are only doing to their own selves then who wouldn't adhere to good actions and avoid the bad - even if only out of self interest ' .✌️🕉️

@conscious_choice

Жыл бұрын

@@michaeldillon3113 100% true

@michaeldillon3113

Жыл бұрын

@@conscious_choice Thank you for your comment and best wishes to you 🕊️🙏

@conscious_choice

Жыл бұрын

@@michaeldillon3113 All the best to you as well. May your comment open the heart and mind of many. Have a blessed day.

I’m so happy to have a scientific explanation that doesn’t negate what I myself have been experiencing! Rupert and Bernado compliment each other very well.

@dontfollowthinkforyourself

Жыл бұрын

like potayto and potahto.? In my mind its the same root vegetable

@attilaszekeres7435

Жыл бұрын

Mr. Kastrup presented a set of analogical arguments rather than a scientific elucidation. Scientific understanding should not be a prerequisite for one's contentment.

@rajahzia

Жыл бұрын

very little science in here

@glenndespres5317

Жыл бұрын

@@rajahzia Try to keep up…

@Some_Deist

Жыл бұрын

@@rajahzia That’s wishful thinking

Exactly what the Sun told me. In fact I quote you in my book, out on the 15/12/22. We are imagined into being and then given a different perspective, so that we think we are separate. The same is true of the Sun, though it knows it is not separate from the Galaxy mind nor the Universe mind. It’s all the same stuff, the imagination of Source/God/Brahman, whatever you want to call it. What a marvel it all is!

@LivingNow678

Жыл бұрын

ALL comes from INFINITE-GOD

@robertjsmith

Жыл бұрын

@@LivingNow678 yeah God with-out religion

@LivingNow678

Жыл бұрын

@@robertjsmith 👌

Bravo Bernardo!!! Very well explained!!!

Beautifully, so simply said. Thanks

Speaking from direct experience: Without duality one cannot know existence. However Duality is required to know non-dual reality. But ‘you’ cannot do it. Something which knows there is a body can reveal it to you. It is beyond words. Beyond measuring with thought. The radiant brilliant inseparably of awareness and emptiness that doesn’t even know that it is.

@LivingNow678

Жыл бұрын

Duality non-duality, Neutral; just a suggestion Freddie mcCoy dit Ahmed Sofi on KZread a man in white jilaba a music-message tracks: Message Service, Positive AND Negative, Purification Process, Spiritual Frequency (only instrumental).

Thanks for being descriptive

Blazingly clear description Thanks Bernardo

Thank you for sharing. Love Bernardo Kastrup and is simple, parsimonious and clear ontology.

Here Bernardo is so clear! He always is to me, but here even more so.

Every day I can observe this phenomenon staging itself in my psychotherapeutic practice.

Absolutely brilliant, Dr bernardo is amazing 💯👌

This is brilliant! Beautiful connections! It's all more simple than we can think. Thank You! Be kind ;)

Great presentation Bernando! May I request for an in-depth talk on how illusory divisions (bounderies by senses) are created and how to overcome it. Thank you, Rima

@indicphilosopher8772

4 ай бұрын

Senses are the boundary man.. Like eyes can only perform visual perception, ears auditory, tongue gustatory etc.. Thus the boundaries.. Its how it is.. Its not a creation..

What currently connects the most dots IMO & by FAR.

“It riles them to believe that we perceive the web they weave.”

Great exploration and explanation of consciousness as an aspect of the fundamental, giving rise to many forms without being divided. Excellent, too to appreciate that existence is self-similar at many scales. What seems lacking at SAND, though, is the simple explanation of how the one, indivisible and undivided substance which arises in the moment (the minimal miracle, based on that "something" exists) … gives rise to all the apparent phenomena studied and measured by Physicists. Advaita implies the opposite (complete inversion) of atomism and the unreality of "time". If we can help physicists escape their chronocentric atomism and thus understand why their mathematical models work where they do …with any luck, they'll stop telling us woo ;)

well said. dissociation explains a lot about perspective. denial of unity gives the appearance of separation.

@afeather123

Жыл бұрын

I like a lot of Bernardo's theory, but I dislike talk of "illusion." Ok, but separation is part of the character of this "unity." His theory lacks explanatory power as to the mechanism of this dissociation. Sure it might be a temporary state, but it is Real with a capital R. I have my own ideas which I am working on writing and putting out there, both on a personal website and as a book. But the essence of the message is that the flaw in our reasoning has to do with the illusion of heirarchy. We conceive of the world as "things composed of things composed of things," and at every level they get smaller and smaller, less and less structurally complex. But have you ever seen one of those cheesy science documentary clips where they zoom out of earth, past the solar system, past the galaxy, out of galaxies, and then it turns into neurons, then a brain, then a person, then back out to earth again. Everything is connected. But how is it connected? That is the interesting question. And I believe the perception that we are a small subset of reality is an illusion. Heirarchy is cyclical. Everything is related to everything else at the level of composition. And so our brains are not any less complex than the "cosmic brain." Yes, we are a substructure in this brain. But it is also a substructure in our brain. It is cyclical. So in such a metaphysical scheme, the only thing which can be said to be truly real is the boundary which Bernardo wrote off as illusory. But that is actually the fundamental constitutive element - the boundary. Look up set theory to see how mathematics, the language of science, can be described in terms of sets. So there is an object in nature associated with the singularity if your experience. Yes, you are part of the unity of nature, but you are not a "dissociation." You have something like a soul, which defines this boundary. I'm not saying that the souls experience couldn't radically change after death, such as in reincarnation into a different form of life, but there is a unitary object associated with your experience. That's my opinion, anyway!

@motorhead48067

Жыл бұрын

@@afeather123 I agree Kastrup’s theory offers no explanatory power for the mechanism of dissociation. He just did a sort of hand waving and said we already know about the existence of dissociation within a single human psyche, so there. He didn’t even attempt to explain how dissociation from the cosmic mind occurs which is the absolute crux of his theory. This doesn’t necessarily make him wrong, but it’s a big ask to try to get people to get onboard with something purporting to be scientific when you can’t actually explain how the process works. I’m curious about your theory. I believe I follow your statements about the lack of hierarchy and the fact that while thing A is nested within thing B, thing B is also somehow nested within thing A. I believe I follow what you’re saying, but I don’t really understand it. If thing A is within thing B, and thing B is within thing A, then logically, thing A must be within thing A. How can something be within itself? If you’re saying that, aren’t you really just saying in so many words that you don’t actually understand what the word “within” means? To be within something is by necessity to be smaller than it such that you can fit inside of it, so thing A is smaller than thing A? It just doesn’t make sense to me. To say that a thing is within itself or is a subset of itself just grates against some deep intuition I seem to have. I’m not sure exactly what it is but I believe it must be some kind of spatial intuition since it’s in regard to being with*in* something. I feel like you must have some other intuition that allows you to believe there could be an ontological structure in which something is within itself. I’m curious if you could articulate this intuition and why you think such an ontology is possible?

