Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, What Split Personality Tells Us About Consciousness |461|

[David Bailey]

Psychic Sylvia Browne's Near-Death Experience Revelations

Incidentally, she predicted COVID rather accurately:

In around 2020, a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and bronchial tubes and resisting all known treatments. Almost more baffling than the illness itself will be the fact that it will suddenly vanish as quickly as it arrived, attack again and then disappear completely,

I don't believe in merging, but the proponents of the doctrine of oneness certainly do:

Well I think the the concept of Idealism does seem rather attractive, because as Bernardo points out, it sidesteps the intractable problems of panpsychism and materialism. I favour Dualism as the new approach. I know Dualism can't be an ultimate theory - which is probably Idealism - but Dualism is a bit more down to earth than Idealism. The problem is 'we' assume that we are very close to the ultimate theory of everything, so the idea of Dualism seems flawed because there has to be some interaction between the two realms, which in turn destroys the concept of two independent realms.

However, suppose we are still quite far from an ultimate theory - then it makes good sense to accept theories that aren't quite right if you look hard enough. For example, the ideal gas formula PV=nRT was a really useful discovery, but it obviously breaks down badly at temperatures close to the point where the gas in question liquifies, and it breaks down at very high pressures because of inter-molecular forces and such like. I guess this was considered less of a problem because scientists back then didn't think their new theories were ultimate theories.

A Dualistic theory could then be embedded in an Idealistic framework when appropriate - just as Newtons laws of gravity and motion are embedded in GR.

David

 

[superqualia]

Bernardo doesn't believe the soulphone project is worth his time? Does that mean he and Alex believe it will fail?

If the soulphone worked, suddenly idealism seems far more likely to be valid. But its not time well spent I guess, or its just not part of his long term plan. Hmm.

 

[Christopher of Thailand]

valid? also, I'm sure you get that you're scientology background puts a lot of us on alert for this kind of coded speech.

"it is valid" is the actual effect for the judgment decision "right".
"it is not invalid" is the actual effect of the judgment decision "wrong".

This dichotomy goes even "deeper" or better put, more broad when seeing these as efforts to "un-do" (make 'not-be' the wrong) or "duplicate" (accept the creating of or having the creation of that which is right).

Coded speech... look, are not all words codes?
If you do not understand your personal reactions to words/codes (and if therefore fault me), then I submit this is part of the disassociating from the more full consciousness you (at least pretend to) fight.

No offence intended friend.

 

[Christopher of Thailand]

Yes it is. But I doubt he will ever be successful. Such a revelation would be the end of individuality. There would be nothing that is not known by all of us. There would be no more taking advantage of anyone, which is essential to keeping corrupt society going *smoothly* (no pun intended). Certainly the powers that be would not at all be okay with it. An additional consequence would be that life in this world for the rest of us would lose its challenge and mystique.

Thanks Garry.

Forgive me to presume I might add to your enlightened soul...

The content you have there "... no more taking advantage of anyone, which is essential to keeping corrupt society ..." depicts the right/wrong structured thinking which is one of the barriers to full consciousness.

How is it a barrier...?

Those who are afflicted with this mind feature will not want to have in existence those things which are wrong. This is a partial barrier to the consciousness for that which is wrong.

The mind feature is a judgement tool (though forgotten it is your created tool) which separates your consciousness from, or disassociates you from the wrong (disassociates you from the wrong thing or wrong entity).

This is a restriction to being able to be within the conscious field of that which is wrong or within the field of the wrong-do-er.

Believe me I know how hard it is to release from this idea that there are such things as right and wrong. But somewhere a choice is made - to participate within the field of wrong, or to disassociate from it... and keep in mind that these you have tagged as wrong are informed of this by the fact of your disassociation with them.

Note:
If they can have you as you are then they can be conscious of you. But if you can not have them as they are, you handicap yourself by not being able to be aware of them exactly as they are (without the tag). Thus limiting your ability to communicate into them your ideas.

You can not effectuate any change for them if you will not communicate as them.
The word forgiveness comes to mind as a first step towards the communicating... but this is a really hard thing to do too, when you want the change first before the forgiving.

Change first before the forgiving: Sounds like a negotiation more than a forgiving.


