What Is Consciousness Debate | Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup & Christof Koch

No video

What Is Consciousness Debate | Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup & Christof Koch

Рет қаралды 34,040

Күн бұрын

Enjoy this riveting 'What Is Consciousness' debate with Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup (scientist) and Christof Koch (neuroscientist).
With such a vast scientific and non-dual knowledge between them, this fascinating conversation delves into many aspects of consciousness and the nature of reality, including: awareness and the human mind; phenomenal consciousness; reductionism; idealism; Integrated Information Theory (IIT); meta and artificial consciousness; and psychedelics. A non-duality podcast not to be missed.
This debate was arranged by the Oxford Psychedelic Society in November, 2021.
LISTEN TO FULL EPISODE:
Spotify: spoti.fi/3RjGsVW
Apple: apple.co/3D4Ou0q
Libsyn: bit.ly/3cPkI57
Podbean: bit.ly/3D1CYmn
--
ACCESS FULL VIDEO ARCHIVE
You can watch or listen to 1000s of hours of teachings, guided meditations and answers in Rupert's full video archive here:
▸ rupertspira.co...
--
RETREATS (Weekend, 5-day, 7-day)
Rupert holds regular retreats, roughly once per month, either in-person and online. Many in-person retreats can also be attended from the comfort of your home via livestream.
ONLINE RETREAT SCHEDULE
▸ rupertspira.co...
IN-PERSON RETREATS SCHEDULE (Also Available to Join Online via Live Stream)
▸ UK rupertspira.co...
▸ US rupertspira.co...
--
WEEKLY WEBINARS (2 hours)
Rupert's webinars take place most Sunday and Thursday evenings, from 4pm UK time. In the first twenty to thirty minutes, Rupert leads a spontaneous meditation. The remaining time is open for attendees to discuss their questions with Rupert.
WEEKLY WEBINAR SCHEDULE
▸ rupertspira.co...
--
FREE CONTENT, EVENTS & NEW RELEASES
To be notified of free content, events (online and in-person), books and other new releases, please sign up to Rupert's free newsletter:
rupertspira.co...
--
BROWSE RUPERT’S BOOKS
▸ rupertspira.co...
--
LISTEN TO RUPERT’S PODCAST
▸ iTunes: podcasts.apple...
▸ Libsyn: rupertspira.li...
▸ Spotify: open.spotify.c...
--
JOIN RUPERT’S FACEBOOK GROUP
▸ / rupertspiracommunity
--
FOLLOW RUPERT ON MEDIUM
/ rupert_spira
--
SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS
▸ Website: rupertspira.com
▸ Instagram: / rupertspira_
▸ Facebook: / rupertspira
▸ Twitter: / rupertspira
▸ Tiktok: / rupertspira_
--
SUBSCRIBE TO RUPERT’S KZfaq
▸ www.youtube.co...
--
#rupertspira #nonduality #happiness #natureofreality #consciousness #awareness #meditation #guidedmeditation

Пікірлер: 155

@JamesBS Жыл бұрын

What an important role Bernardo plays in conveying idealism to the scientific community

@DeniseLionetti44 Жыл бұрын

The more I listen to Bernardo, the more I admire not only his incredible mind, but also his beautiful humility and kind manner when running circles around the likes of Christof. I wish Rupert had had more airtime!

@DeniseLionetti44 Жыл бұрын

Valeu, Bernardo!!

@happyone4833 Жыл бұрын

Rupert’s silence spoke more than any words❤️✨

@luismoref Жыл бұрын

@@DeniseLionetti44 ele tem trabalhos em português?

@DeniseLionetti44 Жыл бұрын

@@luismoref nem ideia

@daryldooey1 Жыл бұрын

Well said.the idea of a maximum?i infinity

@happyone4833 Жыл бұрын

A great relief will occur when scientists realize & everyone knows matter is a vibrational frequency. Our idea of solid matter is a misinterpretation that’s separating everything. Saying your made of music is a closer interpretation than what science has provided.❤ Mahalo Rupert for everything u do💜✨

@squamish4244 Жыл бұрын

From my own numerous experiences, yes, matter is a vibrational frequency, and if science recognized this it would save us *so much crap.*

@ParallelNewsNetwork Жыл бұрын

Or even more clear is the idea that Terence McKenna proposed that “objective reality” is made out of language or information and that information is using bipedal anthropoids as a central nervous system to disperse itself

@RevertofAllah Жыл бұрын

Bernardo is wiping the floor, and Rupert is observed with reserved humor and grace.