@afeather123

Жыл бұрын

​@@motorhead48067 Hey, thanks for asking. Its not something I believe fervently with full confidence. I admit that it relies on a bit of "mathematical mysticism" with relation to set theory and maybe category theory. But I'm still passionate about it just because I think its an interesting idea with some potential. Disclaimer aside, the idea requires you to embrace the traditional Western philosophical idea of an underlying reality which is very different from our perceptions. I understand why it is so unintuitive, because you're right, it does violate our spatial intuitions. Think of Plato's cave, or the matrix for something more pop culture - what we see is a kind of sensory translation of an underlying structure which has a kind of isomorphic translation to the quantitative qualities of our experience, but is radically different from what we perceive. When you imagine "sets of sets of sets" another way to think of it is as a directed graph structure. So imagine a directed graph where you can get from any one point to another by going forward, but the way that all the nodes are interconnected is unique to each node - there is no underlying symmetry, following Leibniz's principle of "the identity of the indiscernibles." Two things that share the exact same set of relations to everything else can only be the same thing. Now, within this structure, you can cherry pick limited sub structures which obey the strict ontological rules of our observable world. Nice clean hierarchies with no self referential loops. Just to give an example to make a very simple analogy with set theory, if you take a linear hierarchy and "flatten" it, you get the structure which defines the integers. For example, I am on Earth, and the Earth is in the galaxy, and the galaxy is in the universe. I am a direct member of the conceptual "Earth" set, but I am also a direct member of the conceptual galaxy set, and universe set, etc. You get a structure which Looks like this: Universe( Galaxy( Earth( Me ) Me ) Earth(..) Me ) And if you treat this as a simple composition of sets and substitute "me" for the empty set, you get the structure which represents the number 3. 3 elements, besides the base element. Now, that is just the integers, and the mathematics which describes the natural world seems to almost universally involve the real numbers. But the real numbers can also be described by compositions of sets, you just need a countably infinite number of them. And that is where the messy self referential underside of things comes along. The relative quantitative properties that describe the geometries of space can be the product of what is essentially a graph traversal algorithm between objects which produces structures which correspond to real numbers which represent geometric ratios. It is important to emphasize the idea of a ratio, because, for example, the distance between A and B has no meaning on its own. It only has meaning relative to the distance between A and C, or some other distance. At the cosmological scale, ratios are the only things that matter - the whole doesn't exist relative to anything else, that's why its the whole, so it can be described in purely geometric terms without the notion of "scale." The reason the idea of self reference is important to my idea is that for the process which defines the real numbers as I conceive of it to function, objects need to be able to "find" each other. And If each one can find the other by following a one way chain of composition, then a loop must necessarily exist. So the hierarchical structure of the perceivable world is essentially everything we exist in a clean ontological relationship with, and the messier "non perceivable" world is present in our experience in the spatial quality of the perceivable objects. One (perhaps unfortunate, depending on your perspective) implication of this is that our capacity for reason can only operate on subsets of reality, since we are forced to be reductionist and treat objects with unique, rich underlying structure as if they were simple. We are forced at some point to rely on generalizations. Mathematics itself relies on the concept of the empty set, 0, and in this ontology there is no such thing - it is only a necessary fiction for reasoning about the world. Treating something as if it were nothing is a necessary starting point to describe the world in finite terms. The trippy-er implication of this is that maybe there is a radically different perception of the objects we coexist with in the world. What if, for example, a cell in your body only appears as a simple thing because of how hierarchical depth relates to our perception, and if you could see from its perspective you would find that it was a complex organism in a complex environment like you. This is a bit of a silly idea - its totally possible that in this scheme some objects could be less "connected" than others, and therefore be structurally simpler from every possible perspective, even if they ultimately "contain" everything in a deeply nested way. So, that's the idea. An underlying reality with a hierarchical/directed structure which is similar to what we have described conceptually in the realm of pure logic and mathematics. Perhaps what is most interesting is that "in between" part, the irreducible translation gap between the underlying reality and our perception. That is an area where I admit more phenomenological approaches have a leg up. Are the "qualia" of our experience in any way a part of this underlying hierarchically structured reality, or is there something else, something much more ineffable and mysterious which mediates the translation of this structure to experience? Hope you found it interesting!

@afeather123

Жыл бұрын

​@@motorhead48067 And here's a video I like that goes into an example of how to define numbers with sets if its something you are unfamiliar with. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ln-o1cyKpMzNkco.html

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@afeather123 as I understand it, he offers a mechanism in the form of interrelated mental contents which cease to be interrelated forming a seemingly separate alter

Referring to Rupert's example: the inner experience of the image of the brain is the image, the Self is the screen (or at least the image isn't). This doesn't make the physical brain which is represented by this image on the screen not actual and manifested in the external world. I feel something is going wrong with his dancing of the dancer syllogism, and the experience of that which-experiences: for "that+which experiences" can be portrayed as the Self; or as the physical brain. But the reasoning is more sophisticated than I thought and I like his efforts, at least its interesting and attempts to be thought-through. This was a good talk, thanks

Nicely done. Makes sense to me! I love how you call out the craziness of those trying to espouse the possibility of AI robots being sentient. I agree…utter nonsense; fantastical thinking.

The language chosen to explain the interpretation creates an understanding separate from the phenomenon that we seek to observe. The reasoning is consistent but takes leaps that lack sufficient objectivity to transcend cultural and religious assumptions.

Very nice set of pieces from Bernardo Kastrup. Altho, they eye is not behaving when you see, neither does the ear perform or express behavior when you hear. It is the environment that is behavior. So there is the missing piece!

Bravo! A lot of parallels between Hegel's thought and what Mr. Kastrup is saying. This is the true teaching of Christ. Open Panentheism.

Interesting.. I'll watch 👁

Descartes got it backwards. It’s really : I am therefore I think.

@zacjordaan

Жыл бұрын

Well somebody has to say it... that's putting Descartes before the horse.

