The Fallacy of Materialism

[Angel]

Bernardo Kastrup and the New Idealism

“The true underlying nature of reality – the inner workings of the computer running the game – is an issue of metaphysics; an issue of philosophy. It requires different methods to be properly assessed and understood. For as long as scientists like Stephen Hawking are allowed to make preposterous pseudo-philosophical pronouncements and not be either ignored or thoroughly ridiculed by the mainstream media – in exactly the same way that, say, a famous artist would be ridiculed or ignored for making pseudo-scientific statements – our culture will fail to understand the nature of our predicament.”
Bernardo Kastrup


​

Bernardo Kastrup
An introduction to Bernardo Kastrup, the scientist and philosopher whose writings on the nature of reality are presenting a major challenge to the materialism and realism that dominate western thought.

In Consciousness: The Impeccable Idealism of Bernardo Kastrup

Bernardo Kastrup

"The Linguistic Demon of Space-Time"

"The True Nature of the ‘Unconscious’ "

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/contributors/bernardo-kastrup-2/

Stories by Bernardo Kastrup

"Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?"

"Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics"

"Should Quantum Anomalies Make Us Rethink Reality?"

"Thinking Outside the Quantum Box"

"Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think"

"Transcending the Brain"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/bernardo-kastrup/

*****

Idealism is In

Materialism is Out

Are you on board?

Why? Why not?

Let's consider the materialist fallacies together, one by one, here, in this thread, and lay that phantom forever!


Namaste
​

 

[Ploughboy]

I agree. This philosophical materialism is self defeating to the materialist and is one big ginormous fallacy to the embarrassment to the modern civilized world. So many lives have been unnecessarily destroyed because of this view which stems from the dialectic materialism of communist philosophy. Its not science. Its bad philosophy. Nothing true about it.

 

[zyzygy]

I agree. This philosophical materialism is self defeating to the materialist and is one big ginormous fallacy to the embarrassment to the modern civilized world. So many lives have been unnecessarily destroyed because of this view which stems from the dialectic materialism of communist philosophy. Its not science. Its bad philosophy. Nothing true about it.

So you live in a cave dressed in a loincloth?

 

[devildavid]

It is hilarious that Ploughboy is the first to jump on Angel's idealist bandwagon.

 

[zyzygy]

It is hilarious that Ploughboy is the first to jump on Angel's idealist bandwagon.

And they claim that there is only one god that they all follow:lamo

 

[Ploughboy]

I am agreeing that this strict materialization of the human soul is not rational. One look at socialist countries refutes the entire theory of evolution and all the immoral ills that come with it.

 

[Angel]

So you live in a cave dressed in a loincloth?

It is hilarious that Ploughboy is the first to jump on Angel's idealist bandwagon.

And they claim that there is only one god that they all follow:lamo

Psst. Can I tell you a secret? Folly me. As Ol' Blue Eyes used to say. Yes? Well, it's like this. You see, whereas you two jolly good fellows will not and perhaps will never comprehend the religious concept of agape—and let's give you a moment to google the term before going on—anymore than you have shown yourselves able—and perhaps it is necessary to point out to you, avid readers though you professedly be, that we here pick up the sentence interrupted by the emdashed aside (and if you don't know what I refer to by "emdashed aside," suffice it to say that this string of words that you are presently reading is an example of an emdashed aside, i.e., yet another emdashed aside)—anymore, I say, than you have shown yourselves able to comprehend the concept captured by the phrase being honest with oneself; nevertheless, it is, I assure you and affirm in the strongest possible sense, squarely in terms of Christian agape that my personal tolerance of and patience with the absurdities and overall silliness of materialist asseverations and comments plays out in these quasi-philosophical post exchanges between us and the likes of us in this forum, notwithstanding the blatant anachronism of philosophical materialism in the quantum age and the strange correlation between vacuous anachronistic materialist views and a remarkable incapacity for cleverness in those holding such tired old views—though the fallacy of reasoning from correlation to causality must needs be acknowledged, particularly in conversation with those in denial of the existence of their own minds.

Namaste.

