"Your Consciousness is Not in Your Head." | Interview with BERNARDO KASTRUP, PhD
BERNARDO KASTRUP, PHD is Philosopher and Founder of the Essential Foundation in the Netherlands.
Have you ever wondered about the existential nature of consciousness and reality? How can purely quantitative, mathematical physical entities give rise to our beautifully rich experience of qualitative perceptions such as colours, the sense of smell, or the feeling of rain on your skin?
Discover an introductory blog article by Simon Jost from OPEN Foundation that introduces Kastrup's thought-provoking views on consciousness and conceptualizes the bridge between analytical idealism and psychedelics.
Enjoy and dive in: "Beyond physics: exploring consciousness with Bernardo Kastrup's Analytical Idealism" - open-foundation.org/beyond-ph...
Want to join an exclusive presentation on Analytic Idealism and a live Q&A session with Bernardo Kastrup? Sign up here to join on March 27th: open-foundation.org/events/on...
Recorded at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research (ICPR) 2022, in Haarlem, The Netherlands.
ICPR 2024 Tickets are available now:
www.icpr-conference.com/
Filmed by Drugreporter - Rights Reporter Foundation
Reporter: Péter Sárosi
Video: István Gábor Takács
drugreporter.net
Questions:
0:00 Intro
0:05 What is your criticism about the interpretation of brain imaging studies?
1:31 What is a universal consciousness? How do you define that?
2:20 Are your views close to Spinoza's views?
4:58 What can we learn about reality from the cases of people suffering from dissociative disorders?
6:47 If I understand you correctly, psychedelics kind of reverse this dissociation. Can you explain how they fit into your worldview?
8:19 Is there any empirical research which could prove your theory of reality? Is there any kind of research which could do that?
9:55 How do you see the role of psychedelics in the future? What can they do to human civilization?
10:50 Are you optimistic about the future of humankind in general?
11:05 Could your theory bring us towards the question of why my consciousness is in my head and your consciousness is yours?
Is consciousness not in your head? Ask Bernardo Kastrup directly in an upcoming exclusive presentation on Analytic Idealism and a live Q&A session. Sign up here to join on March 27th: open-foundation.org/events/online/kastrup-idealism-live/ Also, discover an introductory blog article by Simon Jost from OPEN Foundation that introduces Kastrup's thought-provoking views on consciousness and conceptualizes the bridge between analytical idealism and psychedelics: open-foundation.org/beyond-physics-exploring-consciousness-with-bernardo-kastrups-analytical-idealism/
Kastrup is one of the foremost thinkers of our time- also a superb communicator
Agreed!
max tegmark tho.... isn't he like 100 times smarter than kastrup? >_> sorry for my beyonce/kanye moment. I just think... kastrup is a perspectivist, philosophically. That's as contrasted to a objectivist... which considers all possible subjective frames... :D
@@dmitrysamoilov5989 I have never heard of max tegmark but just from reading your comment the answer is no
That really makes me question how many thinkers do you actually know.
@@spiralmoment can you name 4 of your favorite? assuming that you know any
This is so refreshing, such an articulate rendering of the nature of consciousness, it ticks all the boxes for me.
Absolutely marvellous expose of this gentleman. It lifts a veil from our eyes. Very coherent.
The most interesting to me is to acknowledge how intertwined are Bernardo's words with the teachings of Rupert Spira and the scientific research of Donald Hoffman. We're surely on a pivotal moment of (the materialist) paradigm change.
Spiral actually had Kastrup as a guest on his podcast a couple of times, and I cannot recommend their discussions highly enough. I was intellectually very comfortable with Kastrup's work already, but their conversations deepened my intuitive understanding of his philosophy immensely.
*Spira, thank you autocorrect
Delusional cultist?
Respect for mentioning Hoffman and going into his research.
Bernardo is orders of magnitude beyond brilliant. ❤
yes, so far thst he is plain stupid.
@@matswessling6600 you poor triggered little child.
Low expectations?
Class clown?@@DrWrapperband
Bravo for your stepping away from the illusion that the brain is where thinking, ideas, etc., come from. Metaphysics is real and true. Mind and brain are two different things. Again, thanks for your creative and progressive thinking.
Metaphysics as a philosophical process is very real. As a branch of science, it is totally meaningless. Every single thought that we have comes from our mind/brain. It is only in our brain/mind that we are conscious.
What a bunch of absolute unscientific bullshit.
if u get brain damage then how come ur thinking and ideas get reduced?
@@ShowMeYoBoob Precisely because everything one thinks about and thinks with is housed in the brain and nowhere else. Consciousness is being aware, biologically aware and awake. That is only possible in your brain.
@@stevepierce6467 but if we open a brain we will find nothing else housed in, so consciousness isnt IN the brain but IS the brain, and everything else about it is human imagination and supposition. what do u think?
Thank you for all you work Bernardo, you clearly are one of the best thinkers of our time.
Bernardo is a 💎. Intellect personified.❤
What a brilliant mind.It takes exceptional understanding to explain such complex matters so clearly.Thank you for all your work Bernardo.
But I think that too, and I am ordinary.
Everybody is ordinary, and exceptional. It's just a matter of subjective perspective.
So great to see the current (and frankly dated) materialist paradigm being challenged. Absolute genius.
Absolutely wrong though. Consciousness is the result of chemical and electrical process in a physical brain. Damage the brain and you damage consciousness. This guy is no better than religious nuts.
no. this is in no way genius.
I‘m afraid, philosophy is dated.
Everything that is being discussed in the West now about mind and consciousness has been discussed and discussed and dissected in India at least over 5000 years ago. What he is talking about is just Vedantic thoughts. Matter ( including body mind and senses) arises in consciousness and disappears and only consciousness IS. The state of ABSOLUTE BEING. No second, non dual Advaita.
@@vish2553 And it’s still wrong after 5000 years. Science has proven it.
Such a brilliant communicator. These things are not easy to explain but it seems effortless to this guy.
This is very interesting; my takeaways from this conversation is that the world is mental. I totally agree.