He is shifting the problem: materialists cannot explain emergent behaviour of conciousness, but he shifts the problem to not being able to explain the dissociation in the cosmic mind: which is a similar problem of separation instead of combination; which both in Upanishad language are problems of Name and Form. So the problem is shifted to a different domain, but remains intrinsically the same problem of division between mind and matter: saying matter is a vision of a divine mind is just invoking a Deus ex Machina of God

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

I think he explains it. interrelated mental contents cease to be interrelated forming a seemingly separate alter

@DM100

Жыл бұрын

As above so below is all I need to know.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@DM100 dream fractal

@electricrice

11 ай бұрын

Absolute red herring. The mechanism by which disassociation occurs isn't the same question as the question of whether mind or matter is the ontological category underlying reality. He explains why there is good reason to believe diassociation occurs at cosmic levels, even if the mechanism isn't clear at around 4:30

In my head this makes sense

😀 wow u guys are back at it actually dropping some real knowledge lol this channel was instrumental in me attaining awareness and enlightenment

@yiranimal

Жыл бұрын

Thank You, BIG BLACK DICK. :)

@Big_Black_Dick

Жыл бұрын

@@yiranimal 😀 of course, but I should really be thanking u guy tho lol

The only thing that information does: 1. get communicated between dissociated alters 2. affect the alters state and behavior after computation by the alter. 3. get stored in alters. In organisms information streams in, is stored in memory, gets communicated between brain functions, and get used in computation to affect the behavior of the organism.

bless

In the summary at 15:20 following Rupert's statement, am I correct that Bernardo is saying that matter is the behaviour of Consciousness - just like ripples are the behaviour of water?

@ulrikewermann1268

Жыл бұрын

yes, I understand it that way also.

The scientist's awareness of the subject's brain activities while the subject is looking at a flower is also a first person perspective. It is at the same level as the subject's awareness of looking at the flower. Consciousness is always subjective, which means the scientist can never experience the seeing of the flower by the subject as the subject experiences it. A true higher level perspective is one in which a being say A, can not only experience his own awareness but also the awareness of a subject, say B, who is at the lower level than he is. This can only happen if the source of B's consciousness is derived from A's consciousness. Or to put it another way, A imparts his consciousness onto B. In this case, while B can only perceives his own content of consciousness, A can not only perceives his own content of consciousness but also B's.

@motorhead48067

Жыл бұрын

I think you are right. What implications do you think this has for Kastrup’s theory presented here? Does it present a problem for it and if so why?

God bless this man. Analytical idealism will become more accepted in the coming decade. ❤

Fantastic descriptions. Bernardo is on great form here. I particularly enjoyed his equating of appeals to complexity to appeals to miracle, for appealing to complexity is something physicalists do to reinforce their superiority and confound the public, and it is a very effective technique. It is also a way of avoiding the hard problem of consciousness. For example: 'Universal consciousness is a silly concept, it is unscientific. Do you have any idea of how many information processes run in tandem inside the brain? Here, let me display my intellect to you and list them...' *physicalist lists the processes*... 'so you see, though we do not yet understand how consciousness is generated, we surely one day will (and you never will, because you are not technically educated and therefore not qualified to take part in the discourse)' This is how physicalists dodge the argument. I have seen it time and time again.

@PeterIntrovert

Жыл бұрын

I know your pain. There are arrogant people from both sides. But in general I prefer to think that conflict is illusory and people argue about semantics. And this is something we can predict to happen when people take propositional knowing as ultimate answer to question: what is truth. That mean people have different perspectives and are interested in different vocabularities. That's all. If we are one as some theory claim is the case then we argue with ourselfs. ;) For example Daniel Dennett he is a physicalist believing in illusionism. We can find the words you presented in his talks. But I think his thinking is sophisticated to the point that we can call him non-dualist. Both sides tends to share perspective that we live in one world, one reality which is doing something and we are part of this doing. Bernard will talk about patterns of field excitations and dissociations in cosmic mind. And Daniel will describe the same patterns in different terms but refering to matter. I am in some sence pragmatist. "All is consciousness" and "Nothing is consciousness", here we have dissociations, and there we have illutions. Both are good becouse both can be tools to show me patterns of my own functioning and how I can improve upon it. Although I prefere Bernard version better as less problematic. But I think Dennett is on track but he is one flip away from realisation. And it can be pernament becouse he wont let go of his identification as intelectualist becouse that identification work well for him. I think it's ok. He is smart guy and at least he agree that there is no homunculus inside psyche that we need to identify with. For him it's illusion and illusion is a part of material reality as a trick, and for us it's simply reality itself as a fragmented mental something.

@josephgrace4725

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your reply! I agree that arguments are often due to semantic confusion or mismatch-everyone stumbles after the truth in their own way! I’ve never checked out Daniel Dennet. I’ve heard he’s a good writer... I have just seen in my own life where materialism leads... it leads to broken families and depression from lack of meaning. There are some types who seem to thrive in a materialist culture, career and work orientated types, intellectual types, if they have a good family. But I’m interested to see how they fare with age. Maybe I’m wrong! Maybe we should all just get used to a blind, material universe; I just don’t see how the gap between theoretical matter and quailia is bridged.

@PeterIntrovert

Жыл бұрын

@@josephgrace4725 Thank you too for a spark of inspiration. :) As a humans we are looking on reality through fabric of meainings. I see materialism as patch to cover space that we don't understand but also don't want a hole in that place. It's useful but it's not original and not the most coherent and substansial fabric. Some people believe the patch is all we need to know and think of and other people can recognize it's only a patch and even not the most coherent one with rest of the fabric. Non the less it's useful for now for practical reasons. You touched on the topic of meaning crisis that is present in our age. The symptoms of it are: deficitcs in sources of wisdom, nihilism, and degradation in quality of life - from the human potential point of view. It's a very complex topic but I think the reason that not everyone is affected by it to the same degree isn't only becouse some people had the means to protect themself but also becouse something I learned from "positive disintegration" theory. Psychics of some people are integrated on very shallow level of complexicity. The integration in them is strong but not very complex. Their functioning is not as demanding as for people with a more complex and less integreated psyche. It's not very diplomatic to say this but I will give you this example: We don't see a lot of dogs and cats with worldview and existential problems. :] The same goes for a lot of humans, they will adapt to whatever circumstances occur by relying one proven heuristics that we are evolved to use. Structure of the inner world will be constructed only to succed in environment and by any means gain advantage over other agents and they wont be concerned with bigger picture and wont have dilemmas that other people will struggle with. I guess model of Spiral Dynamics will work as well to demonstrate this.

the only certainty I can be sure of is how I see things. how things actually are I couldn't really say.

I suggest Bernado analyze how the force on a body is an information influence that causes acceleration across space. And that the space is information to any mass constantly informing the mass how to behave. Saying there is only the cosmic consciousness (a behaving universe) is an unsatisfying high-level view. Instead of asking what is conscious, he skips the need for a definition by saying everything is conscious. Then people ask how a hydrogen atom is conscious, and his answer so far is that it's conscious because it's what the universe does. His video on what are the benefits or consequences of knowing that there is nothing physical: I don't know if it makes much difference knowing that. He doesn't even gloss over the word ''information". The model in a human brain of reality is informational. The universe has information, then dissociations like humans create and disseminate information. The right information might be the proximate cause of a man to move mountains.

I say consciousness is living a mind wake. We are primarily consciousness and living a mind wake.

Kastrup is very interesting.... I mean the dissociation of the universe called Kastrup !

@attilaszekeres7435

Жыл бұрын

The name is Kastrup. Bernardo Kastrup.