Thank you.

 

[Kim]

The end result would still be the same: total annihilation. It doesn't matter, if merging would happen sooner or later. It would still be the total destruction of individuality. Fortunately, that is merely a religious belief. There is zero evidence for that belief. Psychical research, on the other hand, has produced lots of evidence for personal survival, and this evidence refutes the belief in oneness/merging.

Is it valid to you to believe that all individuals only appear to be separate, that we have forgotten our deepest Reality? When you clearly look at the things that you are not, there is only one "thing" left, the Absolute, the Everlasting. "The very act of perception shows you that you are not what you perceive." Nisargadatta Maharaj also says that "a person is a very small thing. Actually, it's a composite; it can't be said to exist by itself. Unperceived, it's just not there. It's a shadow of the mind, the sum total of memories. Pure being is reflected in the mirror of the mind, as knowing. What's known takes the shape of a person, based on memory & habit. It's but a shadow or projection of the knower onto the screen of the mind." To me, this explains how people get & stayed trapped in impermanent perceptions, like a fun house full of mirrors. Continuing to look in the mirror will never show you anything new.

 

[Kim]

What are the chances that Bernardo will succeed in less than 20 years in changing the dominant paradigm from materialism to idealism?

I'd give it 50-50. The fly in the ointment is that physicalists are already retreating to panpsychism, which I see as a last ditch attempt to retain materialism. The prevalent version views consciousness as a property of matter, starting with subatomic particles, which in some vague and unspecified way are able to aggregate and complexify -- the combination problem.

Idealism, on the other hand, views matter as the appearance to dissociated entities (a.k.a. alters) of a transpersonal, cosmic consciousness (M@L) which is seen as being aware, but not aware that it's aware (or metaconscious). If it were metaconscious (the view of Abrahamic religions), then its consciousness would be like that of its alters, and the implication would be that in a way it purposely creates evil and suffering.

The postulate is that it doesn't: what creates them is the metaconscious, self-reflective minds of alters, or put another way, the very phenomenon of dissociation itself. This is more in line with non-Abrahamic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which see evil and suffering ultimately as illusion, and the task of alters, through realising this, to escape the "wheel of Karma" by becoming "enlightened", i.e. by seeing the truth and realising that Atman is Brahman. We are not separate and distinct from M@L; in Abrahamic terms, we're all "divine sparks".

To me, dissociation isn't something that M@L purposely elects to do; it's entirely automatic or "instinctual" -- what it does, always has done and always will do (it can't help it because it's in its very nature). The idea that it does it as a metaconscious game to stave off cosmic boredom, though seductive, is in this view erroneous. It doesn't purposely forget itself to enjoy and be entertained by its self-rediscovery, as Alan Watts' charming story for children has it. Being purposive requires metaconsciousness rather than "simple" (not to be confused with powerless) pure consciousness/awareness.

M@L "creates" metaconsciousness through dissociation; only has access to metacognition through its alters, necessarily enabling only partial knowledge/understanding of the world. Were it complete, we'd be living in a world that would seem very different from what it currently appears to be. In Abrahamic terms, it might be heaven rather than seeming hell.

M@L is coming to know more about itself through the medium of its alters. I doubt it could ever come to know itself completely; however, one of its instinctive and innate drives would be to constantly "try" to do so. This could be what leads to the appearance of evolution, which is associated with the concept of memory. Organismal evolution is evidenced by the fossil record; cultural evolution by archeological evidence. Latterly, this includes written, in addition to other artifactual, evidence. At an individual level, people can metaconsciously recollect (and possibly act on the basis of) what has happened in their own lifetimes.

Anyway, enough for now. I'll just add that I have recently viewed a video about David Bohm and his "implicate order" that seems to gibe to some extent with all this and much else that concerns our discussions here at Skeptiko. Here it is:

Bohm tried for years to change the accepted paradigm, but met stiff resistance from the scientific establishment, which simply ignored ideas that to my mind overlap somewhat with those of Bernardo. Nonetheless, both videos like this and Bernardo's work can't any longer be considered peremptorily dismissible. Bernardo's views, after all, have been published in highly respected journals such as the Scientific American. There are definite signs that the dam is leaking, albeit not yet burst. At some point, and it could be quite soon, there might be revolutionary change...

