Is reality made of consciousness? Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira on idealism

28 thoughts on “Is reality made of consciousness? Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup & Rupert Spira on idealism”

1. Even though I don't share this worldview I value how these thinkers engage with the topic. If you're interested in what my stance is you can find it here: https://youtu.be/wTDAqba3lJE

2. A point on each side that did not settle with my rational sensor
   Spira: Calling sollipsism absurd. It's a highly reasonable frame, as it is impervious to being falsified on this layer of reality. If it can be debunked, it would have to be done one of more layers up.
   Cooke: His reasoning for consciousness emerging from material depends on what comes across as a religious belief that senses are created by organs as opposed to transduced by organs.
   I respect the conversation but am unsettled by these remarks that strike me as fanatical.

   Consciousness is all there is. We're dreaming. It isn't a new paradigm. This understand has been around in ancient traditions of non-dual spirituality.

3. Nice discussion. It would be nice to have them all together in a live discussion, even though Rupert and Bernardo have the same view just from different perspectives which Mr. Hoffman could relate to. I find it interesting though that even with experiential evidence people refuse to admit to what they are experiencing. It comes down to our conditioning and the conditioning of almost all of the 8 Billion of us. That conditioning has such a strong hold on us so much so that we are addicted to it. We all need rehab. lol. Another interesting aspect of the discussion with Mr. Hoffman, it's his assertion that philosophers or spiritual people who arrive at the same conclusion are anti-science. You could say he is anti-spiritual. I don't know why a scientist can't also be spiritual. Everybody's mind works differently based on our conditioning even though all of our minds come from the same consciousness and in fact are consciousness itself.

4. These views to me are all like putting the cart before the horse.

5. There is a fundamental point over which such discussions keep tripping (as was clearly in evidence toward the end of the Spira interview.) We in the West typically think of consciousness as something that things have (or don’t have – like the cup in the interviewer’s example). However, people like Spira, Hoffman, and Kastrup (and myself, following a trip to India) turn the equation inside-out: Consciousness has things. So collective/universal consciousness has the things commonly shared/experienced, while individual subjective consciousness posesses more lattitude — hence, differing perspectives, opinions, imaginings, dreams, hallucinations and the like.

6. I’m amazed Kastrup and Hoffmann have not had a conversation. That’s what I was searching for when I found your video.

7. the three irrational thieves !

8. Is this Ketchup and Hoffman? Leo Gura says candy bars aren't real. Can anybody help?

9. 27k views after a year on a discussion of profundity among the most profound minds on earth and yet cat videos and dancing fat kids garner millions of views in days. The masses are the Unconscious consciousness.

10. I would not call Kant's or Schopenhauer's versions of idealism anti rigor or anti science in any way whatsoever. Not even Plato. Kant, Schopenauer and Plato were extremely rigorous in their philosophy. We also have to understand that a mind based ontology does not contradict science in any way.

11. Great talk. Something I'm not convinced of, and I can't see how Rupert makes this seem like fact, is thoughts are made of mind stuff. How does he get that? Thoughts could come into an individual consciousness from an external source, e.g. an ethereal parasitic entity. Rupert makes a lot of assertions that don't seem to have any evidence. Why is he so sure that awareness creates all this? Perhaps it's a secondary, 'external' overlay on top of consciousness? Also, to say what happens after the body dies is 100% speculation, to claim to know otherwise (without having died and actually expericned death) seems shaky.

12. No one have never explained to me how there can be anything except mental states.

13. Such an amazing talk! Thank you so much 🥰

14. rupert be lookin super young > meditation

15. NO

16. ⁉️ TIMESPACE & Time Mechanics solved the theory of everything. ✔️ uncontested

17. This revealed the limits of Rupert’s view. He is stuck at the limits of experience and consciousness as that is all he has to explore but non of those are transcendent. It’s a very materialistic view in many ways where he is saying something beyond those limits has to present itself within those limits for it to be true. That is just pure arrogance.