@francisdebriey3609

Жыл бұрын

@@attilaszekeres7435 corrected..

11:48 For those who can’t find the science in this video. You’re welcome.

Bernardo goes from saying that an external observer of the brain activity is a second person perspective of someone inner life to saying that the brain -has- is a second person perspective of someone inner life, that is not logically sounds to me, because those two entities are not equivalent. You can't exludes that the brains itself creates the experience, and so it's no longer a second person perspective of the experience, but the experience itself.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

i think bernardo maybe conflates brain and percaption of brain. sometimes when he says he brain he means the brain that is made of the same stuff as the rest of the physical universe, and sometimes he means the appearance of a brain in someone's experience of observing a brain. however just want to add that brain creating experience does not mean or imply brain creates consciousness in the sense that brains are required for consciousness

Graphics are dim and out of focus, rather like my following of Mr. Kastrup's metaphysics.

15:00 this is the funniest part, this is the second thief but was the first one of a group of thieves who found the treasure on closer to truth KZread channel, the cooperated later together (theft). I think this one attracted his attention to what is written on closer to truth KZread channel. I think that was in 2020

ripples in water are not only water. It is water being acted upon by a force. The ripples are a message signifying the source, the strength and duration of the force applied to it. anyway its an analogy of an imperfect model of reality so its OK. I get it.

Thank you Bernardo - BUT..your opening sentence I believe is at odds with true non-duality, you said: "there is no experience without an experiencer", but.. The experiencer and the experienced which is duality, can merge into just experience, without subject/object. Likewise, the seer and the seen can merge into 'seeing' with no duality, no subject /object. It could be just a problem of language? Maybe you'd also agree with these statements? Warm regards Colin

@alexanderdenheijer565

Жыл бұрын

Later in the video he does state that experience and that which experiences are one.

The first thing he says is that there's no experience without the experiencer, but this undermines one of the major insights by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and other non-dualists like Sri Ramana Maharshi and Jiddu Krishnamurti, for whom the division between experience and experiencer is merely conceptual, not actual. We can see in ourselves that the 'experiencer' is the ego, the false, and that when awareness falls upon itself it finds itself to be nothing, or no thing. So this statement violates the most immediate facts about consciousness that can be known through meditation or self-enquiry.

@studiojake5253

Жыл бұрын

"We can see in ourselves that the 'experiencer' is the ego" Huh what?! Isn't it true that there's *only* experiencing ?

@antrewt

Жыл бұрын

@@studiojake5253 Exactly, so there's no experiencer. That's why I put it in inverted commas. The experiencer, the ego, is an illusion. It is just thought. It is, as I said, purely conceptual, non-actual.

@Miculjka

10 ай бұрын

@@antrewt The ego is not the experiencer, it is the content. Consider this: What is the difference between consciousness and awareness? The difference is the biggest possible. Advaita Vedanta says this is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION. Awareness is first - consciousness is derivative. Awareness is pure - consciousness is mixed. Awareness is immanent - consciousness is bounded. Awareness is silence - consciousness is noise. Awareness is truth - consciousness is illusory. Awareness is one - consciousness is two. Awareness is perfect - consciousness is lacking. Awareness is immaterial - consciousness is matter. Awareness is Self - consciousness is ego. Awareness is God - consciousness is God’s manifestation. But the above does not amount to an answer. The ancients set down these descriptions but warned that they are not the keys to enlightenment. These concepts are merely to persuade the intellect and allure the heart that awareness should be sought and consciousness eschewed. THE ANSWER We cannot be given the answer. Why? Because the answer is not found in any operation of consciousness. Only awareness will fulfill the heart and intellect. To give logic and emotions to the mind that wants truth is like giving pictures of food to the hungry. SOLUTION No solution needed. We directly realize awareness all the time. Everyone insists they are here, now, and aware. No more awareness of awareness is possible. But consciousness can be made quieter, so that awareness can become resplendent. When one meditates and relaxes, awareness remains unchanged but appears to become more “noticeable” due to the noise level coming down. As we come closer and closer to deep quiescence, we begin to see silence as more real than noise. At some point, identity toggles. We flip from being conscious to being aware. That’s the enlightenment paradigm shift. That’s the sole answer to the above question.

@Miculjka

10 ай бұрын

​@@antrewt Anyway, I see it as a superposition of two layers: the First layer is the universal silent Observer, the reality beyond content (pure silence), the Awareness, which is immanent, invariant, without any attributes, non-lacking in principle, the ground of Being. The second layer, that is superimposed, and causes all this confusion, is the realm of content, the ever-changing Consciousness. These two layers unite in Atman (or trinitarian Christian Son), which unites the Observer with the observed. Reality is non-dual, only the Existence/Being is real, but in practical terms, when one wants to describe reality from our POV, there always emerges a Trinity, in one form or another. One such allegory (remember that all of this is a mere plethora of linguistic conceptual models, not reality itself) could be: There is only one true reality, the Existence itself, and all separation is illusory, BUT, for practical purposes, our individual lives could be described in a way that consists of a “practical Trinity”: 1. “The Awareness” (Christian "Father", Vedantic "Brahman") as the screen of perception, the ultimate silent Observer, permanent and invariant (unchangeable), non-lacking in principle, reality beyond any content, the ground of Being, prior to spacetime and content, etc. 2. “The Son” (Vedantic "Atman") as the localized perspective, encapsulating both the pure Awareness beyond any content, i.e. the ultimate silent Observer, AND the flow of life, the playground of Consciousness. He is lost in that superposition until He “awakens”. In fact, this superposition happens exactly in/through the Son. I have put the definite article, "the Son", because there is only one "I", which we all share. He is "the victim" of an illusory separation and multiplication, but in reality, He remains One with the Father/Brahman/Śūnyatā. The "I" is the universal subject, and He simultaneously experiences infinite Paths. The Path(s) is an allegory for His expedition into the realm of Consciousness, but the end of His Path is the same as the beginning, the Awareness/Father/Brahman, and thus the veil of ignorance falls. I think that "the parable of the lost Son" describes exactly that, the Son's Path/ His exploration of the realm of Consciousness. Also, since time is an illusion, the beginning and the end are illusory as well: the Son thinks He exists in the realm of spacetime, until He awakens and realizes the eternity of "here and now", and an illusory nature of spacetime, impermanence, and death (this is very similar to the Parmenides' philosophy). Some famous quotes come to mind here, e.g. "Tat tvam asi"; “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); and also the fundamental "formula" of Vedantic philosophy: "Atman = Brahman". 3. “The Consciousness” ("the Holy Spirit"/"Prakṛti"), the flow of Life, the fullness of infinite Consciousness, the white light of life falling on the screen of perception (the Father). In this allegory “the Son”, or rather the Son's every Path (the infinity of Paths), would be like a specific, individual crystal, through which the white light of the Holy Spirit passes, thus forming a particular image or motion picture on the screen of perception that lies behind, but remains invariant (unchangeable). An interesting fact here is that the act of observation influences the observed content, not only in quantum mechanics, but also in our direct experience: when a thought emerges from the Void, it depends on attention (i.e. being observed) to evolve into a stream of thoughts, otherwise it returns to the Void rather quickly (most people had that experience when something came up in their mind, but they couldn't remember it few minutes later). If you wonder what Prakṛti is: according to Dan Lusthaus, "In Sāṃkhya puruṣa signifies the observer, the 'witness'. Prakṛti includes all the cognitive, moral, psychological, emotional, sensorial and physical aspects of reality. It is often mistranslated as 'matter' or 'nature' - in non-Sāṃkhyan usage it does mean 'essential nature' - but that distracts from the heavy Sāṃkhyan stress on prakṛti's cognitive, mental, psychological and sensorial activities. Moreover, subtle and gross matter are its most derivative byproducts, not its core. Only prakṛti acts." Therefore, there is no act of creation, and no “creator God”. God (the Awareness/Father/Brahman) is a “non-doer”, which makes sense since he is invariant, and non-lacking in principle, thus requiring or having no will. Everything in the realm of consciousness/content is a spontaneous play, a happening, without a beginning or an end.

