Bohm and Heisenberg were of a similar mind. Bernardo is fairly well known but I would not call him famous.

@@tnvol5331 No they weren't, people love to distort their philosophy....and even if there was their philosophy, that doesn't make their ideas more credible. That is a classic fallacious argument from false authority. He isn't famous because his pseudo philosophy is epistemically useless...

He is saying epistemically useless things. He is near proving anything. He is making unfalsifiable metaphysical claims based on supernatural principles....this is a classic case of pseudo philosophy.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I have explained to you MANY times that proof is useless so we are left with logic. Proof is caught up in observation, and measurement. That means using human senses which are useless in the search for reality.

@@tnvol5331 correct. So without subjective verification we are left with logical fallacies.... if we decide to accept an unfalsifiable ontological claim.

Argument from false authority fallacy. You need to provide evidence for your theology...not metaphysical ideas that have nothing to do with your magical ideas.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 You do not get it...it is you who engages in theology and magical thinking as I pointed out in my last post. But good debate tactic....accuse the other debater of the very thing you are doing. Will not work here....sorry. Einstein....not an argument just pointing out great minds can have some ideas that are not generally understood or accepted by many others....same with David Bohm and Heisenberg.

@@tnvol5331 sorry but none of those great minds support your unfalsifiable pseudo Philosophical speculation mate. Try other false authorities. You just make up an imaginary realm while ignoring what it means to be conscious of something. You can not test or prove your theology so it's a useless death denying ideology and nothing more....really sorry.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I tried but you are just too mechanistic to get it.

@@tnvol5331 your magical thinking can not help you understand the differences between processes and imaginary entities. You are heavily indoctrinated by this new age woo you can't even see how useless and nonsensical this idea is..... In 2020 people still believe in magical explanations...what a shame.

Why will he not debate him?

@@Mysticcc,I think its because he knows he outmatched.

I don't think so, maybe, i hope that soon these two will have a talk.

@@tnvol5331 its useless to debate a sophist like Kastrup. There is nothing to be discussed. Idealism is an epistemically failed ideology. What is there to be said about a useless unfalsifiable "theology''?

@@nickolasgaspar9660 See my reply above.

thanks for time stamping

Patrick Williams I sure as hell hope so because I'm scared of death!

Joe Loughlin I am too.. But death is definitely bullshit in the sense of cessation of existence. You're eternal whether you like it or not.

Yeah I have come to the same conclusion. It makes no sense to think that our consciousness is our body.

Well No. Idealism is obsolete since for more than 2000 years it has failed to produce any wise claims about the world that we can work upon and expand our philosophy. Materialism also makes indefensible claims about reality. They both are promoting baseless assumptions and that renders them to Pseudo Philosophy. The only philosophical view that doesn't NEED any assumptions in its effort to construct a reality model is that of Methodological Naturalism.

@@joeloughlin9220 and this is the reason why people are attracted to epistemically failed death denying ideologies.

death denying ideologies are products of cult worldviews.....his tongue was "honest" for a moment there...lol

@@nickolasgaspar9660 man...your the one who is death denying.ive seen you repeat this over an over. Like im starting to think that your projecting your own experience of accepting death onto everyone else in some sort of self deceptive way. Heres what i see. Existence is not butterflies and love. Everything comes at a cost. History shows pain and suffering. An individual human can suffer more pain and anguish than u or i can imagine, yet there is always that free will choice to continue or die. Have u ever contemplated suiside? I have been through shit. Im a phycology fucked through a lot of different forms of abuse. Even my adult life is usually a living nightmare...but there is some force that drives us to live and stay alive. Thats something that is noteworthy.

So what if ppl find ways to keep a positive outlook. Ppl like Kastrup have been phycologically forming shit like this since the Renaissance times and even before people are coming up with religions. Helps people cope who gives a f***? Ya know?

