Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 4:28 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:48 am
I am not sure of your point??

Note the Venn Diagram I presented in the other post.

Image

In terms of Venn Diagrams,
Circle-1 is totally inside the circle-2. i.e. circle-1 is totally subsumed within circle-2.

Circle-1 in this case are the "Basic facts of reality,"

Circle-2 is the mind with reality [all there is]. This is not related to the individual mind but rather the collective mind of humanity.

As such whatever are the basic facts of reality [1], they are totally subsumed within the collective-mind and reality [2].

Thus re Kastrup 'Everything is Mind' implied the "Basic facts of reality," which are independent [of things and individual minds] at one level, they are not independent of the collective 'mind'.
In other words, you either didn't understand my comment, or you might as well act as if you didn't, and then you might as well just repeat some stuff you already said even though it has nothing to do with my comment.

Yeah, this is a great start to a discussion about what's wrong with Kastrup's argument. Too bad I didn't just go ahead and type thousands of words. lol
My responses above is the answer to your first question, i.e. if there is mind ONLY, then there is no brains.

Point is you are too confused with your dogmatic perspective, you are not able to see [not necessary agree with] other perspectives.

Note Kastrup's argument,
"the brain is in the mind, not the mind is in the brain"
therefore if there is a mind only, then there is also the brain which is in the mind.

Note "in" is not to be taken literally but in term of the Venn Diagrams explanations I had given above.
In addition, 'mind' it not the conventional definition of mind you are stuck with.
I didn't ask a question first off.

I made a statement. The way to counter that statement is to attempt to argue why a mind/brain correlation is significant if brains are only mental phenomena that someone is experiencing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 4:43 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:35 am 'Mind' or consciousness is not only quantitative it's also qualitative. States of consciousness vary in correlation with brain chemicals that are active at any specific time. Thus you have waking consciousness, hallucinatory consciousness, sleeping consciousness, and dreaming consciousness.This scientific study of correlations between brain and mind tend very much to demonstrate that besides subjective states of conscioousness there is also something material i.e. brain chemicals.

Dreaming itself varies at least between dreaming where the ego is present and dreaming where the ego is absent. Qualia also vary according to the dreaming experience; some dreaming does not include sounds: dream sleep sometimes includes intelligible even reasoned utterances, more often not.Some dream qualia and/or some hallucinations exclude smell qualia , and some exclude touch qualia.

Waking consciousness might include two or more separated 'personalities', more often includes one personality.This fact might indicate to an idealist that it is 'personality' or consciousness that makes reality. However the fact of multiple personalities might also indicate some subject's several selection criteria in place of the single criterion we normally use. Doctor Jekyll had always the potential to become Mr Hyde and vice versa.
Noted the above but not sure what is your point to the OP.

In the OP, Kastrup claimed,
1. the realists' idea of materialism [physicalism] i.e. reality is independent of the human mind, is baloney.
2. Kastrup claimed that the whole of reality is an image [representation] of the mind [not the individual's mind but the collective mind of humanity]. This is a meta-epistemological view of reality.
Kastrup wrote:According to this framework, the brain is merely the image of a self-localization process of mind, analogously to how a whirlpool is the image of a self-localization process of water. The brain doesn't generate mind in the same way that a whirlpool doesn't generate water.
It is the brain that is in mind, not mind in the brain.
I will make my point more precise.

"Mind" is consciousness. Consciousness is not all one state but is several states of being each of which correlates with a brain state governed by neurochemicals. It seems silly to ignore constant correlations between consciousness and brain states.
It follows that neither mind not matter is metaphysically primary. It does follow that both mind and matter are equally ontic attributes of nature.
Kastrup claimed that the whole of reality is an image [representation] of the mind [not the individual's mind but the collective mind of humanity].
Does that mean the "image" is all one image, or does it mean that the "image" is a composite of all images that have ever been and even will be ?
It is not "image" in the literal sense.
Basically what Kastrup implied is reality cannot be absolute independent of mind, human or otherwise.