Love him or hate him, Sam Harris has a great line on the power of clear reasoning: “If my reasons for what I believe are good enough, you will helplessly believe what I believe.” I can’t claim to be certain that Kastrup is wrong here, but I was not at all convinced by this presentation. I don’t find myself helplessly adopting his worldview because he has explained it so clearly and convincingly. It was rather like a muddle where some things made sense and some didn’t, and many of the premises were delivered as though self-evident when really they could’ve used justification of their own. There were a couple questionable leaps in logic and Kastrup never even attempted to explain the mechanism of supposed dissociation from the cosmic mind. If you want to believe Kastrup is right prior to listening, he offers enough here to justify your worldview, but I don’t think he offers enough to actually convince anyway who doesn’t already share some view similar to his. It was certainly not a clarifying explanation. Perhaps I’m not intelligent enough to have understood it, but I am in the 99th percentile according to standardized tests so 🤷‍♂️. I think Kastrup needs to do more here.

@billorcg7779

Жыл бұрын

Kastrup has never offered a scientific explanation for dissociation within the cosmic mind. Instead he relies on an analogy with dissociation within the human mind (which is well documented in psychiatric research). So if the human mind can dissociate, so too can the cosmic mind.

@aidanhall6679

Жыл бұрын

Maybe your occupying the 99th percentile contributes to your incredulity, maybe your intellectual rigour belies your hopes of a compelling theory because you’re trying to pull the territory out of a map. Just how many physicalist models do we need to realise that essence does not, indeed cannot be derived from descriptive parameters? How hard do we need to think before we’ve convinced ourselves that maybe the problem isn’t our imagination, it’s our assumptions? A problem cannot be solved at the same level that created it. Intellect often leads us astray here, in fact, Im convinced the self-defeating propensity for overcomplication is most salient in philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

“If my reasons for what I believe are good enough, you will helplessly believe what I believe.” i agree with this in the context of free will. in cases where you say something i am compelled by, i cannot help to be compelled or convinced. however seems to me what's often the case is good arguments are presented, yet people still irrationally don't accept those arguments. i'm not saying this is the case for this video i'm just disagreeing with the claim that “If my reasons for what I believe are good enough, you will helplessly believe what I believe.” "I was not at all convinced by this presentation" im not sure the point of the presentation was to present a convincing case or argument for his view. i rather take it as an alternative interpretation to the mainstream narratives. "many of the premises were delivered as though self-evident when really they could’ve used justification of their own." like which premises? "There were a couple questionable leaps in logic" can you give an example? "Kastrup never even attempted to explain the mechanism of supposed dissociation from the cosmic mind. " he does in the beginning his phd thesis defense, like 5 min into it, which is available on youtube. does he do it convincingly? i dont know. even if it doesn't make sense, though, i'm not sure it makes sense to default to non-idealist materialism. i don't even see that as an intelligible proposition.

When this talk took place?

@attilaszekeres7435

Жыл бұрын

Either May 24-29, 2015 Titignano Castle, Italy, or Oct 21-25, 2015 Hayes Mansion, San Jose, California.

Why is the screen of perception so blurry?

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

impaired vision?

we do not experience the world as it is. It is only a model of the world that is required to survive in a given environment. The brain only perceives the elements and forces affecting survival as a species and ignores all else.

@jorgegarciapla6880

7 ай бұрын

The world as it is, which is supposed to be different from the model, must necessarily be an abstraction, that is, an experience in consciousness. The model and the supposed objective world are two particular experiences in consciousness. That is the central body of what Kastrup explains.

The ripples in the water are a function of the molecule of water. If you did not know it was water by conducting experiments on the ripples (frequency, amplitude) forces involved (gravity, mass of the rock, acceleration of the rock) you could figure out that it is an h20 molecule in a liquid state. Just like by testing the responses of the brain to external influences that it is a brain. In both circumstances the water can only react as water and the brain can only react as it does. So, yes the brain and the water responses are a representation of matter in the universe and nothing more. The question given enough probing (on an individual basis) can you predict a conscious experience from a set of stimuli... yes because it is a function of the universe.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

A conscious experience may be a function of the universe, but that does not mean or imply that consciousness is a function of the universe. It's very different

Is the observable universe the 2nd person dissociative boundary between our 2nd person view of God and the rest of God's mind? There's like nested dissociative boundaries for different dissociated minds in the universe.

5:55

🕊14:47

I can sure follow Kastrup’s believes and explanation better than years ago (or maybe he’s doing a better job at it 😬), and tend to understandingly believe/know his apostle like defended believes. But if all this is what it is, it almost gives rise to a set of “rules” that must be followed or it gives complete freedom to consciousness to consciously create your experiences and if so why is there such a shitty World out there, with pain and suffering? We all seek or better, long for love and happiness, why does the longing “create” almost the opposite on a Worldly base, except maybe some individual happy lives or moments in someone’s live? Or is it the set of rules that plays these experiences for us and are we mere a conscious bystander?

@conscious_choice

Жыл бұрын

I once was given the question when do you feel the most being your real self. It is when I love (from the heart). So when I am love and everyone is that bc of the oneness of the universe or God or the real self, then it follows that when I experience something opposite to love in a dissociation then the dissociation is different from it's source which can't happen bc there's nothing outside of it (oneness). This means that it's an illusion although experienced through a dissociated perspective as true. The oneness, the real self is not affected. And "dying" is not the solution bc the mind will likely still be dissociated then. Awakening to your true self and stopping to identify with a dissociated image is the solution

@andrewphoenix3609

11 ай бұрын

​@@conscious_choiceIsn't the perceived suffering in society today a result of further dissociation brought on by the fear mongering of a global new world order. If the dissociative selves are pitched against each other to create further dissociation them it takes us further away from the cosmic mind. Psychiatric wards are filling up with people suffering ever greater dissociation, suicide is increasing across all age groups. This should tell us something about the morality of the new world order that is intrinsically working against god.