@marentimm4868 Жыл бұрын

Rupert's silence says it all.

@squamish4244 Жыл бұрын

I'm very happy that consciousness is _finally_ accepted as a legitimate field of study in science. It is beyond bizarre to think that it was excluded for the last 500 years, since the Scientific Revolution. We were obsessed with knowing and forgot about what is doing all the knowing! And here we are, an immensely wealthy and powerful society full of unhappiness and suffering.

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

I like the way Rupert devastates Christof's materialism with just a few, clear, soft spoken sentences and then Christof goes berserk.

@serafimsousa5383 Жыл бұрын

"He" filters everything trough "his" conceptual mind so...."he" is still inside the box.

@squamish4244 Жыл бұрын

This happened to me just today. I challenged a physicist who bashed 'quantum mysticism' to explain what consciousness is and how it works and also that physicists are willing to entertain every sort of crazy phenomenon except nonlocal consciousness because it strikes at the heart of the sense of self. He immediately turned from a mature, intelligent expert to a furious manchild, getting angry and insulting me in his very first reply. The resistance to truly exploring consciousness and the possibility that it exists independent of the brain is just...wow.

@Corteum Жыл бұрын

@@squamish4244 Unfortunately, the materialists know that theyre on their last legs and about to fall into a blackhole f rom which they will never return. It's all downhill for them now. 😂 They just dont want to admit that consciousness cannot be defined in its entirety in purely materialistic or mathematical or biological terms. When you bring this and certain otheer facts to their attention, they squirm a lot.

@Scuor2 2 ай бұрын

Or he's adding inpenetrable layers of word salad to deal with depending on what you find personally find comforting. This debate keeps playing itself out over and over with few miracles on either side. Different configurations of brain or mind stuff yelling at each other 😂 if idealists are hippies great otherwise i shudder at the imaginary constructs that can get built

@_WeDontKnow_ 2 ай бұрын

I love Rupert and I disagree with this comment. He didn't devastate anything Christof said. It's two different beliefs on the same thing. Christof is saying that our capacity to experience comes from the brain itself. Rupert responds and says he believes our capacity to experience precedes the brain. Neither of them proved the other one wrong.

@JSambrook Жыл бұрын

What a treat to be able to listen to the thoughts of these individuals. I hope this series will continue.

@donmackie6086 Жыл бұрын

Despite having to relisten to parts to gather the gist, I found this to be an extremely informative and entertaining discussion. Many thanks to the three gentlemen and the good people at Oxford. Most grateful for this.

@GhostJist 7 ай бұрын

Rupert, thank you for uploading this conversation. Having Christof and Bernardo participate really helped me understand your teachings.

@damon1711 Жыл бұрын

Wow, this talking was amazing. I've been a fan of Spira for many years and in the last year or so discovered Kastrup, read 3 of his books, listened to many interviews and I've always struggled with one particular aspect. Christoff Koch asked the one question I really needed an answer too and between both Spira and Kastrup, it all came clear.. Thank you!

@wiktorfiegler6353 Жыл бұрын

in which minute did he ask?

@damon1711 Жыл бұрын

@@wiktorfiegler6353 @ 1:25:55

@wiktorfiegler6353 Жыл бұрын

@@damon1711 thank you. What do you think about their response. I would say. That the molecular change rseults in different frequency of consciousness, and we see different things becouse we have changed frequency.

@LeftBoot Жыл бұрын

@@damon1711 Christof still struggles flipping his perceptions. Maybe a psilocybin experience would help?

@iamwoods_music Жыл бұрын

@damon which book of Bernardo’s do you recommend/like most?