As a kid I used to ask my mum that question " how comes I'm me looking out from here and you're you... " which felt so profound, but I was unable to think beyond that.
well your mind is belonging to your brain. you ask how come it not to hers. well its not different how come an apple falling from this tree is not falling from another tree. because its this tree whose twig is weak enough that an apple's weight begins to snap the remaining twig and apple falls. brain processes cause (not 'cause' as much as just is) consciousness. we can force you to feel this or that by poking certain areas of your brain. we can force you to think this or that by probing you with certain words, which correspond to your brain reacting (which we can image/watch) at the same time as you saying "i am now feeling x". so ya, brain causes/is consciousness (the whole series of perceptions, all corresponding to neural processes). the neural activity going on for your consciousness is over here in you.... not over there in another lady. literally, the activity IS happening here.... in you... at time that you say "i am smelling rose"... and NO activity (0) is going on for her over there (who does Not say she is smelling rose). But we can make her say it (and not you say it) by switching things. this is just like apple falls here, not there. also, this quack says consciousness is not in head lol. he's just wrong. we already can force certain perceptions on anyone, by poking certain areas of the brain. so we KNOW that consciousness is in the head. if we move the brain OUT of the skull, we can cause people to say they feel the same things when we poke on same areas. and in that case, consciousness is NOT in the head (anymore). you see, it's very simple. but quacks like bernardo like to play with words...he means something DIFFERENT from what we mean (as humans) when we say "in the head" vs "not in the head". that's the only reason he says "its not in head". because he means something Particular which he does not tell you what it is. he means the simple idea that things like qualia or mind.... are not clear HOW those come from brain activity (or how they are attached or correlated to it). and that's been a problem for thousands of years long before this bernado joke was around. it's called the mind body problem. we can't see how neurons flashing up every time we see red..... is the cause of this seeing red. some (very smart) people have shown that it's not like cause (like heat causes ice to melt) but it's deeper kind of correlation.... like the neural activity JUST IS perception. sort of like a circle JUST IS curve... circle emerges from there being a curve, the curve doesn't cause the cirlcle... its kind of the same thing as a circle. mind body issue is kind of like that. but anyway, it's not the point to explore how many philosophers approach the mind body problem. the point is this bernardo guy is is taking an old idea (mind body problem), and spinning it a bit so it looks different, and serving it like it was his own thing. he's a joke. when he says "mind not in head" he is merely reacting off from the fact that we are not clear on how to understand red perception as Neural signals. you see? its because he (like everyone else) cannot see how that works.... that he is forced to say things like "well, since i can't see how neural actions cause red..... it CANT BE that red (perception) (mind) is IN the head where the neural actions are" lol. He's just extending what we already know (mind body problem). but he's acting like its his own idea. you want to show this guy is a joke? offer to remove his left lobe, since he feels that his mind is not "in" his head. ask him to let you cut out his left lobe. since he doesn't need it. :)
by the way though.. your thought as a kid was a beautiful thought. and an extremely smart one. but mostly, beautiful.
@@LisaBlooperThanks for your comprehensive and clearly explained response plus kind words. Was an interesting read, especially the part about the curved line and circle which bent my mind. Sounds like the deeper you go into neurology/consciousness the weirder/more counter intuitive it gets, as with everything now i guess. Personally I don't have a problem accepting that consciousness is in the brain because it makes logical sense that while the brain is alive it can perceive the world in all the complex ways it does, and how ''deeply'' it perceives reality is proportional to the capacity of the brain. Yep exactly, if one were to remove their left lobe then it would alter/ lessen their consciousness (as you sound like you wouldn't mind doing to him.. lol joke). If I may ask, what do you define consciousness as? They say that there's animal consciousness and then higher level consciousness as seen in humans, so is that difference physically visible in the brain e.g the neocortex or something (i read somewhere)? If higher consciousness is just about having more advanced cognitive functioning, then wouldn't that as good as put any debate about consciousness coming from outside to bed? When people like Roger Penrose say that consciousness isn't computable, is that him reacting to the mind body problem or something else? Also when particular neurons fire to signify the colour red, are those neurons the same set of neurons in everyone , and are they there from birth?
@@mhtbfecsq1 lol that was funny what you said about lobe. consciousness defined? whenever it comes to terms like this, i refer to Wittgenstein who stated Meaning in Use. he was only philosopher i loved deeply (disliked everyone else) before i switched fields to physics (had an intense separation from philosophy). Meaning is USE. I don't mean the meaning of it like now, when we are approaching it cautiously like it were a strange animal in the woods... trying to get a glimpse of it. No, that's the mistake (in my view). I mean simply imagine we were not doing this. Think about how we use that word all the time day to day like nothing. Not even interesting when we say it. It's just like.... getting on with things. Like "open the door" lol. What you MEAN when you say at those times (not what I or Bob means when you said it) is what it means, to you. So what does it mean to ME? it means what i meant when i say it, all the time, 20 times a week at least. It means this _condition_ of perception itself. But with one extra little thing. It is the condition of perception _while being fused_ with a sort of awareness of the perception. So it's not just like .... feeling the feeling of purple. It's like.... "this is purple I am feeling". That whole thing being a condition, called consciousness. And if you think about it, it's pretty crazy. I mean... it's seems magical. But I gotta say.... the reason it seems magical is because we cannot account for it in terms of neural activity... even though we know it's FROM it somehow (IS it, whatever term you wana use). We know it corresponds to it, directly. But the way it is attached is not clear lol. I mean the word "attached" is not even right. But ignoring its roots, what is it? It is what I said, that's how I understand it. And it's not mysterious to me WHAT it is.... it's mysterious to me HOW it can be. WHAT it is... is how I use the word 20 times a week. That's what it means... or else I wouldn't have used it that way, but another way. But my main point is... it's not something BEYOND how its used (so this search in the woods is kind of off to me). How do you understand it? But I will say this also. I am very suspicious of my understanding of it. It sounds like I could be tricking myself somehow in how I understand it. Like. Sure, I say to you that right now I am FEELING the softness of my pants on my leg. So that's the awareness part included. But that's the part I am suspicious of. Because what the hell do I mean when I say "I am feeling softness" lol? Like.... as opposed to....just.... the fact .,... that i am feeling it. you see what i mean? it's like.... there is a 2nd step that sneaked in there. such that... I FEEL my feeling of softness. Not exactly like that, but sort of like that 2nd step. Like, it's not clear to me how I know that I am feeling softness.... as opposed to.... simply.... i am feeling softness (without me knowing, but fully still feeling it). Like this whole 'reporting on it' thing seems fishy to me. It seems like maybe it comes from the fact that language exists. Eg, just because I can string words together "I am feeling softness" causes this idea that its True. but its just a kind of artefact of language. Anyway I don't know. It's very difficult for me to be suspicious of it but sometimes I do try to explore that deeply. But, in general, ya, that's what I MEAN by it (perception Fused with awareness of that perception). But again I have to say--- that not only do I think i can be wrong... but I am HIGHLY suspicious that I am actually in fact wrong. And that it's more like something like.... the _condition_ of perception, and not something added onto it. (the addon is a kind of accident, perhaps). Anyway, what do you think it is? I need to get back to you on your other points questions. I couldn't manage to do it here, hard enough just trying to be clear on the initial question. But tell me what is consciousness to you?