Is the meta verse an attempt at dissociation of our TWE?

@jorgegarciapla6880

7 ай бұрын

Metaverse and internet is the extrapolation of the dissociative illusion.

So, it (reality) is just a projection/sideshow(the man behind the curtain). This is a Simpson's episode, Bernardo. Maybe made, maybe just imagined. You sell* and merchandise Idealism like an Amway presentation. Where do I get a starter kit? Those archaic materialists are so last eon.

@ulrikewermann1268

Жыл бұрын

it would be easier to admit, that you did not understand what he said.

@PLERF

Жыл бұрын

@@ulrikewermann1268 And you, what I said. Ironic times need ironic minds. I hope there is one,(sic) somewhere on the control panel.

@ulrikewermann1268

Жыл бұрын

@@PLERF negativism is not irony

The reason why this is never going to be accepted by the power that be (Academia, etc), is that it instantly dissolves the moment it accepts it!

Spinoza

Not that I disagree with the cosmos having intelligence or experience in some way, but comparing a human brain to the structure of the universe by saying they're pretty much the same thing is way off. There's no analogue for neurotransmitters in the universe, the gaps between galaxies and the synaptic gap aren't comparable since the two gap types aren't on the same scale with each other, meaning the size and proximity of neurons is large when compared to the synaptic gaps but the size and proximity of galaxies is tinny compared to the gaps between them, the brain functions in service to a larger being, it's body, while no such being has been detected with which the universe is serving, and finally we can detect the electric signals in the brain and there are tons of them happening all the time but we don't see the same communication with the galaxies. Yes, things do travel between galaxies but it's just a miniscule amount. Again, I'm allowing for the universe to be conscious I'm just saying galaxies and neurons aren't very similar save for some visual elements.

@heinzditer7286

Жыл бұрын

I would also be careful with this comparison with this cosmic brain thing. But lets say there is a connection. Maybe the information that travels through this cosmic structure is just light itself. It will take much more time obviously. Light doesn't experience time. So maybe thats why people who experienced NDEs say that the experience felt like an eternity.

When I look at your pictures of ìnterconnecting neurons it looks the same as the pictures of mycelium interconnecting beneath the surface of the soil and pictures of the human brain likewise. It seems to be the pattern of life

So I completely subscribe to most of the theory...I keep wondering however how the dissociative boundary works in nature... The simplest and most complex life forms must have such a boundary...are they different for each type of life...seems too complicated. So, if they are very similar then what can make them so across all life forms. Human beings have 20k-30k genes with close to 3B base pairs... while the simplest life form know is in the gut of goats naturally having only 525 genes, I've read, and scientists have experimented and removed genes from that total to a measly 473 genes... 79 of these genes are a complete mystery as far as function. Could these be the 'magic' genes necessary for dissociation? Do those genes exist in every other living creature? Or is this getting too complicated still...as genes and their interactions are complicated and essentially make proteins. So what IS common to all living things....carbon based chemical infrastructure and a lipid cell membrane...perhaps that's it in a nutshell...or in a membrane encase sack...perhaps the lipid bi-layer is IT. How would one test such a theory?

@heinzditer7286

Жыл бұрын

I don't know if this is pseudoscience, but, there is proof that living cells emit weak coherent light. And i don't talk about bioluminescence. Maybe Photons have something to do with consciousness, experiences due to some kind of information transfer. I know it sounds a bit esoteric, but maybe thats why people who experience NDEs always experience these beings made of light and how they are merging with the light.

Seen a few videos of this gentleman but I am afraid I won't be wasting anymore time here. Good luck though.

All well and good. How does this stuff pay my mortgage or any other bills for that matter?

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

Are you expecting this to pay your bills?

@TheKingWhoWins

7 ай бұрын

​@@highvalence7649truly a question for the ages

4:42 flawed reasoning: because he postulates brains have conciousness, and the material world is the same category of matter as the brain, it must be concious(ness) Or I misunderstand this and he means to say because the physical brain is the second person perspective on a first persons experience, that then syllogistically the universe must have a second person perspective too: which would be the meta-universe (or what he would like the call God, which actually is nothing new and kind of the basic definition of God as the highest substance right?), or it should be the second person perspective (like the brain) and then internally it must have similarly conciousness. Materialism sounds more parsimonious Also sounds very Spinoza to me, literally (1632 or something), substance, attributes, modes; but then with a slight tweak between the two attributes of mind and matter in a slightly different fashion. I'm a fan, but it's oldfashioned And yes I read and love the upanishads and the bhagavadgita

@yiranimal

Жыл бұрын

Solipsism would be even more parsimonious still. This 'second person' business is mere conjecture. :) Contrary to what some here in the comments suggest, I don't find any of Castrup's reasoning clear. Certainly not parsimonious in its demands of my energy to work through these vague statements stemming from questionable premises. Perhaps I'm being harsh because I'm annoyed by his style but he reminds me of Slavoj Zizek. Of course many claim to understand Zizek and hail him s a genius; yet Noam Chomsky, preeminent linguist, says he doesn't find anything in his work you couldn't more clearly explain to a child in 5 minutes. Castrup seems to be reiterating pretty common fair for spiritual seekers, and then proposing complicated, nebulous reasoning to support what we want to believe. Castrup claims to not be spiritually inclined, that he arrived at his conclusions through hard-nosed sleuthing. Yet here he is presenting at a SAND conference, quoting Nisargadatta and Rupert Spira. I see him as someone seeking an avant-guard, intellectual niche, and we Seekers of Oneness are easy pickings.

@Robinson8491

Жыл бұрын

@@yiranimal they say if you want to be a famous philosopher you need to pick a debatable stance. He is surely succeeding in that

@motorhead48067

Жыл бұрын

@@yiranimal I felt exactly the same watching this. I know what it’s like to have an intellectual explain a complex topic, and even a complex topic I had never even heard of before, in startlingly clear terms with reasoning that is easy to follow and premises that are self-evident or are at least given clear justification. Kastrup’s explanation did not feel that way at all. I felt like I had to do most of the work of understanding it and of trying to justify his premises for him. I’m not saying he’s wrong, but this did not have any clarifying power.

It is not true that artificial sentience starts from a pan-psychic hypothesis. In fact, it is quit the opposite: Artificial sentience is commonly viewed as an emergent phenomenon, in which sentience emerges at some level of complexity. It is intellectually dishonest and misleading to suggest otherwise.

