What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to life, the Universe, and Everything
The present framing of the cultural debate in terms of materialism versus religion has allowed materialism to go unchallenged as the only rationally-viable metaphysics. This book seeks to change this. It uncovers the absurd implications of materialism and then, uniquely, presents a hard-nosed non-materialist metaphysics substantiated by skepticism, hard empirical evidence, and clear logical argumentation. It lays out a coherent framework upon which one can interpret and make sense of every natural phenomenon and physical law, as well as the modalities of human consciousness, without materialist assumptions. 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. Physical death is merely a de-clenching of awareness. The book closes with a series of educated speculations regarding the afterlife, psychic phenomena, and other related subjects.
258 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 25, 2014
237 people are currently reading
2467 people want to read
About the author
Bernardo Kastrup
36 books647 followersBernardo Kastrup is the Executive Director of Essentia Foundation and Founder/CEO at AI systems company Euclyd BV. His work has set off the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). He has also been creatively active in the high-tech industry for almost 30 years, having founded parallel processor company Silicon Hive (acquired by Intel in 2011) and worked as a technology strategist for the geopolitically significant company ASML. Most recently, he has founded AI hardware company Euclyd BV. Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, Bernardo's ideas have been featured on 'Scientific American,' the magazine of 'The Institute of Art and Ideas,' the 'Blog of the American Philosophical Association' and 'Big Think,' among others. His most defining book is 'Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A straightforward summary of the 21st-century's only plausible metaphysics.' For more information, visit www.bernardokastrup.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
October 2, 2014
Bernardo is a fairly recent discovery for me. I've discovered him on an Idealism philosophy discussion group on Facebook and have been following his online publications for a few months and just finished this book. I've been a very interested, but undecided fence sitter on the subject having been a materialist for most of my life previously, but I have to say Bernardo and in particular this book has made me lean more to the Idealism side of the debate. His style is actually quite humble (don't let the title fool you) and his argumentation is crystal clear. He takes great care of explaining his terminology, guiding you through progressively more complicated models making sure your eyes don't glaze over. Importantly he also admits to the weaknesses of his models. He's not an arrogant man. It's really important when conveying ideas, I find.
Clearly there are spiritual implications with Idealism , but I'm thrilled there are no fluffy New Age or theological undertones like some other Idealist authors' books. It's hard-nosed rational thinking and when he does go off piste into what all of this means, he tells you about it. I would recommend this book to my Materialist peers without blushing. It may not convince them, but it's a clean argument.
I'm looking forward to his other books and online content and I would love to see him debate some materialist thinkers. I do believe none of them have debated someone of this caliber yet.
Clearly there are spiritual implications with Idealism , but I'm thrilled there are no fluffy New Age or theological undertones like some other Idealist authors' books. It's hard-nosed rational thinking and when he does go off piste into what all of this means, he tells you about it. I would recommend this book to my Materialist peers without blushing. It may not convince them, but it's a clean argument.
I'm looking forward to his other books and online content and I would love to see him debate some materialist thinkers. I do believe none of them have debated someone of this caliber yet.
December 31, 2020
I opened this book because of More Than Allegory. I respect Kastrup's work in comparative myth and culture, and I agree with this book's premise, that consciousness cannot be explained only in terms of matter. But this book is shameful. Kastrup uses his writing experience to mislead and bait the reader into thinking the filter theory is the best science and philosophy have to offer, while quietly redirecting you away from its major flaws.
While reading, be aware that "materialism is not intuitive" is not a valid argument against materialism. If you're looking for simple and intuitive solutions, you'll find them in base experience: the game, as it were, not in the computer code running behind. Evolution wasn't intuitive, nor was relativity.
Kastrup makes use of the collective unconscious to try and explain filter theory, but the theory is going to have a lot of trouble justifying why an unbound, universal consciousness, seen through NDE's and hallucinogenic experiences, is so human-centric.