One day, I would like to meet this brilliant man. He knows many many things
He will be giving a talk on OPEN foundation tonight!! open-foundation.org/events/online/kastrup-idealism-live/
🙏 Bernado!! You nail it every time!
Michael Talbot wrote The Holographic Universe in 1996, I'm quite happy with his explanation.
Beautiful, elegant and warm-hearted words from this fellow.
Its good to see Bernardo outside his office
Great production value! 🙌🏻
Bernardo explains it in such an eloquent way, which is just fascinating. I wish I was able to argue like that whenever a brain / mind discussion comes up.
I was learning the Wif Hoff breathing technique and managed to get in a state of semi-consciousness, like unplugging out of the brain, for a split second, then feelings of being extremely powerful, then going back into my 'head' and examining my memories from a different perspective/consciousness, and thinking wtf are you depressed about? Time seemed to change, slow down as the stillness felt, is powerful alone, no background noise, that we are usually unaware of, even in a quiet room we have constant sound, we lie to ourselves, even in sight.
You mean Wim Hof
@@captainzork6109youtube comment sections, where there is always a human grammar checker available
Turning off stress response is only the beginning, you do certain deep breathing exercises with guided medications and you can Astral project. It takes most people years, but if you work at it every day you might reach it sooner
I have often wondered if there is an experience of "collapse of a wave function" going on in my head - when thoughts seems to emerge from a vague, unreal 'essence' to distinct and defined.
Thank you Bernardo. This is a very clear and concise way of explaining the brain-consciousness-conundrum!
Are these comments by real people?? Disturbing.
Bernardo is on fire in this interview! An extraordinarily succinct and comprehensible dialogue.
Beautiful interview. Great questions, precise and brilliant answers. Blessings to Mankind Empowerment. Kudos from Japan ❤
When reading Carl Gustav Jung, the assumption of mind not being intirely bound to the brain looks like an empirical fact.
A fact with no evidence to back it up
What is science, but made up of theories until the next one takes it place!@@Anne_Onymous
@@Anne_Onymous Sure. But it's important to remain open to the possibility that there are things we cannot prove (yet, if at all ever) that are just as 'real' as the ones we can prove. I think Jung tried his best to look at several such phenomena (such as Synchronicities) scientifically and objectively. Where he felt his own knowledge of mathematics wasn't enough, he sought collaboration from other brilliant mathematicians and physicists of the time. Putting his own subjective spiritual experiences aside, from a purely objective standpoint, he conducted experiments and documented the findings, leaving it up to the readers to consider and interpret them. His book 'Synchronicity : an acausal connecting principle' is a gem :)
@@stacielivinthedream8510 Only..... In science those theories require evidence to prove them correct before they're considered fact.
@@Anne_Onymous and what about the limited utility of science? I often see claims of no evidence when there actually are clue, and the real problem is testing the hypothesis is very difficult and nobody has really figured out a good way to actually find the evidence.
The brain , philosophy and the entire relative field from sub atomic particles to stars and planets are APPEARING inside of that which is awake to itself , or pure consciousness . IMO this has been my subjective experience since i was ten years old back in the fifties .
The Universe generates the Mind. Consciousness is Infinite. The Universe is Mental; and not physical. It's just a Cosmic Dream! You are the Cosmic Dreamer.
That's right. And momma don't dance and daddy don't rock and roll. Falling asleep is the best feeling in the world.
@thedia😂per-don
Prove it.
@@pontusvigur6720 Empirical data proves non duality and empirical data further proves that we do exist in a mental universe. We have empirical data in the 4 to 7 Sigma probability range coming from research spanning four decades to prove that remote viewing, precognition, and the ability to access information in the universe independently of space and time is real. Ask the president of the American Statistical Association founded in 1856. They will tell you about this research
@@aliceinwonderland887 Haha, no there is no empirical data proving non-duality. First you have to prove this background field, which is untestable. But please show which studies you are leaning your assumption on. Which president of ASA? They chose a new one every year.
great interview, tnx 4 sharing
Great! ❤
I feel something akin to spiritual bliss whenever I listen to the words of Bernardo Kastrup.
I fully agree
Yes, that's the way con men work.
Great to have bernardo !
Marvellous - thank you
I am not inside my body, my body is inside of me.
from 11:51 to end. Your consciousness is not in your head. Your head is not a receptacle or a kind of cup where you put your consciousness in. Your consciousness is not in your head. It's the other way around. Your head is in your consciousness and my consciousness and his consciousness because we can see you. The head, the body is what our mental inner life looks like when represented on the screen of perception. It's a symble for our minds, and it correlates with our minds, because the image of a phenomenon correlates with the thing, it is the image of. Right? Flames correlate with combustion because they are what combustion looks like. Heads correlate with consciousness, human consciousness, because heads are what human consciousness looks like. So your consciousness is not in your head. Your head is a symbol, a representation of your consciousness. Therefore, the question disapperars. Your consciousness is not even space-time because space-time are the dimensions, the paradigm of the representations, not the dimensions or the scaffolding of the world as it is in itself. Mind is not the space-time; only physical things are. So, that's the way to circumvent the question, is to understand that your consciousness is not located - it's like saying the pilot is located in a certain dial on the dashboard. No, the dashboard is a representation of the world where the pilot actually is - the physical world is a dashboard representation. You as a mind is not on the representation, is not in space-time. For the same reason, the pilot is not in the dashboard. We are in the world that is represented and our heads are part of that representation. They are a symbol of our presence in the world as it is in itself.