@namero999

Жыл бұрын

It is misleading to claim that complexity gives rise to qualities. Either explain how, or keep absurd claims for yourself.

@rikkerthindriks3478

Жыл бұрын

@@namero999 How (and if) sentience might emerge from complexity is besides the point. My point is that it is dishonest and misleading to suggest that all research on artificial sentience starts form a pan-psychic hypothesis (e.g. the theory of Rodolfo Llinas does not start from such hypothesis).

Why doesn't the cosmic consciousness have nothing but mentality? Because there is nothing else. Whatever we see as being matter is an excitation of the cosmic consciousness. Science describes how particles of matter are excitations of universal unexplained fields. So matter is just something that happens in the universe. What did I miss in proving there's no physical matter and physical objects don''t exist?

Do we REALLY know that consciousness exists? There is the appearance of being conscious. But that could just be an illusory epiphenomenon tied in with the illusory feeling of being someone. And why is the apparent experience of being conscious turned into a thing called "consciousness"? Breathing happens but we don't then assume that the universe is pervaded by this thing called breathness. Consciousness is a mystery because consciousness does not exist. Scientists are right to wonder what is the point of creating conscious beings. There is not only no point, it is an impossibility. Conscious experience is an illusion. Andthe self is another ilkusory expression of the same phenomena. To top it off our whole sense of an illusory self is without cause or meaning. To feel oneself to be someone isto be in a dream state. Humanity, as a whole is asleep in the dream of being a separate self, feeling this separate self to be conscious, to have free will, to be in a real, purposeful, intelligent, known, understandable, and to some extent controllable universe. But it is all just a dream.

@chrispmar

7 ай бұрын

@@jorgegarciapla6880 I use to believe all that you say. No longer. Subjectivity can be doubted. Here, there is great doubt that the self exists.

@chrispmar

7 ай бұрын

@@jorgegarciapla6880 What's TWE? What's it mean to exist? To not exist? From no separation what meaning does ANY concept have, even the idea of no separation?

cauliflower looks like a brain too

Here is the real non dual non-perspective.

🦋🙏🧩🌈🪷💎🤩🛸🌟

Major flaw: When a rock looks at a rock, nothing happens because we assume it doesn't have conciousness. However when someone with a brain looks at someone with a brain, suddenly we speak of matter having second person perspective on itself, and therefore the entire universe must be like this (and also have a second person perspective and be concious.) Cherry-pick much? Then why is a brain different from a rock (in having experience or not), if not in a material way by its physical structure? Q.e.d. sorry Zoals een vriend ooit tegen mij inbracht bij soortgelijke gedachte : "mijn jas past in mijn tas, ik pas in mijn jas, dus ik pas in mijn tas"...

@kolskit

Жыл бұрын

When a kidney stone looks at a kidney stone, nothing happens because we assume it doesn't have consciousness. Yet that kidney stone is formed within a system that is obviously conscious. We don't expect that because some parts of nature are the representatives of explicit, conscious activity that all parts of nature have to be equally conscious. Regardless, the slow movements of atoms over millions or billions of years (such as churning molten rock that eventually cools and then later melts again) may very well be the visible activity of a larger conscious agent. Whether it is metacognitive is something else entirely. Kastrup is only saying that viewing the fundamental nature of the universe as mental works without having to play a lot of fabulous (mental) games.

nice meow meow

This isn’t related to the subject of this video but very important for all (no exaggeration at all) it is about self concept, personal identity, consciousness type one and type two,.. etc Closer to truth KZread channel: 3 Nov 2022 How do human brain works? they usually leave my comments for a while then hide them later (that happens since 2019) to find them later in books or interviews, they claim that they own what they have stolen and polluted! You need to watch the KZread video to understand. The mechanism is very complicated regarding the function of both sides together, both consciousness type one and personal identity generated in both sides of the brain simultaneously, very likely personal identity (the main simulation of self concept happen in the right side and uses the left side to complete the process of both consciousness type one and personal identity (cooperation with the left side) this is very likely correct for a reason “because this model matches the features of consciousness type two” so comparing self concept and consciousness type two as part of it, the left side adds important features to consciousness process of consciousness type one, yeah so weird, there is complete simulation to self concept and consciousness type two but add kind of precision through left side, far more complicated than that but very likely this is very close (in general). and no doubt that there a map of infinitesimal details of the whole body and any malfunction could cause many phenomena such as phantom limbs,…etc there is a process of generating both personal identity and consciousness type one, unbelievable it’s kind of regenerating both self concept and consciousness type two, even though consciousness type two is more complicated and advanced but what is going on in the left hemisphere makes it more specialised. Correct (in general correct to high percentage). I think the precise mechanism of consciousness type one could take up to two thousands of years (hard scientific work of multi-generations)! that will need more advanced mathematics, physics, …… etc. both hemispheres are not really independent, they work together but somewhat the right side is more important because of personal identity. 17:00 split personality probably is related to the process of generating personal identity not really because how both hemispheres work independently To concise: both sides work together to generate personal identity and complete consciousness type one, there partial speciality but at the end they should complete each other (there something else) 19:00 There’s something missing , no way to talk about that, but the process is more complicated than that (unbelievable) but in general what I have wrote is very likely accurate enough. 12:30 is important point (simulation of self concept which is so-called personal identity) 16:00 very important, the process of generating consciousness requires self concept (all I have wrote is very likely correct) What I have wrote must reach future generations. 14:00 brain stem -> limbic system ~> both hemispheres (Limbic system) 13:00 there’s outcome of the whole process at the end 10:00 that matches what I have wrote 20:00 there is something missing for sure will keep it ambiguous for long time in future because there’s something essential is missing makes their interpretations incomplete and incorrect. 19:30 there is something else far more complicated and advanced in the whole process makes it murky (useless to talk about it This is about Time Closer to truth KZread channel 5 days ago Julian Barbour - Which Laws of Nature are Fundamental Amin Omar- 5 days ago Dirac was right in his wondering about …… it is essential to connect both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels) for deeper understanding including entanglement and so-called superposition, space, time, gravity,….etc Amin Omar- 5 days ago It’s not about shapes, some shapes are important at subatomic level but that comes later…..(no one can jump to the last step on the ladder of science without deeper understanding of the basics!) Amin Omar- 5 days ago the real meaning of numbers in different scales, the relationship between space, time, velocity, force, …… gravity. constants are not just a numbers (numbers have meaning) ….. there is a lot of work to do. I think that could take up to hundreds of years to reach a good level enough to open the gate of science. physics reached its limits, patching techniques will never work any more (physics needs deeper understanding first of all to be able to make real progress). Amin Omar- 5 days ago Time is the result of calculating process that requires an action and space. that means the real problem is in space and how it does emerge, understanding space will need better understanding of numbers (constants and its role) probably what is going on in atomic clocks in different gravitational fields is related to how gravity affects particles not to time itself as an independent dimension. a lot of work to do, opening the gate of science will need real hard worker scientists , that will take time, I think up to hundreds of years of continuous hard work and cooperation (no wars among the irrationals„they have nothing to fight each other for!’). and before that, will, vision and wisdom, and away from the destructive irrational meanness. Amin Omar- 5 days ago Angle and curve has to do with one of the important constants, ancient humans…. Time does exist, they are wondering and confused because they don’t understand what is time. but time isn’t independent! Amin Omar- 5 days ago 1:50 time is not an independent dimension as he mentioned, what he is talking about is the process of calculating time (time is not independent as a process, its relationship with space, action, velocity,….. etc) and very likely that the interpretation of equivalent principle is incorrect too,…. Amin Omar- 5 days ago Physics needs revision, using a nee revolutionary way of thinking,… former scientists did a good work (valuable ) but incomplete because of the lack of deep understanding of the fundamentals, incomplete doesn’t mean invaluable! Amin Omar- 5 days ago 2:00 don’t understand that there a process of space and time creation, ….. too early for that (better to focus on how to connect both subatomic level and cosmological level to have deeper understanding of what’s going on, ….. this already was mentioned years ago here on this KZread channel…! Amin Omar- 5 days ago He talks about one of the constants unknowingly! that has to do with both space and infinity,….. they want to run forward without understanding the basics of physics! by the way I have already talked about a model of connecting both subatomic level and cosmological level,… the angle and rotation to understanding some constants,…. that was mentioned here on this KZread channel too ! Amin Omar- 5 days ago They use patching techniques, that could help to solve simple problems but not helpful to solve fundamental problems!