In extension, Kastrup believe there is only ONE MIND, which I disagree with him.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 4:28 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:41 am
In other words, you either didn't understand my comment, or you might as well act as if you didn't, and then you might as well just repeat some stuff you already said even though it has nothing to do with my comment.

Yeah, this is a great start to a discussion about what's wrong with Kastrup's argument. Too bad I didn't just go ahead and type thousands of words. lol
My responses above is the answer to your first question, i.e. if there is mind ONLY, then there is no brains.

Point is you are too confused with your dogmatic perspective, you are not able to see [not necessary agree with] other perspectives.

Note Kastrup's argument,
"the brain is in the mind, not the mind is in the brain"
therefore if there is a mind only, then there is also the brain which is in the mind.

Note "in" is not to be taken literally but in term of the Venn Diagrams explanations I had given above.
In addition, 'mind' it not the conventional definition of mind you are stuck with.
I didn't ask a question first off.

I made a statement. The way to counter that statement is to attempt to argue why a mind/brain correlation is significant if brains are only mental phenomena that someone is experiencing.
I don't think you understand my point but rather you made up your own premise and request me to justify your premise.

I NEVER claim 'brains are only mental phenomena that someone is experiencing' on an absolute basis.
I made the above claim in two relative perspectives.

I suggest we give it a pass on this issue.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 5:53 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 10:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 4:28 am
My responses above is the answer to your first question, i.e. if there is mind ONLY, then there is no brains.

Point is you are too confused with your dogmatic perspective, you are not able to see [not necessary agree with] other perspectives.

Note Kastrup's argument,
"the brain is in the mind, not the mind is in the brain"
therefore if there is a mind only, then there is also the brain which is in the mind.

Note "in" is not to be taken literally but in term of the Venn Diagrams explanations I had given above.
In addition, 'mind' it not the conventional definition of mind you are stuck with.
I didn't ask a question first off.

I made a statement. The way to counter that statement is to attempt to argue why a mind/brain correlation is significant if brains are only mental phenomena that someone is experiencing.
I don't think you understand my point but rather you made up your own premise and request me to justify your premise.

I NEVER claim 'brains are only mental phenomena that someone is experiencing' on an absolute basis.
I made the above claim in two relative perspectives.

I suggest we give it a pass on this issue.
You wrote:

Have you understood Kastrup full argument before you arrive at your judgment?
Where is your counter argument?

I responded with the beginning of a critique of Kastrup's argument, since that's what you asked for.

You responded with something that had nothing at all to do with my critique of Kastrup's argument.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

Post by Terrapin Station »

You know what would be cool, by the way, especially since I have basically wait a day for a reply each time, is if we could actually have a discussion that progressed in some way.

Instead, it's waiting a day every time for some stupid inability to even understand what I'm posting, or for you to repeat the same telemarketing script yet again, etc. It's NEVER that it's a reasonably intelligent reply to anything I said, any point I brought up, any question I asked. Not one friggin time. It's always, "What stupid inability to even have passable reading comprehension skills am I going to have to try to correct today?" That's no discussion. WTF? Why are philosophy boards full of people like this?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: Everything is Mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 2:41 pm You know what would be cool, by the way, especially since I have basically wait a day for a reply each time, is if we could actually have a discussion that progressed in some way.

Instead, it's waiting a day every time for some stupid inability to even understand what I'm posting, or for you to repeat the same telemarketing script yet again, etc. It's NEVER that it's a reasonably intelligent reply to anything I said, any point I brought up, any question I asked. Not one friggin time. It's always, "What stupid inability to even have passable reading comprehension skills am I going to have to try to correct today?" That's no discussion. WTF? Why are philosophy boards full of people like this?
Btw, the discussion of this issue started with my response to Eodnhoj7
viewtopic.php?p=509051#p509051

I had tried very hard to get you into the discussion [note the amount of time I spent on it].
The problem is you are stuck in a dogmatic paradigm thus unable to see my view nor Kastrup's view.

I suggest you make an effort to understand my idea behind the Venn Diagrams then counter why they are not in line with what you intend to express.

I also suggest you strive to develop a good state of equanimity [need programming], then you will be too bothered with "come what may".
Post Reply