The status quo have deliberately repressed what Buddhist teachings have know for over 2500 years that the universe is itself a conscious field of energy we experience the universe through our self awareness.
When's a Buddha ever sent rockets to Mars? I'll take their explanations of reality with a pinch of salt.
@@JohnHarthomstowCEO You misunderstand I'm not referring to classical scientific study of physics, I'm referring to the quantum study of physics way our conscious observation effects outcome of measurement of particles.
@@Pitimesis Yes but ultimately if you could firmly grasp & apply quantum physics you would be so knowledgeable that you could basically do anything, from solving all disease, climate change, to creating technology that would allow interstellar travel etc. Buddhists had some great ideas about detaching from mind but their knowledge of the universe is extremely narrow. Even if parts are useful
Also the Hindus. Advaita Vedanta, Non dual Vedanta. The Brahman
Excellent explanation of brain, mind and consciousness. I hope many people see this and understand that they are not the Center of the universe.
well if you implicate his philoshopy ot fullest degree, actualy he is saying that we are center of universe. That would be shown if you ask him what happen after consciousness is dissociated from body. On the other hand, fact that we are eternal individual localized consciousness has far rich implication.
@@antimaterialworld2717 In the Buddhist tradition there are two truth, the created truth and the absolute truth. Unfortunately, we take the created truth personally, there by spectating us from the absolute truth. There is physical nature and mental nature, which we personalize. We represent a part of universal consciousness, but is filtered by personalized consciousness. I can read a book or listen to music and I like it but you might not like it. When it comes to universal consciousness, it doesn't differentiate, it doesn't like or don't like. It just is. When the veil of illusion is fully lifted, there is no more reason to hang around in human form, because there is no more I, me, mine. And yes, everything plays out in universal consciousness, though the play of karma keeps the mind bound as different beings in different realms. That is Samsara. Having realized and freed the mind from the bondage or conditioning that keeps the mind in Samsara, then you represent truly universal consciousness, having achieved Nirvana. Thinking we are the center of the Universe is a delusion based on the idea of an Ego, an I, a person. It's like still thinking the earth is the center and the sun is moving around the earth. The universal consciousness doesn't have a center, it is everywhere, beyond space and time, still and motionless, without beginning and end. We already have enough people walking this earth thinking they are Gods and do a lot of crazy things. We are not body or mind, those are different natures without an I, but we think we are our body and thoughts, therefore being unable to recognize the part of universal consciousness. Even people who have a NDE see the light as something separate to them, because they are still in their personalized karmic mind, unable to grasp and understand that they are still in a dream. Higher states of mind are still mind states, though they can be extremely blissful and enchanting and revealing higher knowing. Universal consciousness knows everything, therefore it is not interested in knowing anymore. Only the separate I want to know things, because of our minor mind.
This supports NDE and the out of body experiences. I've had both and it changes your perspective of reality. You don't have the same fear of physical death. Good video. I enjoyed Dr Kastrup's perspective.
Psychedelics are great, one time I was trippin on too much acid and I was staring at a fire pit and the fire pit turned into a mini world with little people and buildings, it was 2 years ago and it's such an experience to remember. would love to try out the magic mushrooms next, just don't know where or how i can get my hands on them, so hard to come by
Wanna try, but keep being told I can't do it alone for the first time but I'd literally be so much more comfortable alone
[adamsflakesx] Ships psychedelics
@@userconspiracynut where to search?
Is it Instagram?
Yeah, he has variety of stuffs like mushrooms, LSD, DMT, MDMA even the chocolate bars
Ok, serious question, if the mind is independent from the organ, the brain, then why is cognition affected by alcohol or drugs, or by the diseases like Alzheimers, or damage from strokes?
You've got it right, and that's the difference between science and philosophy-- testing! This idea that the mind is somehow unattached from the brain is indiscernible from the same argument for a soul. It's religion, repackaged to have no gods-- instead, the Self is the omnipotent being, outside of (literally grey-) matter.
because you equalised mind and cognition as being the same. I personally dont even like the word mind in this context, leads to much confusion. Consciousness is a better term, awareness is even better.
@111thboris yet perception is altered by chemical substances interfering with the neurochemical processes of the brain. If consciousness is not connected to the physical organ of the brain, we would never get high or drunk, and antidepressants would never work.
@111thboris So how would you specifically define consciousness and awareness?
@cseggerman "you responded to a comment therefore you are conscious and aware" is a pretty good description. 👍
I also have a theory… Electrical motors only appear to generate motion… There is really a universal motor causing them to generate motion.
Exactly. Very easy to be philosopher when you do not have to provide any evidence.
and you would be right, underlaying a physical motor there is a principal universal motor, of which the physical motor is but a manifestation of all possible motors....
Excellent video. Thanks.
This aligns with much of the late Doug B Vogt’s research and hypothesis about the nature of information and our universe. Diehold Foundation, series 1.
Wow! I had to pause while I took every sentence in.!
During a psychedelic trip, your brain is asleep. Therefore, you are more focused on the mind. The brain is a filter. When focused on the mind The brain takes a break so that you can interact with just the mind without the physical senses and see all possibilities.
Exactly. That's what Aldous Huxley also said - that brain is a reducing mechanism... a filter which reduces the amount of information perceived by the individual consciousness that operates it or is coupled to it.
Yes, though not asleep exactly. It's more awake and much more alive. It's having access to the whole on both a physical (i.e. brain) and a metaphysical level (mind).
@@ginevrajdeluca6589 this is more accurate. Your brian is definitely not asleep.