Kastrup's best argument for filter theory is that when measurable brain activity decreases, for example in the angular gyrus or the prefrontal cortex, and globally, especially to levels that we would consider near-death or death, the boundaries of experience as "this" self break down, and incredible, unbelievable things occur; so, being unable to measure neural activity during this time must indicate that the mind is separate from the brain. I counter with the simple argument that the brain organizes experience: the Default Mode Network and the Attentional Network provide an interesting hypothesis for the government of the entirety of experience that the brain contains. Andrew Newberg studied the meditation of Tibetan monks, and showed how in peak meditation, when their boundaries of self eroded, the orientation association area decreased in activity. But his interpretation was very different. This is his commentary:
"What would happen if the Orientation Association Area had no information upon which to work? We wondered. Would it continue to search for the limits of the self? With no information flowing in from the senses, the OAA wouldn’t be able to find any boundaries. What would the brain make of that? Would the orientation area interpret its failure to find the borderline between the self and the outside world to mean that such a distinction doesn’t exist? In that case, the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real" (Why God Won't Go Away)
As for NDEs, it's conceivable that a brain that controls the experienced flow of time could present such an experience in a fraction of the time as the brain shut down, upon when no activity would occur, and waking up would be felt as straight from the NDE. This is entirely speculation, but my point is that materialism has a lot more to offer than Kastrup would lead you to believe.
It's midnight, and I'm not especially coherent, I know. You can yell at me directly on Twitter @eliadeweismann.
While reading, be aware that "materialism is not intuitive" is not a valid argument against materialism. If you're looking for simple and intuitive solutions, you'll find them in base experience: the game, as it were, not in the computer code running behind. Evolution wasn't intuitive, nor was relativity.
Kastrup makes use of the collective unconscious to try and explain filter theory, but the theory is going to have a lot of trouble justifying why an unbound, universal consciousness, seen through NDE's and hallucinogenic experiences, is so human-centric.
Kastrup's best argument for filter theory is that when measurable brain activity decreases, for example in the angular gyrus or the prefrontal cortex, and globally, especially to levels that we would consider near-death or death, the boundaries of experience as "this" self break down, and incredible, unbelievable things occur; so, being unable to measure neural activity during this time must indicate that the mind is separate from the brain. I counter with the simple argument that the brain organizes experience: the Default Mode Network and the Attentional Network provide an interesting hypothesis for the government of the entirety of experience that the brain contains. Andrew Newberg studied the meditation of Tibetan monks, and showed how in peak meditation, when their boundaries of self eroded, the orientation association area decreased in activity. But his interpretation was very different. This is his commentary:
"What would happen if the Orientation Association Area had no information upon which to work? We wondered. Would it continue to search for the limits of the self? With no information flowing in from the senses, the OAA wouldn’t be able to find any boundaries. What would the brain make of that? Would the orientation area interpret its failure to find the borderline between the self and the outside world to mean that such a distinction doesn’t exist? In that case, the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real" (Why God Won't Go Away)
As for NDEs, it's conceivable that a brain that controls the experienced flow of time could present such an experience in a fraction of the time as the brain shut down, upon when no activity would occur, and waking up would be felt as straight from the NDE. This is entirely speculation, but my point is that materialism has a lot more to offer than Kastrup would lead you to believe.
It's midnight, and I'm not especially coherent, I know. You can yell at me directly on Twitter @eliadeweismann.
February 22, 2015
Changed my outlook on everything
If you're an open minded person who has ever wondered about the origin of the universe or our purpose in it, this book is for you. I read it, thought on it, then wondered why everyone isn't talking about the ideas contained within. Considering their importance, everyone should be.
If you're an open minded person who has ever wondered about the origin of the universe or our purpose in it, this book is for you. I read it, thought on it, then wondered why everyone isn't talking about the ideas contained within. Considering their importance, everyone should be.
October 19, 2021
Bernardo Kastrup has some fantastical ideas and bold claims in this book. It certainly kept my interest, but mostly because I found his arguments incredible and amusing, rather than compelling. I do appreciate that smart people are trying to challenge the status quo of mainstream science, which Kastrup certainly tries to do. That practice should always be respected and even encouraged in my opinion, but only to a point. Kastrup takes things too far. His argument is for idealism, meaning that nothing exists in reality, that only the collective mind exists, everything that is...is mind, and there is only consciousness. These ideas are in direct contrast to materialism which posits a reality outside of mind, that is, the universe would still exist whether or not mind(s) existed. In fact, mind is 100% material and not distinct from it. A third ontological position of dualism is the position that there is both mind and material which are fundamentally different and coexist. Dualism is hardly discussed in the book.