 

[devildavid]

Psst. Can I tell you a secret? Folly me. As Ol' Blue Eyes used to say. Yes? Well, it's like this. You see, whereas you two jolly good fellows will not and perhaps will never comprehend the religious concept of agape—and let's give you a moment to google the term before going on—anymore than you have shown yourselves able—and perhaps it is necessary to point out to you, avid readers though you professedly be, that we here pick up the sentence interrupted by the emdashed aside (and if you don't know what I refer to by "emdashed aside," suffice it to say that this string of words that you are presently reading is an example of an emdashed aside, i.e., yet another emdashed aside)—anymore, I say, than you have shown yourselves able to comprehend the concept captured by the phrase being honest with oneself; nevertheless, it is, I assure you and affirm in the strongest possible sense, squarely in terms of Christian agape that my personal tolerance of and patience with the absurdities and overall silliness of materialist asseverations and comments plays out in these quasi-philosophical post exchanges between us and the likes of us in this forum, notwithstanding the blatant anachronism of philosophical materialism in the quantum age and the strange correlation between vacuous anachronistic materialist views and a remarkable incapacity for cleverness in those holding such tired old views—though the fallacy of reasoning from correlation to causality must needs be acknowledged, particularly in conversation with those in denial of the existence of their own minds.

Namaste.

I have a brain. What is a mind?

 

[devildavid]

I am agreeing that this strict materialization of the human soul is not rational. One look at socialist countries refutes the entire theory of evolution and all the immoral ills that come with it.

What is the human soul?

 

[Angel]

I have a brain. What is a mind?

Mind is the fundamental reality. Time to get in touch with it.

 

[devildavid]

Mind is the fundamental reality. Time to get in touch with it.

Reality is physical. That is fundamental.

 

[Visbek]

Idealism is In

lol

Sorry, but there are almost no idealists out there, and with good reason. When you figure out how mass is created by an idea, feel free to let us know.

Materialism is Out

"Materialism?" 1975 called and wants its terminology back

Secularism, physicalism and related philosophies are in the same position as they've been for some time. Kastrup isn't offering any new arguments, or particularly new ideas. If anything, it seems like he's using the Hard Problems of Consciousness as an excuse to invoke a bunch of woo. But hey, any port in a storm, right? Right.

 

[Angel]

lol

Sorry, but there are almost no idealists out there, and with good reason. When you figure out how mass is created by an idea, feel free to let us know.



"Materialism?" 1975 called and wants its terminology back

Secularism, physicalism and related philosophies are in the same position as they've been for some time. Kastrup isn't offering any new arguments, or particularly new ideas. If anything, it seems like he's using the Hard Problems of Consciousness as an excuse to invoke a bunch of woo. But hey, any port in a storm, right? Right.

You raise two interesting points.

The first is the historical switch from talk of materialism to talk of physicalism. As you know more about this than I do, would you kindly explain the difference in the meanings of the terms as the one replaced the other historically?

The second is of particular interest to me, namely, what particulars of the physical world are missed by a thoroughgoing idealism?

 

[Angel]

Reality is physical. That is fundamental.

This is a philosophical proposition. What argument do have in support of it?

 

[late]

Good grief, more crap.

 

[Angel]

Good grief, more crap.

Better crap.

 

[late]

Better crap.

For a long time, the story of philosophy has been retreat.

You're fighting a war that was over before WW1 even started.

 

[Angel]

For a long time, the story of philosophy has been retreat.

You're fighting a war that was over before WW1 even started.

I prefer lost causes.

 

[Sweden]

I agree. This philosophical materialism is self defeating to the materialist and is one big ginormous fallacy to the embarrassment to the modern civilized world. So many lives have been unnecessarily destroyed because of this view which stems from the dialectic materialism of communist philosophy. Its not science. Its bad philosophy. Nothing true about it.

Nonsense. Materialism predates Marxism by a couple of thousand years or more. You should stick to posting about subjects in which you have information, however basic.

 

[Visbek]

You raise two interesting points.

The first is the historical switch from talk of materialism to talk of physicalism. As you know more about this than I do, would you kindly explain the difference in the meanings of the terms as the one replaced the other historically?

I don't think there is much to say, except that "materialism" strikes me as an outdated term. SEP entry has a little more detail on the etymologies.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The second is of particular interest to me, namely, what particulars of the physical world are missed by a thoroughgoing idealism?

Pretty much... everything.

Idealism rejects the validity of the physical, and claims that "everything is Mind." Because it's a type of monism, it resolves the Hard Problem without relying on interaction -- huzzah! However, you now have to explain how Mind creates Physical.

So, you tell me. How does that happen?

 

[Angel]

I don't think there is much to say, except that "materialism" strikes me as an outdated term. SEP entry has a little more detail on the etymologies.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The second is of particular interest to me, namely, what particulars of the physical world are missed by a thoroughgoing idealism?

Pretty much... everything.

Idealism rejects the validity of the physical, and claims that "everything is Mind." Because it's a type of monism, it resolves the Hard Problem without relying on interaction -- huzzah! However, you now have to explain how Mind creates Physical.