You're on drugs, it's not real
The philosophy of Advaita Vedanta has such resonance with this. Swami Tadatmananda has some great online teachings. Namaste 🙏
Yes , yes . Quantum physics has given a scientific validation to Advaita Vedanta 🙏🕉️
I have D.I.D as a reaction to horrific ongoing trauma, though after much healing work, the formerly severely fragmented psyche is coming into unity. There was hundreds of alters and we could interact in dreams. I also had 2 NDE's and it was absolutely clear that the brain does not create Consciousness, it's like Consciousness/Awareness refracts through the brain, body etc. In the NDE's, it was pure Awareness, there was no space/time, everything was simultaneous. There is no division.
Wow. Cant even fathom wat it's like to experience everything simultaneously
@@Glen_Mali We all do it every day, but the mind divides everything up with narratives and the idea of "me". The "me" is nothing more than a concept, an image of ourselves, an avatar we live through. The biggest challenge in being human, is to see through this and realize who we really are.
@@annemurphy8074 so... we don't exist?
Yes we do exist here and somewhere else as a part of everything 😮😊
Did you feel any differently during the NDE? Did you still have the D.I.D, or did you feel more cohesive?
Honestly watching avatar with my kids gave me a different perspective on how life on earth works. Obviously not exactly but it made me think outside the box I was taught
Thinking outside the contemporary box is where "it" is. You are on the way. Keep going.
Why do most people, and scientists in particular, tend to overlook the wisdom imparted by sages, saints, and mystics spanning over the past 4,000 years? (Note: I'm not referring to religious contexts here; hopefully, you understand that.) What these spiritual figures have articulated aligns with the perspectives echoed by Bernardo. Merely because the last few centuries, marked by the industrial revolution and significant advancements in the science of matter, along with subsequent technological progress, have yielded remarkable strides, doesn't necessarily warrant neglecting the profound wisdom conveyed by these sources. It remains imperative that we do not dismiss such wisdom and instead strive to explore the answers to consciousness beyond the confines of the material aspects of the mind.
Because most sages, saints and mystics are nothing but charlatans and snake oil salesmen. 4000 years of speculations that lead to nothing but word salad and still have nothing to show.
science and mysicism Are converging... yes, of course the mystics have known what science is just discovering...its incredible to see science beginning to wake up...Breakthroughs have been limited in part because of the self imposed "Box" created by such limited thinking...
It is very easy to be a philosopher, as you do not have to prove anything. He is making a scientific claim, that he in zero ways can provide evidence for.
Everything supernatural or mystical no matter how true is probabilistic and cannot be repeated or "known." The world we know is deterministic. Most people expect then that all science and knowledge is deterministic, well no.
Brain is the physical Tool of Mind, and even Consciousness.
There was a lot of profound stuff there. I have never used psychedelics and didn't know that they lower brain activity. I've heard a lot of experiences about people describing that reality as hyper real, or more real than the real world. That shouldn't be possible if brain activity is in such a minimal state. I liked the part where he said 'physicality is a cognitive representation'. I think we are in a simulation but not one by computer, but by consciousness. Although I think consciousness/computation is the same difference, all information at the core. I usually go with the cable tv analogy. The activity or program that you are watching is not inside the tv. That information is being streamed in from an outside source, and if that tv breaks, that stream of data still exists. It just isn't streaming into the tv anymore and the tv isn't the source of that information, it simply represents it temporarily while the tv exists. I also like the video game analogy. The game world, which is the real world to the avatar/character inside the game, is encompassed by a larger reality outside of it. That's where the real player exists, basically streaming their consciousness into the game and to the temporary character. If the character dies, that stream of consciousness still exists outside of that game world reality and simply streams into a new character at some point.
bought one of his books and it resonated with what i thought. im going to buy all this guys books
This person and Anil Seth make some really great points, even though they both basically think slightly differently. Super interesting perspectives.
"Your Consciousness is Not in Your Head. It's the other way around." AndOr . . . BOTH 'Materialist' AND 'Idealist' 😎 🙏
Certainly his conscience isn't in his head shilling this crap.
“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.” -Nikola Tesla
I like his point of view, makes much more sense 🍄🤫know your shadows
Very good🕯️
This guy is awesome
But his fear of death is disappointing, isn't it?
@@joecheffo5942 what did he say about death? am curious.
@@Dropthebeatonit well I think he says the first part is scary, the self dissolving I think. But then its good, free. I guess on those drug trips its like that for him. Is that really like death? We dont know I guess he is hypothesizing. Im a little skeptical, but the fear is just temporary in the beginning, so not overall. Again, is this analagous to death, maybe yes or no or slightly similar?
@@joecheffo5942 ah so he was talking about ego-dissolution. many of the experiences on psychedelics give one the vision of your own death, and always the idea of eternal souls reincarnating. so death is like a liberation, we return to the sprit world. NDEs always say that it is extremely peaceful. a place of peace. i mean also we can't know anything haha. if it was obvious they would've come back and told us by now if you know what i mean.
@@Dropthebeatonit i have never done psychodelics, there seems to be a mix of experiences. I think mostly good with some traumatic. I dont think it would work with my bodymind. I wish I could, probably not a good thing for me.
Wheres your concussion at?
Bernardo is the Galileo of Consciousness in my humble and insignificant opinion .E=🕉️
6:48 does someone have a link to these books?
Check out the Esentia foundation
I posit that consciousness is action resulting from the exchange of information. Thus consciousness manifests at all scales from the most simple to the most complex.
I agree
Interesting!
My favorite super-genius guy!
Brilliant.
Idiotic
Vivo no Brasil 🇧🇷, sou psiquiatra e analista junguiana ha 30 anos. Estudei profundamente a obra de Jung sempre buscando alternativas ao ultrapassado mas ainda vigente paradigma fisicalista da ciência. Tenho acompanhado Bernardo há alguns anos e fico emocionada toda vez que ele expõe tão brilhantemente sua teoria, o Idealismo Analítico. Agradeço profundamente sua clareza e brilhantismo e fico extremamente feliz em saber que as ideias de Jung tem ecoado e sido elaboradas de forma tão clara e precisa. Bernardo Kastrup desponta como alguém que deixará um legado permanente para a filosofia da mente e para a ciência em geral. Muito obrigada!