Wow! If I understand you correctly, the Supreme Being can't be aware of Itself w/o alters. That makes perfect sense b/c It exists in a unified state. It would be useless for the Almighty to try to look directly at Itself. It would be like looking at the images reflected in a mirror reflected in another mirror, the images repeating infinitely. Now I can see that all that time I spent in topless bars wondering what mirrors reflecting mirror images was trying to tell me was not a complete waste!

 

[David Bailey]

Bernardo doesn't believe the soulphone project is worth his time? Does that mean he and Alex believe it will fail?

If the soulphone worked, suddenly idealism seems far more likely to be valid. But its not time well spent I guess, or its just not part of his long term plan. Hmm.

Thanks for pointing this project out - I think I had vaguely heard of it before, but here is their website with a long talk by Garry Schwartz that I intend to listen to:
https://www.thesoulphonefoundation.org/

I couldn't find anywhere in the transcript where Bernardo and Alex discussed this - can you explain what you were referring to?

I think it is at least possible that this project will fail, because one idea about our time on Earth is that it is rather like a school, or maybe an examination. The structure of our life here would change rather radically if we were constantly able to contact people who had passed on - so reality may be set up to prevent this happening.

David

 

[Christopher of Thailand]

Is it valid to you to believe that all individuals only appear to be separate, that we have forgotten our deepest Reality? When you clearly look at the things that you are not, there is only one "thing" left, the Absolute, the Everlasting. "The very act of perception shows you that you are not what you perceive." Nisargadatta Maharaj also says that "a person is a very small thing. Actually, it's a composite; it can't be said to exist by itself. Unperceived, it's just not there. It's a shadow of the mind, the sum total of memories. Pure being is reflected in the mirror of the mind, as knowing. What's known takes the shape of a person, based on memory & habit. It's but a shadow or projection of the knower onto the screen of the mind." To me, this explains how people get & stayed trapped in impermanent perceptions, like a fun house full of mirrors. Continuing to look in the mirror will never show you anything new.

It took 5 times to get my like in.
Another 2 or 3 tries to get this reply box up... This forum for me is glitchy/time consuming to get navigated to clicked items.

Ok.
Kim, you really seem to have the path rather understood (path to knowing what knowing is - that it is NOT consciousness).
Thank you.

 

[Raimo]

Is it valid to you to believe that all individuals only appear to be separate, that we have forgotten our deepest Reality? When you clearly look at the things that you are not, there is only one "thing" left, the Absolute, the Everlasting. "The very act of perception shows you that you are not what you perceive." Nisargadatta Maharaj also says that "a person is a very small thing. Actually, it's a composite; it can't be said to exist by itself. Unperceived, it's just not there. It's a shadow of the mind, the sum total of memories. Pure being is reflected in the mirror of the mind, as knowing. What's known takes the shape of a person, based on memory & habit. It's but a shadow or projection of the knower onto the screen of the mind." To me, this explains how people get & stayed trapped in impermanent perceptions, like a fun house full of mirrors. Continuing to look in the mirror will never show you anything new.

No. I don't believe in that theory. I prefer the kind of substantialism Titus Rivas describes here:

A third type of substantialism amounts to the theory that there is a plurality of ultimately irreducible individual souls rather than just a single divine one. There is a personal conscious subject, self or "I" who sees, thinks, feels, wants, etc.

Rebirth and Personal identity: Is Reincarnation an Intrinsically Impersonal Concept? by Titus Rivas

I also agree with the views of the discarnate spirits mentioned in these blog posts:

All spiritual progress is toward increasing individuality. You do not become less of an individual, you become more of an individual.

Does “Oneness” in the Afterlife Mean Loss of Individuality? by Michael Tymn

In his 42nd sitting, Cornillier asked Vettellini whether the individual consciousness becomes absorbed in a universal consciousness as spirits evolve or whether they retain their individuality. “Monsieur Corniller, Vettellini affirms that individual consciousness can but grow greater and greater as evolution progresses,” Reine relayed. “All that is gained and conquered by a being, defines and strengthens his individuality. It is his, – and for himself.