@mindfulkayaker7737 Жыл бұрын

Francis Lucille should be invited to a discussion like this. He has a very pragmatic approach to the idea of justify idealism since the rational scientific point of view. According to him science will never be able to demonstrate that consciousness is he ultimate reality of existence but it can not prove the opposite also. And once we arrive to this point we have to use common sense and use the empirical criteria of “what make me more happy or peaceful” to arrive to a conclusion

@bennymanfrost Жыл бұрын

I would love this discussion to include Donald Hoffman as I think it would add an absolutely invaluable perspective.

@mikro171 Жыл бұрын

I love the clearness and directness of Rupert. The other two guys are way too scientific and complicated.

@emptinessisfulloflove1213 Жыл бұрын

Given that scientists rely completely on quantifiable, empirical evidence, it's hard if not impossible for them to understand concepts around God, the spirit, spirituality, etc... - - ie, anything that can't actually be measured but is indeed felt and experienced. And yet -- I would bet that every single scientist out there has experienced, directly, love, and that, whether they know it on a conscious level or not, love is the most important thing in their life - this thing that they cannon measure but whose existence they cannot deny.

@S.G.Wallner Жыл бұрын

It does feel that way. I relate to that. But it is conceivable that this can change. It's hard to spend time thinking deeply about the philosophy and also do really good science. I think a lot about how or if that is possible and under what conditions.

@squamish4244 Жыл бұрын

It depends on what sort of love we are talking about. According to Buddhism, everything is compounded i.e. an object except consciousness itself. Therefore, it is conceivable that with the right tools - sufficiently advanced computers, such as quantum computers - we will indeed be able to measure chemically induced love, that is to say, all love but the infinite love that consciousness radiates. This does not take away from the magic of love, because it in is the conscious experience of love where the magic happens and which will remain forever unknowable But I think we will eventually be able to measure _everything_ that is an object in awareness. I can foresee a time when very powerful quantum computers can even measure our 'phi' of karma, because karma is the most expansive object in awareness but _still_ an object. We live in interesting times.

@innerlight617 Жыл бұрын

1.19.23:BK" if enough people transform themselves then a new cultural narrative will emerge naturally.." Exactly! Thanks for uploading.

@thomashaible6580 Жыл бұрын

Kock's answer to Rupert's question, "What hears the alarm?" is limited by his acceptance that you cannot test the assumption that awareness is present. And he limited by the very idea that he has ACCEPTED that awareness is limited. Unlimited mind focuses itself and loses its awareness. Kock cannot imagine that unlimited mind would limit itself and overlook itself.

@paulblundell3053 Жыл бұрын

Christof needs to go on a retreat with Rupert to experience the one field consciousness/awareness.

@squamish4244 Жыл бұрын

I think a lot of physicists and mathematicians working in the fields of cosmology etc. need to do this. They are no more aware of their own mental processes and perceiving objects as 'in' consciousness than anyone not as smart and it really damages their efforts and causes a lot of confusion.

@Self-Duality Жыл бұрын

Mathematically, consciousness is the fundamental operation of “self-reference”, whereby a system (call it existence) brings itself into existence by becoming “aware” or “conscious” of its own eternal structure. This can of course be explained in more detail, but this is what scientists and mathematicians need to understand.

@george5464 Жыл бұрын

you’ve literally just explained the explanatory gap without filling it in, namely, how is this ‘becoming of awareness’ possible/happening according to computational accounts? Assuming that computation is axiomatically immaterial and has no awareness

@Self-Duality Жыл бұрын

@@george5464 This “coming into awareness” is not merely computational (which is mechanical and therefore non-self-referential), or even standardly mathematical (which obeys a finite set of axioms and therefore “crashes” in the face of infinitely many self-referential axioms). It is also not temporal. It is an eternal process which humans can recognize via the coupling of minimal structure and maximal structure, thereby opening and closing the system at once. Demonstrating this (in detail) takes a nontrivial degree of “fancy footwork”, but it is fairly easy to intuit. [Teaser]: The minimal structure is “truth”, or more precisely, a “truth-valuation”. The maximal structure is the truth-valuation of “existence”, formulated as an “infinite-order metalanguage” (i.e., universal or cosmic consciousness). The minimal structure of truth *is* the maximal structure of this metalanguage: perfect parsimony. For the purposes of scientific theorization and experimentation, this minimal/maximal structure allows for all scientists to realize that they are studying the “intermediaries” (i.e., local agents) of one universal consciousness. Debates about atheism, dualism, materialism, etc. become moot. Humankind can unite its science with its spirituality, beginning to heal its corrosive interpersonal tendencies and institutional structures.