It's a feeling of quite some ecstasy when someone of academic renown says what you, as a mere spectator, also intuit with great depth. This guy seems to 'know' what I merely sense. Although I have studied and have a degree in philosophy etc. There are theoretical breakthroughs on the near horizon and new perspectives by which to know the world that are about to materialize (pun intended)
Great comment! You are clearly intuitive. I studied philosophy too, but one does not need to. One thing I love about this view is its incredible democracy - everyone has access to truth in virtue of their subjectivity. It’s also simpler, more elegant and has greater explanatory power. Bring on the change of paradigm! 🎉
@@dianamjackson I was going to just give you a thumbs up, but I think I should acknowledge your comment textually.
Really? The term _academe_ refers to the _environment_ in which education and/or research takes place. *Academia* focuses more on the *academic environment* at the *college level.* You are looking for an adjective, not a noun (as you have positioned)
@@RingJando You can't tell this is a typo? I meant 'academic renown'. Goodness me. But fair enough - I'll correct it.
Do you think our bodies receive conciousness?
Wow. I love this guy. I wonder does he realize this view resolves the paradox of free will vs determinism.
He’s commented on this question many times: he doesn’t believe in ‘the self’ as ‘constituent’, so no duality…
No
Totally agreed. A non-local probabilistic model of the empirical world is of a particle probability that sums to 1 on a 3D foliation (slice) of spacetime, or on another geometrical object or of an event, a.k.a chronon, summing to 1 on a reference object. In both cases, the reference object must be deterministic. Since there is no apparent determinism in the observed universe, such a reference object, namely a universal deterministic reference, on which non-locally the summation of probabilities is 1, would be out of the observable universe. By the principle of parsimony nothing is out of the universe, which leads to a contradiction. This contradiction can only be solved if the universe as we see it is not fundamental. If we check our premises carefully, we did not question the independent existence of the universe while, it is only accessible through what we call "experience". "Experience" is the hallmark of "consciousness". So, consciousness is fundamental and not the empirical world. Therefore instead of a duality of a universal deterministic reference and an observed empirical world, there is one object which is a "universal consciousness" which we are part of as "local consciousness". A universal consciousness is what we call "God" in religion, however, its existence is independent of any religion but a result of modeling the so called physical world by non-local probabilistic theories. In this argument, we strongly use non-locality, i.e. global summation to 1 on our sampling space. Non-locality is not compatible with models such as Causal Sets but it is compatible with the outcome of several experiments of Quantum Mechanics. If we regress to the naive materialistic approach, the brain itself is a shared experience by observers of the "physical world" and the "brain" has probabilistic degrees of freedom in its post-synaptic activations, which allows an external reference object to play with these probabilities. We can deny such and external reference as "redundant" but then again we run into dualities of deterministic reference and observed probabilities from which it is inevitable that consciousness is fundamental and not the physical world. In big words, epistemology and not ontology is fundamental.
@@joshuamrosenau"The question of how this is possible neurologically is well explored by Iain McGilchrist in his book" - It totally ignores the psychophysical problem. A mechanical view of the brain cannot explain what experience is. At best there is a correlation between pain and pulses per second but pulses per second are not pain. When using Evoked Potential by a small burn on the thumb with CO2 laser, the spike trains due to neuronal activations are publicly owned by all observers while pain is felt only by the subject. We can say there is a correlation between spikes or pulses per second and pain, however, correlation is not causation. If you connect your brain to the subject's thumb, all you do, is getting a new input but again it will be a subjective experience, this time of yours. The world is split into publicly owned information (pulses per second, speed, electric current etc.) and a private experience. There is no causal solution to the psychophysical problem as professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz wrote in his book, see "Mind and Brain Fundamentals of the Psycho-Physical Problem". You can play with the "communication machine", the brain and give it drugs but still, pain and pleasure cannot be understood by a naive mechanical view of the brain.
I think you are misinterpreting my position. What I am trying to point out is that the Psycho-Physical Problem may be an important philosophical idea to consider, but the question "What is experience?" is ultimately too big to answer in a scientific way. This is because science itself depends upon the act of observation. To rest on observations to explain what observation is results in tautology. The Pyrrhonian skeptics exhausted that form of argument long time ago. Instead of taking up that huge question, neuroscientists and psychologists take a narrower approach based on what consciousness isn't. They employ the logic of negation to understand what the dependencies of consciousness are. What they find in all cases is that conscious arousal depends upon the activation of the brain stem and the two hemispheres of the cortex. It depends also on sense organs and nerves which transduce and then carry sensory information to the brain. If these regions are removed, damaged or impaired - so too is the state of consciousness. The question neuroanatomy seeks to answer is "What does consciousness depend upon?" which is a narrower question and one that can be understood deductively, rather than inductively. This is somewhat strange. Take a coma for instance. Coma is a state of impaired consciousness. Anesthesiologists can "induce" a coma, in other words, they can introduce a negative. But if a doctor could "induce" consiousness, they would be doing something like Dr. Frankenstein. It simply isn't possible to induce consiousness. It is beyond us. Accordingly, they are silent on the question "What is experience?" for exactly the reason you correctly identify, which is "A mechanical view of the brain cannot explain what experience is." Please, don't set up a straw man argument here. Neuroanatomy does not offer an explanation about how biological matter can house a conscious, spirited being. That question is off the table - so to speak. Finally, although your example of the additional thumb is certainly novel, the entire field of anesthetic medicine regularly demonstrates that consciousness depends upon the activation of key regions of the brain. It is as straightforward as that.
@@joshuamrosenau Neuronal post synaptic activation depends not only on recognizable spike trains. There is a probabilistic/Quantum degree of freedom in the post synaptic activations. The brain is not a deterministic machine. As such, even in the most naive materialistic approach, it allows an external entity to express itself through these degrees of freedom. In simple words, the existence of such an entity cannot be refuted. The naive materialistic approach is that the principle of parsimony does not need such an entity, however, physics does the exact opposite and shows that if a "field" can exist then it does exist and this approach is known as Gauge Fields in Gauge Theory. Gauge fields are several possible configurations that lead to the same measurement and are related to the same measurement. Here we try not to use "experience" as an argument. There is much more that can be written and this message is kept short.