Kastrup basically argues that materialism is ludicrous and calls the idea that mind and consciousness are epiphenomenal, childish. He easily discards the (well established) concept of emergence as useless. His main metaphorical argument is that all that is, is a body of water, and wherever a whirlpool happens, a mind becomes more conscious. I say more conscious because he argues that, like in a body of water with billions of whirlpools, it's all still water and everything and everyone is connected at least to some degree. This is his basis for arguing that alien abductions, supernatural events, shared conscious experiences, near death experiences, and just about every other inexplicable thing is actually directly explained by idealism.
What Kastrup doesn't get into, at least more than a sentence or two, is the fact that all of the physics of his position is identical to materialism, there is no distinguishable difference. The other fact that he barely admits is that his formulation of idealism is, in principle, not testable. So, in the end, all that Kastrup really offers is a story that has no new explanatory or predictive power.
Kastrup basically argues that materialism is ludicrous and calls the idea that mind and consciousness are epiphenomenal, childish. He easily discards the (well established) concept of emergence as useless. His main metaphorical argument is that all that is, is a body of water, and wherever a whirlpool happens, a mind becomes more conscious. I say more conscious because he argues that, like in a body of water with billions of whirlpools, it's all still water and everything and everyone is connected at least to some degree. This is his basis for arguing that alien abductions, supernatural events, shared conscious experiences, near death experiences, and just about every other inexplicable thing is actually directly explained by idealism.
What Kastrup doesn't get into, at least more than a sentence or two, is the fact that all of the physics of his position is identical to materialism, there is no distinguishable difference. The other fact that he barely admits is that his formulation of idealism is, in principle, not testable. So, in the end, all that Kastrup really offers is a story that has no new explanatory or predictive power.
February 17, 2020
This is not only a good book, but a book that must be considered important. A materialistic worldview which claims that man does not have freedom and that thoughts and emotions are only an epiphenomenon of chemical processes in the brain deprives the individual of all meaning and dignity. It is also incompatible with how we actually experience ourselves and our own lives. Here, Bernardo Kastrup presents another opportunity that both makes more sense, and lifts the human dignity to its rightful place.
January 30, 2018
I'm sympathetic to the main concept, but reading the book actually made me more skeptical. The author's style of argumentation seems to be just hammering into your head that his points are self-evident and misinterpreting scientific findings.
One of the first things he rests his theory on is transpersonal psychology, which doesn't seem to have any empirical evidence.
And sometimes he seems to be just redefining words then arguing they don't mean what people usually mean by them, like consciousness.
I did finish it, but I don't feel I got any insight from it.
One of the first things he rests his theory on is transpersonal psychology, which doesn't seem to have any empirical evidence.
And sometimes he seems to be just redefining words then arguing they don't mean what people usually mean by them, like consciousness.
I did finish it, but I don't feel I got any insight from it.
September 22, 2017
Enough to convince me that materialism is not correct
December 5, 2024
It’s like a computer programmer got a hold of some Jung and attempts to somewhat empirically and rigorously structure and understand ideas around consciousness and collective being
One bugaboo is that the author regularly tries to compare human experience to the experience of other animals and do so in a way that supposedly supports his points in a contrasting way. “Humans do this, but dogs and cats do not” and I would challenge that since we have no way of knowing the internal experience of animals, we have no way of quantifying or understanding their experience. The fact that you can share empathy and understand, say a dog‘s emotions of fear or anger implied to me that they do have internal experience and maybe their own little mind whirl pools.
One bugaboo is that the author regularly tries to compare human experience to the experience of other animals and do so in a way that supposedly supports his points in a contrasting way. “Humans do this, but dogs and cats do not” and I would challenge that since we have no way of knowing the internal experience of animals, we have no way of quantifying or understanding their experience. The fact that you can share empathy and understand, say a dog‘s emotions of fear or anger implied to me that they do have internal experience and maybe their own little mind whirl pools.
September 1, 2018
Solid explanation of our non-dualistic existence. A bit redundant at times but well worth reading.
December 13, 2021
Para Bernardo Kastrup el materialismo (marco teórico sostenido por la mayoría de científicos e intelectuales contemporáneos) es una cosmovisión infantil e irresponsable. El materialismo propone que la mente y todas las cosas provienen de un sustrato material trascendente, el campo cuántico concebido como material, cuyas vibraciones crean estructuras que son totalmente aleatorias. Así, se elimina el significado de la existencia, abocándonos a la falta de sentido nihilista y al capitalismo consumista sin sentido.