@george5464 Жыл бұрын

@@Self-Duality so are you a mathematician

@Self-Duality Жыл бұрын

@@george5464 Yes, but not as an academic. I fuse philosophy and mathematics into “mathematical metaphysics”, and I conduct this research on an independent basis. Why? Because (a) academia is (at this time) actively hostile to this fusion, and (b) this research requires near complete creative freedom. I serve humankind, not restrictive academic or corporate interests.

@jussy- Жыл бұрын

@@Self-Duality ok but like how does affect the fortnite servers?

@dtcarrick Жыл бұрын

Christof cannot distinguish between the content of awareness and awareness itself. Using Bernardo's helpful metaphor of the field, christof seems unable to appreciate the field without activity.

@plafar7887 Жыл бұрын

Exactly. He's just going around in circles.

@RevertofAllah Жыл бұрын

Christof won't leave his self-imposed conceptual box. As Bernardo has said in other settings, it's hard to change your mind when your salary depends on you holding fast to your old ideas.

@skemsen Жыл бұрын

"What a time to be alive!" :-) Wonderful conversation and very well moderated! Thank you for making this.

@RoYaL3796 Жыл бұрын

Bernardo is the bridge that will get us from Koch to Rupert.

@dporper6390 Жыл бұрын

I was bothered that Rupert was not given equal time during the main debate. Perfect debate subject - imperfect format. But I still loved it!!

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

Yes. But I believe Rupert was most effective with the least amount of words. It was a delight to witness.

@primordialarchetypes2927 Жыл бұрын

@@misterpibb108 Agree! Spira effectively explained Consciousness in a very short period of time and his message is much better understandable than that of Koch, or even Kastrup for that matter. The latter two are excessively mired in philosophical jargon (Kastrup) or neuroscience jargon (Koch) that wasted a lot of on-screen time.

@letsbehealthy Жыл бұрын

I enjoyed the interview. Looking forward to the continuing of this discussion. 💗

@carlosazuaje Жыл бұрын

I LOVE these talks! Please bring more! I think this is extremely helpful because it mixes the way many people think/reason with experiential understanding. All points are perfectly valid, but gathering these kinds of different perspectives together helps to narrow the gap between the common understanding of reality and the wisdom of what reality actually is.

@thomashaible6580 Жыл бұрын

1:04...Kastrup's example of waking from a dream and not remembering is a great example of consciousness remaining in the background in an APPARENTLY unconscious state.

@markbrashear5280 Жыл бұрын

For me this podcast was difficult to understand. Rupert Spira always shines as this is my experience.

@damon1711 Жыл бұрын

That's one of the reasons you bring both Bernardo and Rupert, one speaks better to Intellectuals and the other speaks better to Emotionals.

@S.G.Wallner Жыл бұрын

If you spend more time with BK's work, it should be easy for you to see the bridges between RS and BK. Check out his 6 part series on The Essentia page.

@primordialarchetypes2927 Жыл бұрын

It is painfully obvious that Dr. Koch is deeply entrenched in the physicalist view of matter generating consciousness, rather than the other way round that Bernardo and Spira are trying hard to communicate. Having said that, for most of us new to Kastrup's Idealism, thinking of a substance/matter as purely mental is a hard concept to understand.

@dwai963 Жыл бұрын

not so hard to understand, it's just his career...

@chrishowe8614 11 ай бұрын

As great a scientist Kock may be, this discussion illustrates exactly the limitations of a materialist/reductionist approach to reality that the two idealist have pointed out in the past. He really understands his Petri dishes but can't seem to go beyond them at all.