@uchard8640 The reason you run into quantum problems is because your arguments are about imaging. The attempt to explain observation by observation just won't do. It's a tautology - it is literally circular logic. This is similar to the problem of layering detectors in the photon-slit experiments. When you add detectors - like imaging - the results are confounding. Observations of lesser states of consciousness do not suffer this same problem, because they do not depend on added layers of detection.
@@joshuamrosenauAll knowledge we have on post-synaptic activation is by EEG detectors or by the new femto-gauss magnetic detectors. The Quantum degrees of freedom in the brain cannot be swept under the carpet by claims of circular logic. And yes, that is what we ALL do, we explain observation by minimal language predictive models (mathematics) which are based on observation. Science is indeed circular.
As Kastrup said it himself 'you can always find a completely implausible but coherent alternative to make sense of any phenomena' and for me at least Kastrup's theories fall exactly in this category.
The only thing that gives this idea any weight for me is the fact so many have been studied having some sort of conscious experience once they have been declared dead. If nothing else it is a good thought experiment
Yes. We don’t realize how deep we are embedded in the the prejudice of Materialism. We unconsciously adopt these assumptions from our culture and age.
This is a great explanation of Don Juan's description of the ring of doing. We all sort of agree upon birth to grab a hold of that ring and we spend the rest of our lives "doing." To achieve clarity, one must engage in "not doing." Mid-century shamans had something figured out.
I think the interest in psychedelics is not about psychedelics, but what psychedelics can occasionally or partially link the individual to. Like he said, the brain goes to sleep during a psychedelic experience. As a scientist, he is perhaps leaning a little more into the energetics of what is implied with all this, but I disagree with his suggestion that they will help us to integrate these dissociated and abandoned parts of ourselves and make us better people. The psychedelics themselves are super yin, so they bio-physically support even more dissociation and detachment. Sure, you can peek into energy consciousness with psychedelics, but you won’t be able to integrate the experience when you have chemically forced your chakras open. Plus, you will be forced to interpret the ‘heightened experience’ with the same unenlightened brain after the psychedelic wears off, thereby missing the point(s) as the human brain, which is organized around/in 3D, will never be able to receive and even describe the nature of the multi-dimensional realm. He states that no one can read the thoughts of another person. This simply isn’t true, but based on the limits of his scientific understanding, I can see why he's stating it. There’s nothing new going on here. People have been trying to take short cuts into cosmic consciousness (unity consciousness) since the beginning of the second phase of consciousness on planet Earth. They are far less interested in the hard, brick-by-brick work associated with dismantling one’s ego, shadow & conscious misunderstandings and rebuilding it from scratch along different, more holistic and integratable lines. I assure you, that ‘enlightening experiences’ that are the outcome of psychedelic use lead to a dependency on the psychedelic because the individual naturally gives their power (of innate consciousness) over to the substance that apparently introduced them to the greater reality of universal consciousness which they, and every other human, feels estranged from.
Currently doing thesis on this. Lfg
Thanks Bernardo for these fascinating ideas! What is the role of the physical brain in your theory? Is it only the representation, i.e. the mirror of our inner mentation, or does the brain have a role in filtering conscious experiences from "mind at large" and maybe shaping those experiences in some way for evolutionary reasons to fit our "species" mental niche! How does normal Darwinian evolution play a part in this process? Thanks so much Bernardo for your work! 🌿
I wish Kastrup would speak about Daniel Dennett’s illusionism. I really want him to address this topic.
I kinda got the feeling a few years ago that somehow matter seems to come from mind, or that mind shapes the material world. I had this mad phobia triggered by certain geometric shapes. I could never look at the pattern on the cover of the drain in the bathroom floor in my old house. It seemed to be an almost bubbling mass of grids and holes. Anyway I did some mental work and rid the phobia. Recently I went back to that house, used the toilet and noticed the same drain cover was actually completely different to how I had perceived it during my trying times. It was permanent in the floor, as well, not like somebody has changed it. Same kinda thing happened with the world at large, it wasn't like i was hallucinating or anything, just that the physical world i experienced during those rough months was genuinely different in its dimensions, shape, etc. Such a bizarre phenomenon and ever since I've subscribed to this version of reality the likes of Kastrup and friends speak of. It's definitely closer to my empirical experience anyway, whatever's going on. Like he says here, the world only appears to exist when we messure (observe) it. Who's to say our mentation isn't collapsing the world on the fly into whatever flavour of mind we're in?
Interesting experiences you had. One of my experiences long time ago during the day was when I was sitting in a couch with a part of my arm on the arm rest of the couch. A part of my arm went into the wood of that 70's couch, who had back then still thick real wood in his arm rest. I immediatly pulled my arm out and tried to touch that arm rest, it was solid again. Know I had what people call paranormal and supernatural experiences of different kind since I was a child. So I was used to have unusual experiences. I have never been taking drugs in my life and I do not have a mental illness.
@@ExperiencedGhost that must have been really something man. It's a relief to know there are greater forces at work, for sure. Thanks for replying!
This was a good interview
We need more individuals presenting this kind of material to a wider audience and then, as a collective, we might actually walk down that more advanced path he alluded to. Now, how do we get psychedelics into a certain segment of our society that embraces the less mature aspects, the "teenage" brain/mind, of the collective? Wouldn't it be interesting if an individual running for any level of government office had to first go on a guided psychedelic excursion? Yes, I know...we're not there yet. But it is a wonderful fantasy.
I strongly believe that psychodelics should be openly used by the population, in safe environments, those involved in social causes desperately need perspective and methaphysics, so that they stop categorizing people as "allies" and "enemies" and start to see human beings as real beings, instead of fabricated propaganda built on their essence.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality Yes, psychedelics break down those us/them walls. It's one thing to intellectually grasp "we're all one" and another to actually experience it. The raising of consciousness across the face of the planet is occurring at an ever increasing rate, but a little push here n' there certainly couldn't hurt, particularly at a crucial time such as the one we're in the midst of.
@@robm3569 Why do you think that human consciousness is increasing at higher rates currently?
@@Consciousness_of_Reality Consciousness affects consciousness. This was proven in 50 separate experiments involving large groups of meditators and in each case crime and other negative factors decreased significantly. An ever increasing amount of individuals across the planet are engaging in consciousness exploration. I know it sometimes feels/looks like the opposite is happening, but as a friend often reminds me ~ "The brighter the light, the darker the shadows".