Para Kastrup el campo cuántico no es una materia exterior trascendente sino una mente inmanente. La materia no es más que una modalidad de dicha mente, la apariencia exterior para una mente de procesos mentales internos de otra mente. Esto soluciona además el "hard problem of consciousness", la pregunta a la que ni filósofos ni científicos encuentran respuesta sobre cómo la mente surge de la materia. Fácil: la mente no surge de la materia sino que la materia es una modalidad de la mente. Se soluciona también el problema de dónde se localiza la identidad personal: si mi "yo" o mi identidad no es mi cuerpo (las células que me forman ahora no son las mismas que me formaban cuando era un niño), ni mi ADN (podría tener un gemelo con mi mismo ADN que no sería yo), ni se le encuentra ningún lugar, ¿entonces dónde está? Respuesta de Kastrup: la identidad personal no se puede localizar en ningún objeto material (en última instancia parte del sujeto mental o no-dual) porque en sí misma es un sujeto mental. Y la mente en tanto mente no se puede captar a sí misma igual que el fuego no puede quemarse a sí mismo. Y si mi mente es una derivación autoconsciente del campo cuántico (es, de hecho, dicho en una metáfora, el campo cuántico volcado sobre sí mismo para autorreflejarse y autoamplificarse como dos espejos enfrentados), en última instancia mi identidad coincide con la del campo cuántico/vacío (sí, el vacío del budismo mahayana, que coincide también con el inconsciente colectivo de Jung). Todas las mentes son, entonces, en el fondo, expresiones o desviaciones de la mente primordial: el campo cuántico, que es también el libre albedrío y la verdadera subjetividad cósmica.
El campo cuántico es una mente-experiencia vacía, que para tratar de entenderse a sí misma empieza a vibrar. Estas vibraciones generan el cosmos, el universo (o los multiversos), de forma que todo lo que hay en el cosmos no son más que metáforas simbólicas del campo cuántico vacío e inefable intentando entenderse a sí mismo. Esto significa ni más ni menos que el cosmos tiene significado y un télos que consiste en hacerse autoconsciente para entender las metáforas/símbolos que él mismo genera, como en un sueño, para entenderse a sí mismo.
Así, para Kastrup, el propósito de la vida humana no es acumular posesiones materiales ni distraerse inauténticamente de una vida supuestamente sin sentido. El propósito de la vida consiste en estar atento intelectual e intuitivamente al significado inefable de los eventos de nuestra vida, desde el comportamiento de las galaxias al hecho de tener una enfermedad, ser despedido del trabajo o encontrar pareja (en el fondo, la física y la psicología estudian lo mismo). A cada cosa que nos suceda debemos preguntarnos: ¿qué nos quiere decir el universo? o lo que es lo mismo: ¿qué intenta decirse el universo a sí mismo a través de nosotros en su proceso de autoconocimiento? Se trata en el fondo, de una forma muy junguiana (pues Kastrup es explícitamente un post-junguiano) de hacer consciente lo inconsciente. Y no sólo es explícitamente junguiano, sino implícitamente hegeliano: para Kastrup el télos del universo (y esto es una hipótesis especulativa pero razonable) es crear un bucle autoconsciente cósmico que se refleje y se conozca plenamente a sí mismo. Como parte del proceso de formación de dicho bucle cósmico hemos surgido los humanos, que somos una especie de balbuceos del universo (o mejor dicho, del campo cuántico que incluye en sí mismo posibles multiversos) yendo en pos de su objetivo, objetivo del que se ha hecho consciente a través de los humanos, o sea a través de Kastrup escribiendo su libro, de mi leyendo a Kastrup, y de ti leyendo esta reseña en Goodreads.
Mientras el materialismo, falsamente, nos exime de cualquier responsabilidad al determinar que el mundo no tiene significado, el idealismo analítico de Kastrup nos propone una misión que da sentido a la vida y la realiza de forma auténtica. El materialismo es infantilismo, y el idealismo (que en el fondo, por razones que no caben aquí, en el caso de Kastrup es un no-dualismo idealista), es adultez.