A New ‘Number One’ Book on the Afterlife by Michael Tymn

 

[Raimo]

Incidentally, she predicted COVID rather accurately:

Browne was a charlatan:
Michael Prescott's Blog: The unsinkable Sylvia Browne

 

[superqualia]

Thanks for pointing this project out - I think I had vaguely heard of it before, but here is their website with a long talk by Garry Schwartz that I intend to listen to:
https://www.thesoulphonefoundation.org/

I couldn't find anywhere in the transcript where Bernardo and Alex discussed this - can you explain what you were referring to?

I think it is at least possible that this project will fail, because one idea about our time on Earth is that it is rather like a school, or maybe an examination. The structure of our life here would change rather radically if we were constantly able to contact people who had passed on - so reality may be set up to prevent this happening.

David

Well, Bernardo just completed an interview with someone involved in the SoulPhone Project:

That video doesn't mention Brian Smith's involvement in what one might describe as transpersonal communication. Bryan (not bernardo) is working on the soulphone in some unknown capacity. I mentioned this project last year.

They have a newsletter and in it they finally got new scientific instruments needed. They are experiencing delays do to funding issues. They are publishing research, of course. But that won't change anything or if it does, it would take many years.

A Soulphone is a bit of a misnomer. What they have now is a soulswitch. It has yes or no answers. And what they describe coheres with mediumship. Spirits can "visit" earth and see everything. Their physical presence is supposedly measurable. Their is some PHYSICAL interaction, but its TINY TINY.

Now, to turn back to idealism, if this device works, would it make sense to categorize this as a mental universe? A mental universe is to most scientist the very definition of a supernatural one since it ascribes mental properties to supposedly non-mental events. I have no idea how this cashes out since I am not qualified to comment here, but I do think in terms of most working scientists what I said here makes sense. It appears to be wrong, of course, but we cannot correct the mistakes of the current paradigm without a working soul keyboard.

They claimed to have a recent breakthrough that will allow a keyboard to be built. They talk to Einstein, Michael Jackson (so relevant in so many ways actually). This is done via mediums, not the switch. What Bohm describes his life after death is being 'an historical system'. Oh, and they can be in multiple places at once. Classical simulation idea, right? Tom Campbell is right. Lol.



To me it sounds like we are living in a post technological singularity world. If this is all true of course...who knows. But they need help. The soulphone people need a software engineer (and bernardo clearly has that skill!)

And that is why I mentioned Bernardo. If they have something, even 1% chance, why waste time on other projects?!!? That is clearly the most important path to worldview change. So maybe he is helping, I imagine. I dunno.

Bernardo offers no real way to convince others about idealism. Its just a possible way of seeing things. This project will change things, if it works. So why isn't he helping? Maybe he is, I hope.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Wow! If I understand you correctly, the Supreme Being can't be aware of Itself w/o alters.

Yes - that's an inference from what Bernardo thinks -- or at least would like to think: See this video from about 1:12:25:

One thing I often reflect on is that it's tempting to think in terms of a non-metaconscious Mind At Large and its dissociated metaconscious alters, whose highest level of metacognition can be found in human beings or at any rate beings like them that might exist elsewhere in the universe.

That said, who is to say that when such metacognitive entitities die, at least some of them don't enter into higher metacognitive states which we think of as angels and the like? That such putative entities aren't able to influence world events? In such an idea, it wouldn't be M@L/God who metaconsciously rules human existence, but higher spiritual beings.

EDIT:

Coincidentally, the video that superqualia posted above touches on this very point at around 52:30 et seq.

 

[David Bailey]

Browne was a charlatan:
Michael Prescott's Blog: The unsinkable Sylvia Browne

Well unfortunately I think some people combine some genuine ability with faking it on other occasions! The commercial pressure on these people is too great.

It is hard to accept that she simply guessed that prediction - accurate about the kind of illness, accurate about the date, accurate about it having gone worldwide, and maybe accurate about its rate of disappearance - we will see. It will be interesting to see if she is right about its re-emergence in 2030.

David

 

[Alex]

Bernardo doesn't believe the soulphone project is worth his time? Does that mean he and Alex believe it will fail?