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

You can't compare consciousnesses through the instrument of a physical form. Whose to say a person in a comatose state isn't soaring into transdimensional realms of knowledge! Again, the primordial subject, to Christof, seems to be mistaken for its reflection, the individual illusion of a separate ego. I love his spirit. He thinks you can measure the infinite. It's absurd. But he does have an amazing intellect. I admire his bravado.

@helensutcliffe4181 Жыл бұрын

You're all missing the point by debating about whether a flatlining patient still has conscious activity going on. Don't forget, the patient never had any consciousness. The patient is IN the consciousness. The patient could be dead and cremated without altering the consciousness one jot.

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Intellectual brilliance has a hard time admitting to what cannot be grasped by the intellect. Pride?

@saddiesadboy Жыл бұрын

The patient is a content of conscious, so in that case it does not have conscious, but the patient in so far as he is subject, is conscious, no?

@andreasmannal5259 Жыл бұрын

The distinction, which Rupert Spira and Bernardo Kastrup make for consciousness is a PHILOSOPHICAL (Metaphysical) one. Christof Koch is completely committed to the side of content in this distinction, which is perfectly ok for a scientist, as long as they are aware of their commitment. This distinction applies in principle to anything. There is the content of the bottle and the bottle as such, for example. In my work I call it the 'area of principle' under consideration. It is derived from Plato and Aristoteles, who were the first ones in the cognitive tradition of the West, who made that distinction explicitly as the singularity of a non-local, timeless point versus the multiplicity of an infinite amount of localized dots in time. This distinction is a work of Logos. Werner Erhard formulated it in a more pragmatic way as ‘condition versus context’. This goes to say that this distinction is NOT proprietary either to consciousness, or to experience. I can apply it to Atman, to a bottle, to God, and to any perceived system…What they are doing in a sense by equating this universal distinction made via LOGOS with ‘consciousness’, is, that they initiate a Dogma of Consciousness…And that seems counter-productive, because consciousness is an uncommitted, unethical, surface term, which is very typical for a superficial New Age movement steeped in subjective relativism and idiot individualism. Now, the New Age version of God is 'consciousness', and of Satan 'ego'...;)

@sindstof5631 Жыл бұрын

Very interesting.

@gireeshneroth7127 7 ай бұрын

Consciousness is the being whose being is the world's being as subject and objects. Consciousness is worldbeing itself.

@shridhrag Жыл бұрын

While consciousness is extremely difficult to define, its presence is the easiest thing to experience and agree upon as nothing can be closer to me than myself. In fact consciousness is the only thing that we can be absolutely sure about. However, most scientists would rather accept that they are zombies than agree that they are aware. I feel it is a futile exercise to make them aware that they are aware and it is easier to accept that they are actually telling the truth (that they are not aware 😂)

@S.G.Wallner Жыл бұрын

A main distinction between BK and CK might be their descriptions of the experience of a scientific studying "consciousness." Maybe it relates to their own understanding of the subject/object issues.

@pepedestroyer5974 Жыл бұрын

*1:40:01*

@gregmixing 3 ай бұрын

Their respective accents are delightfully appropriate for their worldviews.

@mehdimoussaoui1712 2 ай бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@pepedestroyer5974 Жыл бұрын

24:00

@melaniejackson4199 Жыл бұрын

Enjoyed the banter between Rupert and the anesthesiologist.

@paul-on9py 20 күн бұрын

Its very simple.....being aware of being aware, is the end of suffering.

@Jagombe1 Жыл бұрын

Bernardo brought sanity to this conversation! His refusal to use psychedelics enmasse, for cultural acceptance of the experience is quite insightful. It is the same desire that has made preaching fail in religion. Like he says, it is only individual experience, that shall confirm this, if many people, on their own, come out.

@Ockersvin 11 ай бұрын

I think the words "mind" or "mental" carry too much baggage to be useful when referring to "it" in this context. I think it's obfuscating rather than enlightening when the parties are in such fundamental disagreement. Other than that, loved the exchange!