Científico además de filósofo, Kastrup es el adalid del nuevo paradigma científico idealista. Por desgracia, y al contrario que las sociedades tradicionales, occidente está tan inmerso en el sueño falso del materialismo capitalista dentro del sueño auténtico de la realidad-mente, que la propuesta de Kastrup está destinada a ser marginal, al menos por el momento.
Para Kastrup el campo cuántico no es una materia exterior trascendente sino una mente inmanente. La materia no es más que una modalidad de dicha mente, la apariencia exterior para una mente de procesos mentales internos de otra mente. Esto soluciona además el "hard problem of consciousness", la pregunta a la que ni filósofos ni científicos encuentran respuesta sobre cómo la mente surge de la materia. Fácil: la mente no surge de la materia sino que la materia es una modalidad de la mente. Se soluciona también el problema de dónde se localiza la identidad personal: si mi "yo" o mi identidad no es mi cuerpo (las células que me forman ahora no son las mismas que me formaban cuando era un niño), ni mi ADN (podría tener un gemelo con mi mismo ADN que no sería yo), ni se le encuentra ningún lugar, ¿entonces dónde está? Respuesta de Kastrup: la identidad personal no se puede localizar en ningún objeto material (en última instancia parte del sujeto mental o no-dual) porque en sí misma es un sujeto mental. Y la mente en tanto mente no se puede captar a sí misma igual que el fuego no puede quemarse a sí mismo. Y si mi mente es una derivación autoconsciente del campo cuántico (es, de hecho, dicho en una metáfora, el campo cuántico volcado sobre sí mismo para autorreflejarse y autoamplificarse como dos espejos enfrentados), en última instancia mi identidad coincide con la del campo cuántico/vacío (sí, el vacío del budismo mahayana, que coincide también con el inconsciente colectivo de Jung). Todas las mentes son, entonces, en el fondo, expresiones o desviaciones de la mente primordial: el campo cuántico, que es también el libre albedrío y la verdadera subjetividad cósmica.
El campo cuántico es una mente-experiencia vacía, que para tratar de entenderse a sí misma empieza a vibrar. Estas vibraciones generan el cosmos, el universo (o los multiversos), de forma que todo lo que hay en el cosmos no son más que metáforas simbólicas del campo cuántico vacío e inefable intentando entenderse a sí mismo. Esto significa ni más ni menos que el cosmos tiene significado y un télos que consiste en hacerse autoconsciente para entender las metáforas/símbolos que él mismo genera, como en un sueño, para entenderse a sí mismo.
Así, para Kastrup, el propósito de la vida humana no es acumular posesiones materiales ni distraerse inauténticamente de una vida supuestamente sin sentido. El propósito de la vida consiste en estar atento intelectual e intuitivamente al significado inefable de los eventos de nuestra vida, desde el comportamiento de las galaxias al hecho de tener una enfermedad, ser despedido del trabajo o encontrar pareja (en el fondo, la física y la psicología estudian lo mismo). A cada cosa que nos suceda debemos preguntarnos: ¿qué nos quiere decir el universo? o lo que es lo mismo: ¿qué intenta decirse el universo a sí mismo a través de nosotros en su proceso de autoconocimiento? Se trata en el fondo, de una forma muy junguiana (pues Kastrup es explícitamente un post-junguiano) de hacer consciente lo inconsciente. Y no sólo es explícitamente junguiano, sino implícitamente hegeliano: para Kastrup el télos del universo (y esto es una hipótesis especulativa pero razonable) es crear un bucle autoconsciente cósmico que se refleje y se conozca plenamente a sí mismo. Como parte del proceso de formación de dicho bucle cósmico hemos surgido los humanos, que somos una especie de balbuceos del universo (o mejor dicho, del campo cuántico que incluye en sí mismo posibles multiversos) yendo en pos de su objetivo, objetivo del que se ha hecho consciente a través de los humanos, o sea a través de Kastrup escribiendo su libro, de mi leyendo a Kastrup, y de ti leyendo esta reseña en Goodreads.
Mientras el materialismo, falsamente, nos exime de cualquier responsabilidad al determinar que el mundo no tiene significado, el idealismo analítico de Kastrup nos propone una misión que da sentido a la vida y la realiza de forma auténtica. El materialismo es infantilismo, y el idealismo (que en el fondo, por razones que no caben aquí, en el caso de Kastrup es un no-dualismo idealista), es adultez.