If the soulphone worked, suddenly idealism seems far more likely to be valid. But its not time well spent I guess, or its just not part of his long term plan. Hmm.

I just completed an interview dr. Mark Pitstick. I am pretty backlog so it could take awhile to publish

 

[lonevoice]

On the Icke thread we referenced the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest. I perceive it as relevant here b/c Bernardo at one point said that when we die we merge into the universal consciousness. I disagree--we are eternal expressions of consciousness that can't be destroyed, and upon physical death we transition to an afterlife realm, retaining all our individuality now embodied in bodies less dense than our earthly ones. I therefore believe that in the movie the best move the man who found his friend and role model lobotomized could have taken would have been to smother him. His impaired brain would not be retained in the astral afterlife realm. How I would love to see Bernardo. dialog with Jurgen Ziewe.

 

[Chester Hunter]

The end result would still be the same: total annihilation. It doesn't matter, if merging would happen sooner or later. It would still be the total destruction of individuality. Fortunately, that is merely a religious belief. There is zero evidence for that belief. Psychical research, on the other hand, has produced lots of evidence for personal survival, and this evidence refutes the belief in oneness/merging.

What if it is up to the individual conscious agent as to when they self annihilate? The Left Hand Path is based on the premise each individual expression of "this unified consciousness" can, if they so desire and if they work at the process, never self annihilate. It is Right Hand Path adherents that turn this over to a perceived external third party such as "yugas" or "God" or "Nature."

I do not see Kastrup's view eliminating one's individuated path from independently achieving eternal life... again, that choice would be in the hands of the individual.

What are the chances that Bernardo will succeed in less than 20 years in changing the dominant paradigm from materialism to idealism?

I'd give it 50-50.

Me too... things are moving incredibly fast and ever accelerating. Metaphysical physicalism is well past its sell by date and has "science" boxed in. The dam has to burst.

In addition, what an awesome film (speaking for me personally) - "Infinite Potential" about Bohm and Krishnamurti's relationship with Bohm.

Fair enough. It would indeed be hard to imagine what it would feel like to merge with another consciousness.
I don't believe in merging, but the proponents of the doctrine of oneness certainly do:
Psychic Sylvia Browne's Near-Death Experience Revelations
To me that sounds like total destruction of individuality, as I wrote in a previous post.

So I question experiences like this the same as I question some of my powerful dreams that appear to be predictive of a future scenario... pondering, was her NDE more a reflection of what happens to be her greatest question at the heart of her being? Could her experience be presenting something to her which she embraces and then, eventually experiences? Or that perhaps in some future moment, when she is private with herself and in deep contemplation with regards to the matter says, "Hummm... I don't want my individuated experience to end," and then that becomes her deepest desire which actualizes upon her death and she finds herself in a lifetime once again (or some other unbroken continuation of the essence of her being).

 

[Chester Hunter]

Well I think the the concept of Idealism does seem rather attractive, because as Bernardo points out, it sidesteps the intractable problems of panpsychism and materialism. I favour Dualism as the new approach. I know Dualism can't be an ultimate theory - which is probably Idealism - but Dualism is a bit more down to earth than Idealism. The problem is 'we' assume that we are very close to the ultimate theory of everything, so the idea of Dualism seems flawed because there has to be some interaction between the two realms, which in turn destroys the concept of two independent realms.

However, suppose we are still quite far from an ultimate theory - then it makes good sense to accept theories that aren't quite right if you look hard enough. For example, the ideal gas formula PV=nRT was a really useful discovery, but it obviously breaks down badly at temperatures close to the point where the gas in question liquifies, and it breaks down at very high pressures because of inter-molecular forces and such like. I guess this was considered less of a problem because scientists back then didn't think their new theories were ultimate theories.

A Dualistic theory could then be embedded in an Idealistic framework when appropriate - just as Newtons laws of gravity and motion are embedded in GR.

David

In practicality (based on what we know now), you favor dualism... and yet you see the ultimate metaphysical explanaition would end up at idealism. I agree this is a grounded approach that allows the exploration of idealism to continue which might, at some point, all but eliminate the other half. Yep, this seems grounded.