@Pinstripe0451 Жыл бұрын

Debate of the Titans.

@dwai963 Жыл бұрын

oh wow, we are going to have a lot of fun

@user-li9xg8ze8u 11 ай бұрын

it is possible for a body to be unconscious. But it is impossible for consciousness to be unconscious.

@alexwilk254 Жыл бұрын

There is no 3rd person experience. No one ever had that. There is only 1st person experience because there is only I am.

@wiktorfiegler6353 Жыл бұрын

Thousands of people with nde? Few were verified?

@alexwilk254 Жыл бұрын

@@wiktorfiegler6353 nde, oobe or lucid dream whatever state of consciousness you take it will always be seen from the same focal point of 1st person. It is simply because there is only One "you". When they are talking of 3rd person experience I guess they are referring to measurements taken by instruments or "he said, she said" perspective but it's still all perceived from the same point of 1st person perspective/experience. Even she or he only will have 1st person experience.

@wiktorfiegler6353 Жыл бұрын

@@alexwilk254 oh i understand, thanks. There is only 1st person. Interesting, thought provoking

@alexwilk254 Жыл бұрын

@@wiktorfiegler6353 Great right!? It's not my thought, it just struck me couple weeks ago in meditation. "People are talking about this 3rd person experience as it proves so much but is there really something like this?" Then I've just realised that I've never had such experience so no one had. Of course! there is only one Consciousness, one Mind one Isness, so it can only see and have same perspective on all of the things - 1st perspective. Love this! :) Than there is no more contradiction in realisation: when I close my eyes and doesn't feel my body anymore it disappears literally :D (or even more fundamental - there never was such a thing as my body, I've just created that illusion)

@nadantagaming2276 Жыл бұрын

@@wiktorfiegler6353 Without thought, what's left?

@LeftBoot Жыл бұрын

1hr24m+ "Psychedelics are mind affecting mind" - Spira

@peternoordink5275 Жыл бұрын

At around 1 hr 30 they talk about the effects of psychedelic substances to personal experience. What is not discussed is that of placebo effect - where EXACTLY the same effect can be experienced and measured in the brain WITHOUT the psychedelic

@toomanydonuts Жыл бұрын

Have you ever smoked pure DMT crystals? Most people can't make the third hit. You huff deep and hard and do it quick because you are going to pass the f*ck out and this is why you need to be on a bed with a friend to watch you.

@lynnrixson1094 Жыл бұрын

Fascinating!! Thank you 😁

@dubbelkastrull Жыл бұрын

7:52 bookmark

@muratyumusakkaya888 7 ай бұрын

❤ Teşekkür ediyorum İyi ki varsın

@susa5045 8 ай бұрын

the concept of the present moment, where space and time seem to dissolve, presents a challenge in terms of measurability due to its inherently transcendent nature. According to string theory, there may exist additional dimensions that are intricately folded into minuscule pockets, making them undetectable by current scientific methods. It is within these dimensions that we potentially gain access to perceiving the timeless nature of the mind. While this state may feel like eternity, it remains unmeasurable as it exists beyond the confines of our physical dimension, thus eluding empirical detection.

@pepedestroyer5974 Жыл бұрын

*1:40:38*

@pepedestroyer5974 Жыл бұрын

*1:40:46*

@pepedestroyer5974 Жыл бұрын

*1:40:45*

@peonyer3351 Жыл бұрын

Amazing Podcast!!!

@pepedestroyer5974 Жыл бұрын

19:45 Bernardo answer

@ALavin-en1kr 2 ай бұрын

Consciousness is fundamental. Mind emerges with quantum events.

@Ghanzo Жыл бұрын

Fascinating!

@fahad56297 9 ай бұрын

Why does the host put brakes on the discussion all the time. So annoying

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

Right off the bat Christof begins with an assumed premise. Anything that "exists", he posits, must be the effect of a cause. Oh yeah?

@calebbrantley193 Жыл бұрын

Amazing.

@LeftBoot Жыл бұрын

Projection of consciousness and anthropomorphism will eventually become a serious issue for human civilization. Even politically debated! 😂 Hopefully conversations such as these, will allow future generations some rational escape from the mayhem that will undoubtedly ensue.