@@nickolasgaspar9660 srry...i didnt mean to blow up on u there...i just really wanted to get that out. I understand the issue with false hope and how much of a fine line it is, but i believe ppl like u or i arnt in any place to put it down

@@crazyeyedme4685 "your the one who is death denying.ive seen you repeat this over an over." -We both know this is a dishonest sophistry. First of all a descriptive model of existence can never be an ideology. We observe within our cataleptic impressions of what we label "physical world" an expiration date of human existence. We don't project beyond that observation so no death denying ideology can be included in our description. -" Like im starting to think that your projecting your own experience of accepting death onto everyone else in some sort of self deceptive way. " -No you are starting to think wrong about what others say...again. When one denies the observed contingency between biology and mind states that is all his projecting...not mine -"Existence is not butterflies and love." -Butterflies exist.....love is a feeling we experience during our existence. MAybe you wanted to say " Existence is not just butterflies and love, there is pain and suffering too. -"An individual human can suffer more pain and anguish than u or i can imagine, yet there is always that free will choice to continue or die." -Well you are factually wrong, our mental will is not free. Biological urges are far more strong and live a very small space for us to make free choices..... -"Have u ever contemplated suiside? " -Sure every single day...specially after a conversation like this one...lol(just kidding) . Its an option but are we really free to make that choice. Our biological urges to survive , seek happiness, flourish and reproduce overcome that "easy solution". Since we can agree that pain and suffering is common in a scare and competitive environment , we are the decedents of those whose biological urges were really strong and enabled them to survive. We are all have been through serious shit mate. My job is a victim of Covid Pandemic (Exhibition booth designer) and I don't know when I will start working again. 10 years ago I had a bike crash and lost my ability to be conscious for 3weeks)plus 4 knee surgeries), it compromised my abilities to retrieve information for my work and I can not do my hobby as I used to(cycling)....so there are ups and downs in our life mate. That something noteworthy is our biology and the characteristic we share with our ancestors that managed to survive and procreate than "choosing" to lay down and wait to die.

if ancient philosophy is not linked to our current epistemology, then it is useless(epistemically speaking) .

Timothy Black YES.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 What do you know about philosophy? One wonders...

@@JappaKneads Philosophy is the intellectual endeavor we came up with to produce wise claims about the world. In order for a claim to be wise it needs to be based on knowledge . Since Kastrup's claims are not knowledge based, then by default they can not be wise. So his methods resemble those of a pseudo Philosopher.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 _"In order for a claim to be wise it needs to be based on knowledge ."_ Wordisms...in order for a claim to be "wise" it must be based on *Real World *Facts/Truths* ...mate. You can muse about concepts all day...concepts are also known and can therefore be considered "knowledge". If your "knowledge" is based ONLY Concepts it could be fallacious. The understanding of Real world data and all its nuances is the kind of knowledge that is the most sound... What _real world facts_ is the *theory* of emergence based on? They don't exist. We're back to your BZZZZZTS!!! by the way... You continue to project your transgressions unto others. In this case Bernado who gained his PHD in philosophy, which adds to his other accomplishments... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jsl9gsShypa0iWw.html Nickolas Gaspar seeks some kind of sick glory upon pulling another down...hoping to buoy or elevate himself off the backs of another's achievements. _"like a worthless crab in a barrel you are"_ - Yoda. You're yet to get your PHD in philosophy...not at the moocs....a PROPER one where you HAVE to defend your philosophical b.s to a panel of critical thinkers. You and your 19th century fable wouldn't stand a chance. These gentlemen gave Bernado his doctorate and they matter here...not you. So his wisdom didn't go beyond their perception neither was it deemed "non-existent" in accordance with YOUR idea of wisdom....the kind that embraces positions devoid of Natural Laws or causative mechanisms whilst making lofty claims. Bernado's work on his thesis was well thought, researched, referenced and well put together. Explain why he did not meet the requirement for his doctorate based on the *specific* points and the questions raised in the above link... ...and how/why YOU would have gotten your PHD much more swiftly... You deserve absolutely NO RESPECT here because of your inability to challenge Bernado to his face about your claims of his lack of wisdom (which you THINK you have)...and you hide behind a keyboard with a fake name...taking cowardly pot-shots at Bernado...a much more accomplished human than you... This writer views Nickolas Gaspar as.. *_A self proclaimed, smug, self-important ,, pseudo-intelligent, ENVIOUS. crab-in-the-barrel scum-ass bullshitter who has no idea the difference between an epistemological condition vs what is scientific fact._* That's why HE WILL DANCE AROUND ADDRESSING IT. ...mate. Enjoy what's left of the weekend.