@namero999

Жыл бұрын

Lol

There are always people in the audience who laugh inappropriately.It’s to bring attention to themselves…annoying.

Lee Cronin Donald Hofman Michael Levin Joscha Bach Terence McKenna.... now im unshakable by NPC thoughts others or my own its so simple people dont believe u😂😵‍💫

The thief replaced human terms with his irrational terms mixed with sophistry and pollution to hide the theft crimes he committed! you can not understand without watching what the thief was saying before the theft.

@namero999

Жыл бұрын

You are making no sense..

Buy the thief’s book, hurry up!

Absolute bullshit. ;-)

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

Sound refutation

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 There is no rule on the internet that we have to touch every bullshit that gets posted. We are allowed to call out the stench and then to move on. ;-)

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477sure you are allowed to do that just like I am allowed to in a sarcastic way point out that no rebuttal was offered. And you keep saying it's bullshit and stench when that's something that's being questioned.

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 There is no rebuttal to bullshit. No matter how you look at it, it remains a gooey, smelly substance. ;-)

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 you can say that about anything. 1+1=2. there is no rebuttal to that because no matter how you look at it, it remains a gooey, smelly substance.

All what this thief is trying to say is enough proof that this thief has read then stolen and polluted human thoughts.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

What's with this theif narrative? What's that about?

@aminomar7890

Жыл бұрын

@@highvalence7649 this is one of the irrational thieves, he used thievery as patching techniques to hide his theft crimes similar to car thieves who repaint the stolen cars to hide theft theft crimes, take a look at these sick irrational thieves, they used blunt theft: vervaeke the thief, gregg henriques the thief, try to think, what they share and how! revelations from the sky, why they don't acuse each other of theft ?! this one has collected all I have written in psychology: Noga Arikha. and many other irrational thieves. try to watch what they were saying before three years ago, then notice what has changed suddenly, try to think what they share! do you think that human is jealous of bunch of thief apes?! human never make false accusations against apes! I have noticed that they are not humans! they don't feel shame like humans because that require morals, values, principles and mind to maintain them. I already warned the sick irrational thief apes from the beginning: don't steal and pollute human thoughts, human write only for the sake of future generations.

19:30 he is a simple Hallucinator and big irrational big thief: consciousness is generated in the brain through a very complex process concurrently with so-called personal identity. there’s no imaginary universal consciousness as the irrational Hallucinator thief marketing for.

@dontfollowthinkforyourself

Жыл бұрын

Hi Amin Omar what is your philosophical view point ? can you be more spesific in your reasoning on why you dont agree with Bernardo and why your view or opinion is more valid ?

@namero999

Жыл бұрын

Oh so you are a religious? You just believe that consciousness is generated in the brain, or you know? Of you know, explain.

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

How do you know that consciousness is generated in the brain? Is that something you have evidence or rational arguments for, or is it just an irrational faith-based belief?

@aminomar7890

Жыл бұрын

​@@highvalence7649 this is one of the irrational thieves, he used thievery as patching techniques to hide his theft crimes similar to car thieves who repaint the stolen cars to hide theft theft crimes, take a look at these sick irrational thieves, they used blunt theft: vervaeke the thief, gregg henriques the thief, try to think, what they share and how! revelations from the sky, why they don't acuse each other of theft ?! this one has collected all I have written in psychology: Noga Arikha. and many other irrational thieves. try to watch what they were saying before three years ago, then notice what has changed suddenly, try to think what they share! do you think that human is jealous of bunch of thief apes?! human never make false accusations against apes! I have noticed that they are not humans! they don't feel shame like humans because that require morals, values, principles and mind to maintain them. I already warned the sick irrational thief apes from the beginning: don't steal and pollute human thoughts, human write only for the sake of future generations.

@aminomar7890

Жыл бұрын

try to think: why too many thieves appeared suddenly (have stolen the same thing) they cooperate in theft but never accuse each other of theft ! watch what they were saying about three years ago then make a comparison (revelations from the sky!), some of them used blunt theft, others used thievery as patching techniques and some others used a mixture.

Nice try. Total fail.

@chandruishwar1

Жыл бұрын

That's what your mom said to your dad when you were born?

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

What did he supposedly fail at accomplishing?

Utter nonsense

@Shane7492

Жыл бұрын

Please try to do better so we can benefit from your omniscience.

@philosophicast2122

Жыл бұрын

Any specific objections?

@seraVmiskiel

Жыл бұрын

Please elaborate.

@namero999

Жыл бұрын

What, materialism?

@ulrikewermann1268

Жыл бұрын

hm, no good news for the ego, isn´t it?

This is a thief.

@namero999

Жыл бұрын

How so?

Speculative, nothing but speculation. The only thing we know is that consciousness is a function of brains. Whether consciousness can arise from other complex entities is just speculation.

@Miculjka

Жыл бұрын

Consciousness is invariant, never-changing, while brain is an ever-changing transient entity. How could something that constantly changes give rise to something invariant?

@highvalence7649

Жыл бұрын

I doubt we know consciousness is a function of brains as opposed to it being something we merely assume or speculate about. How have you come to the conclusion that consciousness is a function of brains?

so god or universal brain is suffering from dis-associative disorder