Mod+ 274. DR. BERNARDO KASTRUP, WHY OUR CULTURE IS MATERIALISTIC

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, May 5, 2015.

  1. Matt²

    Matt² New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    It depends how you look at it. Are the banks providing a service or would customer be providing the banks an investment means. Perhaps the incentives could be based on co-op shares, fair and agreed upon loan payments, and, the most important rule, actual money, i.e. gold. Banks could only provide based on a physical net value. On a higher level states, corporations, countries etc..., GDP would be the fixed money in circulation. It would be far slower than a fractional system, but one hopefully regulated by reality, instead of the imaginary. I'm just guessing.

    Very true, the internet has been a force equalizer, but it has also created a means by which a totalitarian Fascist police-state can spread it's tentacles into every individuals daily lives down to the second, anywhere and everywhere.

    From my research it's clear that civilization is nothing more than a neo-Feudalism ruled over by a handful of ancient families. Where once it was kings, queens, lords, dukes etc..., we now have politicians, bankers, corporatist. And, of course, there are still serfs a.k.a. debt slaves. And all are ties into the secret societies. You just cannot get away from it and as fervently as pseudoskeptics want to label such things "tinfoil-hat" or "conspiracy theories" they are a disturbing reality.
     
  2. I am beginning wonder about idealism. Objects depend on consciousness, but consciousness depends on objects. It is a house of cards ... a magicians trick ... an illusion.

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/07/realizing-nature-of-mind.html
     
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,452
    I don't agree. There is an asymmetry between matter and mind. Mind (of some abstract kind) could create an illusion of a material universe, but as we have all discussed endlessly, matter can't generate mind.

    Another aspect of that asymmetry is that while it makes perfect sense to talk of a mind being fooled by an illusion of physical matter, it makes no sense at all for Dennett to claim that we are fooled into the illusion that we are conscious!

    However, as I often say, Idealism may only be obvious at a very deep level - it may be better to run with a flawed Dualism (like we run with the flawed combination of GR and QM) until gradually Dualism can give way to Idealism, because science seems to progress best with bridging theories - Newtonian physics simply had to precede modern physics, because without it, it would have been impossible to structure our ideas sufficiently to even think about QM etc.

    I have moved the contents of your link to my Kindle to read later! Therefore this is not (yet) a response to anything written there.

    David
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  4. It does sound a lot like what a materialist neuroscientist would say, but it is not a materialist statement. I asked about this elsewhere:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/dha...1150951254932089/?comment_id=1151592341534647
    If things aren't already confusing enough there's this:

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
     
  5. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,452
    I guess my problem is (and maybe it is just semantic) is that
    implies that consciousness can have a materialist cause - i.e. that there are configurations of matter that cause consciousness - and that is something that is just as hard to understand as the standard materialist viewpoint that consciousness is solely created by matter!

    I guess I feel that even Buddhism suffers from the same problem as other religions - you aren't supposed to rethink - only reinterpret! Having said that, I am sure the various Eastern religions can tell us a lot.

    aside

    I find articles on Buddhism extremely hard to read because they a stuffed with foreign words. Put like that, it sounds a rather narrow point of view, but I thought about it somewhat. The real problem is many words obviously lose a lot in translation - let's take an example taken from Wikki:
    It is just about impossible (at least for me) to keep all that in my head every time I meet the word Samyama (just one word picked at random) , and so what I absorb from such a text is very imprecise. I wonder if anyone else encounters the same problem.

    I know there is an analogy with science, for example, here is one definition of Eigenvalue (taken from GOOGLE's define: feature):
    This is equally hard to understand if you don't know what it means already, but one typically encounters these words one at a time, and each is illustrated by some examples (in a decent textbook). This brings out the full meaning, which a glossary never does!

    David
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  6. Hearing creates consciousness of sound. You need a brain to hear.

    http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/07/realizing-nature-of-mind.html


    With Buddhism, there are modern people who have the same realizations that the religion speaks about so we don't have to rely on ancient texts or dogma. Buddha said you should not believe something because he said so, you should only believe what you can verify for yourself. But not everyone can verify Buddha's realizations.
    The problem I have is that the words in the original texts often have multiple meanings and in some places a word means one thing and in another it means something else. There is debate among modern scholars over what the texts really mean. The best way around that is to find living people who have realized the same thing and ask them about it. But different people explain their realizations differently. There is some truth in there somewhere but I am still trying to figure out if it is talking about cosmology or subjective psychology. I don't know how to objectively test it. Even if you experience it yourself, how do you know if it is an illusion or not? I think you run into a problem like the eye can't see itself, or Godel's theorem - can the mind really understand itself?
     
  7. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,452
    Right - well if this is more of a statement that relates to the transmission model, then I agree.
    I suspect conventional science would have exactly the same problems if it hadn't developed a number of symbolisms - algebra, chemical formulae, etc to get round the ambiguity of modern language.

    Perhaps I am not so much talking about ultimate understanding, but more mundanely, just pinning down what someone is saying!

    However, getting back to Idealism, I don't think it is possible to rule out the idea that reality is ultimately made of one thing - mind. There don't seem to be any good theoretical arguments against it - no equivalent of the Hard Problem. However, I get the impression that Bernardo is sort of stuck with nothing but metaphors to keep him going. It seems clear to me that there can be much understanding to be had from a Dualism, and that focussing on Idealism right now is a bit like worrying about atoms in the early days of microscopy.

    David
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  8. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,355
    Well, after consideration, that which I have to contribute after all is summarised here: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...nterview-w-bernardo-kastrup.4089/#post-121596. As I wrote there: a few years back, I came up with an extensive critique which, whilst useful to mine for relevant thoughts, I don't think is appropriate (accurate enough) to publish.
     

Share This Page