He isnot a philosopher. He is a new age pseudo sophist

@@nickolasgaspar9660 He has a PHD in philosophy...where's yours?

@@JappaKneads where was Plato or Aristotle degrees. I am not sure that you reallyunderstand what philosophy is and why supernatural principles are pseudo philosophy mate

@@JappaKneads yeah...as I thought...

@@JappaKneads PhDs do not render pseudo philosophical arguments ...philosophical mate...

Logical fallacy(arguments from false authority). Planck's philosophical ideas are not more valid than a Buddhist monk's ideas about reality... This is a logical error you keep committing. You are being noticed but you are correcting your fallacious arguments. You are guilty of pseudo philosophy.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Guilty of pseudo philosophy you say....then so are Planck, Heisenberg, and Bohm. And who is to say the Buddhist monk's ideas are any less valid than the materialist scientists. I find it funny you keep pointing out that its an argument from false authority without saying what you mean by that. I dont find the ideas of Planck, Heisenberg, and Bohm to be fallacious. Please dont talk to me again about proof because we have been down that road many, many times before. I'm only being noticed by you and the various names you post under and I have no idea what you mean by correcting my arguments because I have changed nothing.

@@tnvol5331 there isn't such a thing as "materialistic Science". Science is based on Methodological Naturalism. This means that on science we can not accept as possible explanations unverifiable claims about the supernatural. What you think about Bohm's and Heisenberg's philosophy is irrelevant! First of all what they ended up believing has nothing to do with what you think about their philosophical beliefs. Secondly assuming a supernatural agency for things we can't explain is an argument of ignorance by definition....a fallacy after all. Now about proof or better objective verification as I often point to. A fallacious argument is by definition a set of unverified premises that are accepted as true. So by trying to avoid verification...you are just begging me to participate in a tennis match without the net. Lol I am not using different names mate. There are others that understand reasoning and bad arguments... don't fool your self. Again check the links...it will help you educate your self on the topic.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I already defeated this OLD argument of yours so why bring it up again? Of course there is materialistic science. Do our thoughts come form the physical structures of the brain or is the brain in consciousness? The materialist says thought come from the brain. Which do you say? And yes you are using multiple names but I dont care.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Ah you need to pay attention lad: There is no such thing as 'the' scientific method. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question 'what is science'. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking." Richard Feynman The great professor is telling you what I have told you. Gaspar, you are in a deep trance and you do not know you are in a deep trance. Men you have never met have controlled your life as they indoctrinated you and you knew it not which is risible.

those are unfalsifiable assumptions containing a huge contradiction .

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Pinpoint the contradictions. Deconstruct them.

@@JappaKneads in order to be aware of anything SOMETHING must exist. These is where all this idealistic woo ends

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Yeah...and you have no idea what this "SOMETHING" is do you?...that's where your ignorance begins ...mate.

@@JappaKneads everybody's ignorance starts there. The only difference between me and you magical thinkers is that I only Investigate and describe what is within our Cataleptic Impressions. You on the other hand go beyond and start talking about magic substances and the nature of an invisible reality. You are Irrational individuals mate...

Jet Plane a lot of insight there. But we have to understand that a lot of the mid-level knowledge managers are more interested in divisive debate or politics even though they may not know it. So yes Bernardo is the real deal, but really it’s better that all people have a say and hold open aspects of reality that people like Bernardo and Deepak can define themselves against. Yes Bernardo is obviously correct, but there are a lot of people who literally cannot see that and they need a voice too. Upon these winds the truth will be borne.