So, you tell me. How does that happen?

Thank you for the SEP entry.

Hmm. Would you agree, leaving aside your disagreement with the view itself, that a thoroughgoing idealist would answer "Nothing" to my question about what's missed in accounting for the physical world?

However, you now have to explain how Mind creates Physical.

Do you mean how mind creates anything at all, or only the so-called physical stuff?

Kastrup isn't offering any new arguments, or particularly new ideas. [from post #12]

What do you make of Kastrup's answer to that question?

 

[Visbek]

Hmm. Would you agree, leaving aside your disagreement with the view itself, that a thoroughgoing idealist would answer "Nothing" to my question about what's missed in accounting for the physical world?

The Idealist posits that there is no physical world, that it is all mental. I'd say that by definition, it means the Idealist is missing everything.

What do you make of Kastrup's answer to that question?

It sounds like total bull****, that doesn't deserve the consideration I've already given it.

His position is that "our experiences are the sum total of reality." Note that he is not saying "our experiences are the only thing we can access," but that there is no human-independent material reality whatsoever.

Question 3 in the video asks "what's the status of unperceived objects?" He doesn't actually answer the question, he only says that the "collective unconscious" can keep the narrative continuity going.

Let's consider just one implication of this view. Based on empirical evidence (which he seems to accept, despite the basic fact that empiricism posits the existence of reality independent of humans), we know that the universe is around 91 billion light years in diameter. To put it mildly, the vast majority of the universe is not perceived by humans, or any conscious beings. So where did it all come from? Apparently the "collective unconscious" of humanity summoned an entire universe into existence. (That's despite the fact that no conscious entity could possibly have survived either the pre-Big Bang singularity, or the Big Bang, or the conditions of the universe millions of years after the BB.) How? He doesn't say. Sounds awfully convenient.

So, I have to ask: Do you genuinely believe that the entirety of reality is created by minds? That there is no objective reality whatsoever, nothing that exists independent in any way of consciousness?

 

[distraff]

Bernardo Kastrup and the New Idealism

“The true underlying nature of reality – the inner workings of the computer running the game – is an issue of metaphysics; an issue of philosophy. It requires different methods to be properly assessed and understood. For as long as scientists like Stephen Hawking are allowed to make preposterous pseudo-philosophical pronouncements and not be either ignored or thoroughly ridiculed by the mainstream media – in exactly the same way that, say, a famous artist would be ridiculed or ignored for making pseudo-scientific statements – our culture will fail to understand the nature of our predicament.”
Bernardo Kastrup


​

In Consciousness: The Impeccable Idealism of Bernardo Kastrup



https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/contributors/bernardo-kastrup-2/



https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/bernardo-kastrup/

*****

Idealism is In

Materialism is Out

Are you on board?

Why? Why not?

Let's consider the materialist fallacies together, one by one, here, in this thread, and lay that phantom forever!


Namaste
​

What is materialism?

 

[devildavid]

The Idealist posits that there is no physical world, that it is all mental. I'd say that by definition, it means the Idealist is missing everything.



It sounds like total bull****, that doesn't deserve the consideration I've already given it.

His position is that "our experiences are the sum total of reality." Note that he is not saying "our experiences are the only thing we can access," but that there is no human-independent material reality whatsoever.

Question 3 in the video asks "what's the status of unperceived objects?" He doesn't actually answer the question, he only says that the "collective unconscious" can keep the narrative continuity going.

Let's consider just one implication of this view. Based on empirical evidence (which he seems to accept, despite the basic fact that empiricism posits the existence of reality independent of humans), we know that the universe is around 91 billion light years in diameter. To put it mildly, the vast majority of the universe is not perceived by humans, or any conscious beings. So where did it all come from? Apparently the "collective unconscious" of humanity summoned an entire universe into existence. (That's despite the fact that no conscious entity could possibly have survived either the pre-Big Bang singularity, or the Big Bang, or the conditions of the universe millions of years after the BB.) How? He doesn't say. Sounds awfully convenient.

So, I have to ask: Do you genuinely believe that the entirety of reality is created by minds? That there is no objective reality whatsoever, nothing that exists independent in any way of consciousness?

And what the heck is the collective unconscious? It is a concept invented by man, not something that was discovered or observed in any way nor is there any verifiable evidence of it.

 

[Angel]

What is materialism?

The philosophical view holding that all of reality is fundamentally physical in nature. Why do you ask? Better yet, why don't you know this?