These ideas are mental! 😮
That is what I believe too
just a real experience , when i am doing extra corporal trip i am still thinking but without material brain , i agree with him
Not the way I would put it, but he's right. We have three thinking centers, our brain our heart and our gut area. They have been scientifically identified as distinctive areas that think differently. Our consciousness comprises these three areas and the sensations and awareness of our body. In some cultures the heart is considered their central thinking center. In the west we consider our brain to be our central thinking center. Either way we are right... and wrong. I identifying our brain as our primary thinking center, similar to how language, structures how we think. This is why we are more intellectual in western society. Societies that identify more with the heart as the primary thinking center tend to be more emotional and feeling centric. Regardless, our mind is more than the sum of our thinking centers and the sensations we experience. Within many modalities there is an understanding of an etheric body. It is that which is considered our soul, and persists after physical death. The etheric body would also be considered as part of our mind. I agree. This isn't from a belief but from personal experience and learning from many subjects that tend to converge somewhere near truth.
So, was Australopithecus afarensis also experiencing consciousness? Or is this a later evolutionary trait?
At ~8:00 he talks about psychedelics reducing brain activity, but “increasing” the experience of consciousness- very similar to Aldous Huxley’s quote about psychedelics “turning up the faucet” of experience from a drip (baseline) to a firehose. The idea that the brain puts a harness on this universal consciousness, and that its function is in part to dampen the otherwise uncontrollably intense experience, is an extremely interesting one.
Consciousness is the prime state. Brain a transceiver. Many cultures have a trinity. Updated: Mind, Matter, Information. Adepts train to subdue local memory to stream from the prime field. Light bulb moments hence, halos in images.
Is there one consciousness or many? Quote: “your head is in your consciousness, and my consciousness, and his consciousness” implies that there are many consciousnesses. Any other ideas how to answer this question?
If you think of a wave function as being present in a moment outside of time and space, then maybe this is what the consciousness is? But we don’t fully understand its relation to physical (decoherence).
Thinking along the lines of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, does the wave function interact at the smallest scales with the physical? But what shapes the direction of this interaction? It seems that feelings of happiness and pain are fundamental. There are beautiful and ugly shapes.
Proof by contradiction: assume that we are in a brain. The brain is scattered around space and time. It is present in many points of space and time simultaneously. If the sense of “I” comes from the brain then it must be connected to at least a subset of space and time simultaneously. The brain itself is not located in a point of time and space, therefore the sense of “I” is also more fundamental than time and space, even if it is located inside the brain. Then maybe entanglement is the consciousness? Entanglement could be as small as two particles, but maybe it can be as large as human brain? Entanglement itself is not physical but it is connected to physical and can express itself through physical. Like particles in the brain acting together to form a sense of “I”, can we say that social groups acting together also have their own higher order consciousness acting as “we”? When a friend is hurt you sense empathy, that is an attribute of higher order entanglement.
What one perceives is not The Reality. It is only a particular aspect of the All/Universe/Cosmos. 8 billion people results in more than 8 billion interpretations of everything. Like Hulk said, “puny human”. Consciousness is not a thing, but a cognitive concept or idea of something that seems to be in and/or around us depending on the value one puts in it. Never forget, the value of an object equates the interest of the subject.
The field of subjectivity…LOVE THIS! Simple, profound. No need to confuse it with the concept of a deity running the show. This guy is my new friend…
Perfectly in accordamce with my common experience. Mental is not in the phisical world
But what if like, it's just an illusion man. Like, colors you know. There's no real colors out there. The colors are formulated inside of our brains. Kinda like the way the pixels on your computer screen are really just flashing red, blue, and green really quickly. :D
@dmitrysamoilov5989 no we can study synaptic experiences of other animals that see millions more colors than we can. Stop doing drugs
@@joeycurtis1872 my previous statement was also about the concept that colors occur inside the synaptic experiences of animals. I agree with you on that point. To explain the metaphor a little deeper. I was mostly trying to say that the mental is inside the physical.
Smart cookie! Some good points to ponder and I agree, mass disassociation going on out there in the modern day world. Along with this disassociation is the inability to see energy and not realize drugs can have undesirable entities attach to a person when in an open drugged state.
Yes, my LSD trip definitely changed my life's perspective for the more inclusive.
Not that I would ever experience LSD, but I wonder what you meant by "for the more inclusive".
@@KpxUrz5745 It opened my awareness to the man ways I was projecting my view of reality including my brains way of projecting how I see onto what I see and it opened up a more connected view
Great theory.
Our brain is like a radio that tunes in to the universal consciousness. Each mind is like a unique radio channel manifesting it self trough our brain and body into this world and its uniqueness is defined by the genes and environment.
When he says psychedelics does he mean just LSD or does he mean things like Cannabis as-well? Anyone know?
I may not share many of his ideas, but what a nice guy Bernardo seems to be. And his way of explaining his ideas is so powerful and engaging!
A cybernetic controller is a scale model of that which it controls. The brain is a fractal, scale model of the universe. Also, consciousness is not in the brain any more than the internet is in my computer. Consciousness is a conversation that the mind has with the living universe. The brain is more like a transceiver than a computer.
If Bernado would talk to Christopher Langan about his CTMU, would he fully understand it or agree with it?
Sure psychedelics are incredible tools. I recommand 1P-LSD which is still legal in some countries like Netherland (1/2 a blotter is enought to shake your mental ground). I still listening again and again BK to understand in depth all his odd ideas. Peace & love Thanx for the video
his ideas are not odd at all once you realize the internal contradictions in materialistic worldview
@@JA-gz6cj Thanx for your feedback
Psychedelics only work as a therapeutic tool if you're somehow religious. For nihilists and existentialists it's nothing more or less important than going to the movies. Also 1/2 a blotter can be anything from almost nothing to hundreds of ug.
@@spiralmoment for nihilists nothing is important lol, who cares what they think. Also, a lot of people only become religious or drop their atheist identity after doing psychedelics
@@spiralmoment Thanx for your feedback. By RELIGIOUS, do you mean SPIRITUAL ?