What are you talking about. Science doesn't subscribe to pseudo philosophical worldviews. What physicists believe about our observations are irrelevant and have nothing to do Science. Science is based on Methodologicsl Naturalism. This means that materialistic, naturalistic or supernaturalistic principles are in conflict with science's well established limits and methodologies. So pls stop projecting physicists' philosophical views in science.

@@spiralsun1 I agree that Bernardo is the real deal but Deepak is another matter.He is more of as pop philosopher than a serious intellect. Just my opinion.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 What are you talking about? The division in modern theoretical physics between materialist and non materialists is well known. Are you saying Davis Bohm and Heisenberg did not make important contribution to physics? There are severe limits to what is traditionally called science if one is searching for truth. Materialistic science presupposes the physical senses are reliable in being able to observe and measure. Its badly outdated in my opinion and in the opinion of many others. What we know as science is changing as we recognize its limits and how much it is based on the interpretation of our physical senses.Modern science is blending with philosophy not because it is becoming "new age" but because the old idea we have of "science" is now recognized as inadequate and now we must begin to think.That means you can not fall back on terminology like" pseudo philosophical worldview". Please get away from spouting those traditional canned responses and talking points used by the old guard. We have heard them far to many times already.You have to think!

@@tnvol5331 No, that division has nothing to do with the science. Its a philosophical division between physicists with different philosophical Worldviews. When really important thinkers reach their limits of investigation and understanding, most of them tend to use their ideologies as "answers" to what they ignore. Plato did that, Aristotle did that, Descartes did that ...and the fathers of QM also did the same! "Are you saying Davis Bohm and Heisenberg did not make important contribution to physics?" -I think I was pretty clear in my statements. Why are you coming back with a strawman? The fathers of QM offered many things in our epistemology, but that doesn't mean that their interpretations are correct or true. THis is why we still refer to their ideas as INTERPRETATIONS...not theories. Do you know the difference between those two words ? "There are severe limits to what is traditionally called science if one is searching for truth." -And here is how a pseudo philosophical statement is composed!..... The limits of "traditional science" lol that you call are not made up limits. They are limits defined by logic. By rejecting those limits you are just demanding to play tennis without the net man. You are embracing logical fallacies in your desperate effort to declare an argument sound. We have been there and it was a mesh. Great example was teleology (Aristotle) Phlogiston, Orgone Energy. Those ideas delayed our epistemic evolution for ages...Don't take science back in that mesh. " have heard Sam say that non materialism a failed ideology and apparently some are buying it but his pronouncement seems a bit silly to many." -Non materialistic and materialistic worldviews are ALL indefensible positions. Yes we do identify matter and its causal role in all observable phenomena but that doesn't justify any materialistic statement on the ontology of reality. On the other hand non materialistic are also indefensible since we don't have a way to evaluate those claims. PHILOSOPHICAL worldviews are a really bad way to make ontological claims about reality. " Materialistic science presupposes the physical senses are reliable in being able to observe and measure." -That makes no sense. There isn't SUCH A THINK as a Materialistic Science. I know that materialists and idealists make those claims but they are factually wrong! AGAIN science is BASED ON METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM. MN doesn't make any claims about the underlying nature of reality. It acknowledges the limits of our methodologies and tries to build an epistemology well inside those limitations! Science CAN ONLY describe CAUSAL RELATIONS WITHIN OUR CATALEPTIC IMPRESSIONS! Science DOESN"T deal with Ontological speculations about the nature of reality. Observed Empirical regularities in nature and our ability to produce meaningful descriptions, accurate predictions and technical applications are what make our observation methods trustworthy. Its a fact that we can study only what is natural, so we have no excuse to use the supernatural in our explanations. BUT That SAYS nothing about its state or the absolute state of reality. You ...both sides (materialism and idealism) SHOULD stop pretending to know things that you don't ...and you need to stop polluting science with your pseudo philosophical principles and accept our limits in our observations. "What we know as science is changing as we recognize its limits and how much it is based on the interpretation of our physical senses." -You are confusing the principles and types of our methodologies with our epistemology. Sure our knowledge changes and expands. What we don't see to change are the philosophical principles of Science and the standards of evidence....THOSE OF Methodological Naturalism and reason. So pls stop making claims that are factually incorrect. "Modern science is blending with philosophy not because it is becoming "new age" but because the old idea we have of "science" is now recognized as inadequate and now we must begin to think." -Science WAS ALWAYS PHILOSOPHY. It was called Natural Philosophy, scientists until today are awarded with PhD's (doctor of philosophy) and ALL OUR THEORIES are philosophical narratives based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism! MN has nothing in common with Philosophical Naturalism, so naturalism is only our limited conclusions ,NOT our presumption. You observe pseudo philosophy intruding in QM because its a common thing to observe such stories inside the fields of science when we reach limits of our observations. People tend to make up answers in the form of interpretations or hypotheses....Good luck in demonstrating their truth value. "That means you can not fall back on terminology like" pseudo philosophical worldview"." -I can and I will as long as those worldviews use unjustified philosophical principle. They are by definition pseudo philosophical . "Please get away from spouting those traditional canned responses and talking points used by the old guard. We have heard them far to many times already.You have to think!" -I am not sure that you can even distinguish Methodological Naturalism from Philosophical Naturalism or materialism...so you are grouping my views that you don't understand with others that are familiar to you...that is a common tactic, I don't blame you. Materialism, Physicalism, IDealism, New age spiritualism (Kastrup's woo) are ALL INDEFENSIBLE, Irrational positions man. That is a fact. None of those views can DEMONSTRATE the truth value of their presumptions.