@infiniteone11 11 ай бұрын

If everything is consciousness, how can one deny consciousness to anything? The degree of localized perspectives may vary between minerals, plants, animals and humans, but it is all in and of consciousness. Why should a computer not reach the threshold of localized perspective defined as "conscious" - it "metabolizes" electrical current.

@georgedovas Жыл бұрын

If I use an anaolgy of a canvas and the image that is painted on the canvas, am I understanding it correctly that Christof is looking at that which appears on the canvas as consciousness (regulated by the laws of nature) and Rupert and Bernardo are seeing the canvas as consciousness? And Christof is saying that we can measure that which is on the canvas.

@delfinlabao5311 Жыл бұрын

We are much more powerful as human beings and the Science that Christof proclaims limits Human Potential !! for growth beyond time, space and causation

@daryldooey1 Жыл бұрын

22:44 ripped him to pieces ;)

@alejkun4923 Жыл бұрын

Christof: If your phone dies and has no measurable current. Does the internet cease to exist? Was the phone generating the databases, apis, infrastructure? It acts as a parser, not the generator. So does the brain.

@dtcarrick Жыл бұрын

Not to be rude but christof has over thought this.

@wiktorfiegler6353 Жыл бұрын

He was thinking too much?

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

It makes a great contrast with Rupert's simple clarity.

@MeRetroGamer Жыл бұрын

I think that Rupert and Bernardo would be understood better if they swap the terminology. When they talk about "consciousness", they're actually talking about "aliveness". The word "consciousness" usually has many nuances that lead to confussion. There's a universal sense of aliveness which is the source of everything else. It is the Alpha, and it impregnates every other experience. Nothing can be without aliveness, and aliveness isn't attached to any individual or concrete experience. The aliveness I feel and the aliveness any other being feels is a shared experience, it's unified, it's just one. It's not that "I feel aliveness", it's that *aliveness* is felt and it comes WITHIN a myriad of many other focused and unfocused experiences. It's not that there's a lot of beings feeling aliveness, there's just one single feeling of alivenes in the entire universe which is the "grandfather" of every other kind of experience. An "empty consciousness", as if consciousness were a receptacle, is a biased misunderstanding. There's just one being feeling aliveness, and then it diverges into a myriad of beings, just for everything to eventually fall back to the main being, which is just aliveness. But the "being" isn't a receptacle that "feels aliveness", *the "being" is the process itself of feeling aliveness.* It's just aliveness. Impersonal, unfocused, spontaneous and natural aliveness.

@gavaniacono Жыл бұрын

A very interesting suggestion.

@liamnewsom8583 Жыл бұрын

Haha this talk is bad ass

@magicalworld7681 Жыл бұрын

This is what happens when a Spiritual man and a materialistic person come to solve something which is neither matter nor anti-matter 😃

@LeftBoot Жыл бұрын

Aka 'Magic'

@paulmint1858 Ай бұрын

With the likes of Bernardo and Rupert, along with Ra Un Nefer Amen and Rupert Sheldrake, the ‘future’ looks bright. Just a shame Ra Un Nefer is still ‘hidden’ from view.

@gregmason6152 8 ай бұрын

Awful audio, couldn't imagine spending the better part of 2 hours listening.

@peteraddison4371 11 ай бұрын

... an old viking metaphorical truism goes, We are not Doers, we are Deciders. For, once the decision has been made, the doing is as good as done ... Analitical thought streams have gaps, regular, natural, noticeable pauses, arrising between the ending one thought, & the beginning of another. & the dwell time in any pause is expandable. This is described as the cessation of internal chatter, or dialogue. & Its an enlightening, meditative goal or a milestone to achieve & regularly revisit ...

@rickpandolfi7860 Жыл бұрын

I agree with Bernardo. But I’m not unsympathetic to Christoph. However, he seems hemmed in and reduced by an onus to construct experimentation that may ultimately be self defeating and deceptive.