I think it is at least possible that this project will fail, because one idea about our time on Earth is that it is rather like a school, or maybe an examination. The structure of our life here would change rather radically if we were constantly able to contact people who had passed on - so reality may be set up to prevent this happening.
David

I agree it will fail, because the Trickster will make sure it fails!

 

[lonevoice]

In practicality (based on what we know now), you favor dualism... and yet you see the ultimate metaphysical explanaition would end up at idealism. I agree this is a grounded approach that allows the exploration of idealism to continue which might, at some point, all but eliminate the other half. Yep, this seems grounded.



I agree it will fail, because the Trickster will make sure it fails!

Who or what is the Trickster, Chester. This is a dead serious question.

 

[Chester Hunter]

Who or what is the Trickster, Chester. This is a dead serious question.

"The Trickster" is a term that has become popularly used recently in relation to "the nature" of "the Phenomena." A great example of its use and the reasons the term is applied in relation to the strange goings on at the Skinwalker Ranch. Please, check out Hunt for the Skinwalker (film and/or book... I recommend the film).

Some view the Trickster as an archetype.

Some of my friends who have studied North American First Nations traditions have found this "archetype" very much "believed in" in many expressions of their culture (many different tribes).

Jung also explored this archetype - https://medium.com/@dhruvaananda/from-darkness-to-light-c-g-jung-and-the-trickster-27cacb893775

Wikipedia (which I find can sometimes do a decent job with benign subjects) has this description of the Trickster -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster

Why I brought this up is that unless we get past the tricks of "the Trickster" it may be impossible to ever "scientifically" explain 'being.'

Another point I have to make in this regard is that at the heart of the metaphysical/pholosophical exploration of being is found what is known as "The Paradox" and many philosophers have suggested we would never reconcile our experience of reality with reagrds to attempts to explain it with what some refer to as The Absolute (ie. ultimate reality).

Additionally, I would point out that all attempts to come up with a complete TOE always involves "form" because there's no way to quantify "potential" and so many seem to stubbornly seek the unknowable in this regard instead of just living with the likelihood all investigations always end in mystery.

I should add, I have a great deal of personal experience with the Trickster and it seems to really enjoy avoiding being pinned down. The closest one can get to doing so (IMO) is when a group of two or more individuals experience what they interpret as the same anomalous event manifesting in roughly the same form to each participant as well as my favorite - synchronicity that is accompanied with artifacts.

Here's some examples of synchronicities accompanied by artifacts -

http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-most-charished-synchronicity.html
http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-23-synchronicity.html
http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-19-synchronicity.html
http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2016/01/honoring-my-dad.html

 

[lonevoice]

"The Trickster" is a term that has become popularly used recently in relation to "the nature" of "the Phenomena." A great example of its use and the reasons the term is applied in relation to the strange goings on at the Skinwalker Ranch. Please, check out Hunt for the Skinwalker (film and/or book... I recommend the film).

Some view the Trickster as an archetype.

Some of my friends who have studied North American First Nations traditions have found this "archetype" very much "believed in."

Jung also explored this archetype - https://medium.com/@dhruvaananda/from-darkness-to-light-c-g-jung-and-the-trickster-27cacb893775

Wikipedia (which I find can sometimes do a decent job with benign subjects) has this description of the Trickster -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster

Why I brought this up is that unless we get past the tricks of "the Trickster" it may be impossible to ever "scientifically" explain 'being.'

Another point I have to make in this regard is that at the heart of the metaphysical/pholosophical exploration of being is found what is known as "The Paradox" and many philosophers have suggested we would never reconcile our experience of reality with reagrds to attempts to explain it with what some refer to as The Absolute (ie. ultimate reality).

Additionally, I would point out that all attempts to come up with a complete TOE always involves "form" because there's no way to quantify "potential" and so many seem to stubbornly seek the unknowable in this regard instead of just living with the likelihood all investigations always end in mystery.

I am aware of Trickster as an archetype, but do no believe archetypes have agency all on their own. I see, as you know, much more explanatory power in demons. BTW I lost respect for Jung, a lifelong hero, when I read the Red Book. Have you read it Chester?

The rest of your post was hard for me to understand, esp. the part about the Paradox.

The only thing that keeps me sane is the Perennial Philosophy.