You don;t have a clue what BOhm and Heisenberg pointed out man. try this brief clarification...and see how people have distorted their positions. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebpnhsyDztevXYU.html

@@nickolasgaspar9660 You don't have a clue what you're all about despite your generously offered links. One wonders if you expect that others are as ignorant to the substantive issues as you seem to be , as you hope their perusing the links you post fool them that you have a clue about the very articles/videos that you actually read or watch.... *:-)*

@@JappaKneads that is what you are keeping telling to your self. The truth is that logic meshed with your death denying ideology and your cognitive dissonance tries to protect you from the reality check I throw at you.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 _"The truth is that logic meshed with your death denying ideology..."_ Nobody questions that death of the physical organism is inevitable. You seem to pretend to know of that which cannot be put into words.

@@JappaKneads so if you believe that physical organisms exist then your claim about consciousness is a theology type of belief. Creationists attribute phenomena they don't understand like the formation of our universe , gallaxy, solar system, planet and the emergence of life and the diversity of life to a super being....while you assume a magical substance for an other phenomenon (consciousness) you don't understand. Nice....look at all those assh#@&s....ohm I meant unfounded opinions

Sky Darmos : We can also control our dreams and nightmares. Just google „lucid dream“.

@@DavidJeromePutnam then why do you ever feel bad?

@@DavidJeromePutnam Control then Israel from killing Palestinians. Can you?

@@ernestamoore4385 those have a materialistic point of view that's why they do such things

@@Zatzzo because you think about something you don't want to happen in your life and believe it'll happen/is happening.

Question your hurt nose the next time you try to walk through a brick wall. Senses are there for a important reason mate. Those who questioned their senses have earned them selves a Darwin Award.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 ​ Nickolas Gaspar I do not believe you REALLY understand those ideas of David Bohm and Werner Heisenberg otherwise you would understand walking through the brick wall happens within consciousness. Their point is... what we understand of the world is censored through the senses and they are not reliable to give us reality.