@ALavin-en1kr 2 ай бұрын

Science will never be able to solve ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ because it is not material, not elemental so it cannot be subjected to the measurements or experiments of science. Consciousness can only be experienced or aligned with it cannot be reduced to the material or elemental.

@varuanda Жыл бұрын

I don't know wether i should be more surprised about the fact that i'm still surprised by how narrow minded the vast majority of scientists can be when it comes to consciousness or when i actually hear one pondering about, in these day and age. I mean only that term 'meta-consciousness'? C-mon! I'm half way in and unforntunately have to stop it, this Koch guy is obviously not getting it. That's why i rather stick to an some thousand year old sanskrit text, than checking on the latest scientific researches on that matter. It's like they wouldn't even except evidence even if the truth would jump into their stubborn faces. Ok, i've listend on just for a minute and Koch dares to say 'i can not have such an experience' Well then go an check for people in Turiya states whilst deep sleep, if you give a rats ass about witness reports or empirical research for science sake, dam' it. I'm sorry to say that Koch is the typical (german) nerdy scientist with no holistic overview, i was warned before by the accent.

@DeniseLionetti44 Жыл бұрын

I had an immediate sense of annoyance as well. He kept saying he needed empirical evidence but then much of what he, himself, put forth was not yet proven theory. For all of his calculations, his understanding seems very limited.

@varuanda Жыл бұрын

@@DeniseLionetti44 Wouldn't even be so annoyed and it is kind of funny bc i'm sure you can teach every other kid with a dream allegory and they would understand but somehow not many scientists. I really think they have a personal problem with the concept of the sheer fundamental consciousness, as they may think it's to close to these 'religious mumbojumbo' - and that is everything else but scientific and so they react and behave.

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

Really enjoyed this post. I think one of the problems with these so-called "geniuses" is they are invested and attached to their "intellect" in the same way a beautiful woman might be attached to her beauty. Makes it harder to "transcend" one's paradigm. IMO.

@varuanda Жыл бұрын

@@misterpibb108 Glad to hear. Right on and whatever it is they're attached to so exclusively, it hinders their understanding big time. And if you're not in for understanding as a scientist, then why bother at all?

@misterpibb108 Жыл бұрын

Christof misperceives consciousness, which is infinite like space, as finite, simply because he tries to penetrate its mysteries with a finite instrument, i.e., conceptual mind. This is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. If you wear pink glasses the world looks pink. He refuses to discard his mind. He does not trust his intuition because his mind is his sacred gatekeeper. I understand his fear. It's only natural.

@SezzzSimon Жыл бұрын

A dig is not considered a good dog because he us a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker. Yet when dog and man chase their tails it is easy to see the truth.

@tiborkoos188 Жыл бұрын

it might have helped to invite 1 person who is doing something other than science finction

@LucaS-fj2vh Жыл бұрын

💞🙏💮

@lukeharmon3454 Жыл бұрын

"whooped em again, didn't we Jose"

@ParallelNewsNetwork Жыл бұрын

For Christoph to use psychedelics as an example to promote the merits of physicalism is to discount the objective experience of boundary dissolved states IE entheogens, meditation, NDE of accessing a perceived field of consciousness in which information from other perceived consciousness is interpreted. In other words to use psychedelics to steelman materialism is to discount the experience in its entirety and there is plenty of data now to substantiate these claims. That is simply bad faith and seems to be an attempt to thwart off the mystic experience before it’s even mentioned. Clever move but transparent and fallacious.

@timblackburn1593 Жыл бұрын

According to what testable hypothesis is the unconscious "conscious" outside of it's own charismatic gobbledygook? - more like a bit of childish fun this is not concerned with meaning

@markbusch5907 Жыл бұрын

No one knows what anything is, go listen to Tony Parsons instead

@nigelralphmurphy2852 Жыл бұрын

How do you know they know? How do they know that they know?

@calculusmetal 3 ай бұрын

TLDR: Rupert said the answer, which is practical and makes us happier. The top neuroscientist is still a child playing in the garden with dirt and toys (ie matter), and hasnt yet found happiness... oops for his career.