18. 29:24 if there is one universal consciousness, what causes it to fragment into countless separate, limited, entirely private localizations?

19. I think what James is saying about not being present at the big bang is valid actually.. that's if we're talking about an individual. An individual in traditional Vedanta is a creation of Maya, so how can it know the origin of the universe when it itself is a mere part of it.

    However, Vedanta also says that the individual jiva is not the ultimate truth of Being, the Universal Self that present in all beings is, and thou art that.

20. I think what the Graham Handcock looking dude means is that mind oversees the physical matter. We've been thinking that ourself. We create our own existence but it's a shared reality with all conscious agent's? Idk

21. Materialism is not solipsism…nor is realism.
    Let's break the concept down..
    Solipsism-The theory that "self" is all that can be known.
    More like an aimless hypothesis I suppose. However, materialism owns that physical processes are all that exists in truth. The double slit experiment shows that materialism cannot explain itself.
    Idealism isn't the idea that only consciousness exists. That would be solipsism.
    Bernardo's metaphysical realism, is something that technically cannot be falsified unless you find yourself as being able to transcend spacetime and energy.
    The fact that it can't be falsified, as far as we know, isn't "bad" or a determined truth. It's possible and likely that it will change.

    Back to my point…Consider materialism…then imagine the exact opposite perspective..
    That's realism.

    Lol.. I just asked Google what the difference was between realism and materialism and it gave me super biased answer. I'm not surprised.

    Materialism, simply put, say's that there is nothing beyond the physical world. It adheres to man's urge to be in control by presupposing that there is material rather than mindfulness. It's a colorless concept that has been pushed into our minds.
    Materialism/physicalism has been falsified and there's no way around it. One can go through it tho.

22. Realism is not solipsism…

23. You should interview David Bentley Hart!

24. I love how these 3 people come to the same path from different perspectives. It's fascinating to listen to. It broadens the whole scope and conversation for me. And I also appreciate the debate offered and the respectful stance and opportunities given to be able to discuss these matters without ego's or argument. Very well orchestrated, thank you.

25. You need to interview Andres Gomez Emilsson!

26. You should wonder what the platform of consciousness is. What is the "thing" that consciousness emerges from. Hint People still experience consciousness even when the brain is disabled.

27. No, James, Consciousness is NOT a result of anything Material. The perception (experience) of objectivity (a cup) is WITHIN the domain of Consciousness, just as a thought is within the mind. The cup is an expression of Consciousness like a dance is the expression of a dancer. If the dancer stops, the dance disappears. If Consciousness stops, the cup disappears. You cannot make the dancer disappear by stopping the dance, and you cannot make Consciousness disappear by disappearing the cup. Consider this: All material things are actually expressions of a collection of electromagnetic forces. The electromagnetic spectrum itself is a "doing" of Consciousness. Hence, the cup is a "doing" of Consciousness. Individualized expressions of Consciousness are wrapped in dissociated "containers" we call our minds. The mystics call the dissociation a "veil" that prevents us from looking out of our container into another such container, yet each container can be "aware" of other containers. The "medium" of communication between containers is Consciousness. There is nothing "outside" Consciousness. Let's not make the mistake of equating Consciousness with God, because God, in the colloquial sense, is an anthropomorphic entity that does not exist except as a label that "materializes" as an angry yet loving, forgiving yet judgmental superpower. When Rupert says, "I AM," that epitomizes the essence or "is-ness" of Consciousness.

28. Hey Donald, you are starting to sound like Thomas Campbell, and that is a good thing!!!
    
    Consciousness as a fundamental creating subjective Virtual Reality on demand is the best TOE wee have by far!
    
    Natural selection and free will is like yin and yang i my opinion, how could free will exist without the necessity of natural selection?, and how could natural selection exist without independent free will thinking beings…?

Comments are closed.