@@tnvol5331 You don't understand that whether I understand their ideas or not IS IRRELEVANT ! The phenomenon of our conscious brain states is part of Cognitive science and Neuroscience....not Physics...lol Nothing is "within" consciousness...stop using the same silly deepity, just because a high priest of woo said it. Consciousness is the ability of organisms with brains to be aware of their self and environment. By definition, in order to be aware of anything SOMETHING MUST EXIST in the first place. THIS IS WHAT " it means to BE AWARE of.... Everything is within existence by definition. This is Forensic Logic 101 -"Their point is... what we understand of the world is censored through the senses and they are not reliable to give us reality." -How can they PROVE that...seriously! How can they demonstrate the unreliability of the ability of our senses to register the Classical Scale of Reality, by addressing phenomena in the Quantum Scale??? lol I can prove that being aware of what exist can help you keep your nose in good shape. What can you provide to prove that our senses are useless?

@@nickolasgaspar9660" Consciousness is the ability of organisms with brains to be aware of their self and environment." The material brain does not generate consciousness. That is the view of materialists. Some of the greatest minds in theoretical physics do not believe that and believe that consciousness gives rise to the brain the physical world. Your comment about the brick wall and nose it to silly to even address and I will not do so.

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Nothing can be proven so the idea that proof is necessary is a silly one. Materialism....the view that consciousness is generated by the brain, that is by physical matter, is the very definition of materialism and that is my idea of woo. The best minds of today or yesterday do not include Sam Harris or the materialists. They are names like Bernardo Kastrup, David Bohm, and Heisenberg. Materialists idea of proof involves the evidence of the senses which is about as woo and woo can get.

Personality is not a product of a "field" but of a physical set up of hormones, receptors and previous experiences (more chemical inputs).

@@nickolasgaspar9660 There is more to it than hormones.

@@TheGarrymoore sure...this is what I said. But we don't invent magical fields and label them "personality" and then we assume that we explained the complex phenomenon if personality!. The fact is that personalities are shaped or affected by hormones. l.e Administrate oxytocin or adrenaline or testosterone to an individual and you observe immediate shift in their personality.

The difference between the scientific and philosophical questions is that science discovers behavior (as you do) and philosophy discoveres what things are. For both, the principle of explanatory parsimony is crucial. Kastrup bridges the hard problem of consciousness in a very parsimonious explanatory way. Science does not bridge it at all.

@@TheGarrymoore well your distinction doesn't make much sense. Modern Science includes Philosophy in its methodologies. This is why we have theoretical frameworks describing the foundings from our scientific methodologies. Autonomous Philosophy can not provide much things since it doesn't have a methodology to evaluate it's conclusions. More over Kastrup's pseudo intellectual efforts are not Philosophical at all. They don't include any of our accepted epistemology and all of his speculations are based on epistemically failed supernatural principles. Aristotle first defined the Philosophical method and acknowledged the essential role of science in all philosophical inquiries. He did that by analyzing the goals of Philosophy outlined by the etymology of the word it self (love of wisdom). So Philosophical a conclusion that offers wise claims about the world. In order for a claim to be wise , it needs to be based on knowledge and science is the single most credible way to evaluate knowledge claims. Parsimony is an important rule of thumb in logic, which alert us of the Irrational practice of reproducing unnecessary entities in our explanations. Unfortunately for Kastrup he makes this exact error by assuming consciousness to be somekind of entity/substance. In science the word consciousness is a name tag of an emergent property of brain matter....not a magical substance. So he is making an unparsimonious claim by default Kastrup's bridges nothing. There isn't such a thing as a "hard problem" of consciousness because "why" problems are useless, made up (begging the question fallacies) problems. Your claim about science is a classic argument from incredulity fallacy. Science offers causal descriptions about the responsible mechanisms for this phenomenon ...not ontological speculations on made up "why" questions.

@Justin D ​ Justin D So what created it? You don't provide an explanation

@Language and Programming Channel UNCREATED? LOL. Consciousness is uncreated... define "uncreated". Don't use fancy inexistent terms without validity. If consciousness is uncreated... is that non-created... so it doesn't exist? Everything that exists is created somehow.

@@ernestamoore4385 so you believe in infinity?

@@relaxandfocus5563 Yes. You don't?

@@ernestamoore4385 to be just honest, I don't know but if we say everything is created will have to go without a pause forever, this creates this, and that is created by that. I'm still confused and still researching. What your position? you are a materialist?