Científico además de filósofo, Kastrup es el adalid del nuevo paradigma científico idealista. Por desgracia, y al contrario que las sociedades tradicionales, occidente está tan inmerso en el sueño falso del materialismo capitalista dentro del sueño auténtico de la realidad-mente, que la propuesta de Kastrup está destinada a ser marginal, al menos por el momento.
April 17, 2021
Why Materialism is Baloney er intet mindre end fremragende. Med lysende klarhed og en uhyre logisk skepsis, formår Bernardo Kastrup ganske enkelt at aflive materialisme som værende en plausibel og konsistent metafysik. Materialismens antagelser om at der eksisterer en fysisk virkelighed uafhængigt af og uden for bevidstheden, og at bevidsthed blot er et biprodukt af affyrende neuroner, fremstår absurde efter Kastrups kritiske gennemgang. Kastrup præsenterer også et Alternativ til materialismen, nemlig Idéalismen. Idéalismen opholder at alt er bevidsthed, altså at den oplevede virkelighed udfolder sig i bevidstheden. Denne tanke kan i første omgang lyde en anelse outreret, da det umiddelbart lyder som om, at idéalismen dermed påstår at den oplevede virkelighed blot er en hallucination inden i ens hoved. Ved nærmere inspektion forholder det sig dog lige omvendt. Bevidstheden er jo netop ikke en proces der foregår inde i dig. Du, og alt andet, eksisterer i stedet i bevidstheden, hvilket betyder at ens oplevelsesunivers faktisk er præcis som det fremstår og derfor ikke en hallucination. Materialismens antagelse om en uafhængig materiel verden uden for bevidstheden, implicerer derimod netop en form for mental hallucination, da bevidstheden her er et produkt af hjerneaktivitet, og derfor må den oplevede ydre verden, som logisk følge, udfolde sig som en kopi inden bag ens kranie. At den vestlige kultur har byttet rundt på de to implikationer, er en mærkværdig ulykkelighed.
Hvis man tør at få ens fundamentale opfattelse af verden godt og grundigt rystet, så er Bernardo Kastrups Why Materialism is Baloney en sand berigelse.
Hvis man tør at få ens fundamentale opfattelse af verden godt og grundigt rystet, så er Bernardo Kastrups Why Materialism is Baloney en sand berigelse.
May 13, 2022
The explanation of what is wrong with this book would be basically as long as the book itself. Tje assumptions are childish at best, silly on average and flat out stupid at worst. It is as if the author didn't bother to read any basic literature on the topic he decided to criticise. Laughable, arrogant and irritating.
March 20, 2018
I was irked by the author’s continual assertion that my disagreeance was rooted in my inability to overcome materialist indoctrination, and that I was unable to comprehend his theories due to inherent bias.
May 5, 2021
The best. The first book I’ve encountered that could, in a satisfactory manner, dissolve the cognitive dissonance that was until now a big part of being a rational, yet spiritually inclined individual. Read it.
Viva La Revolution!
Viva La Revolution!
January 17, 2019
A very tangled, convoluted, and thoroughly unconvincing argument. I think you could replace "mind" with "physics" and arrive at the same place. This book will waste your time.
December 22, 2024
Muy buen libro. Desde un estilo poco técnico y amable con el público general, Kastrup es capaz en las tres primeras páginas de desmontar nuestra visión sobre la realidad, para después sugerir una explicación mucho más convincente y coherente. Muy recomendado si estás interesado en filosofía (tengas conocimiento del ámbito o no) o si simplemente quieres conocer otro punto de vista coherente al predominante en nuestra cultura.
Realmente, Kastrup relata ideas sorprendentemente ingeniosas y a la vez simples para hacer cuadrar las premisas sobre la vida que todos consideramos ciertas con las recientes investigaciones científicas. Además, sus ideas resuenan con muchos de los pensadores y corrientes filosóficas de todo el mundo, especialmente orientales (budismo, zen, hinduismo, y las partes más espirituales del cristianismo e islam).
Lo que me más me gusta de su estilo es que logra todo esto desde la lógica y la argumentación. Siempre he sido una persona interesada en cuestiones espirituales pero no me acababa de convencer que muchas cosas tenías que "creertelas" y ya. En cambio, BK consigue explicarte lo mismo pero desde un punto de vista más racional, donde tu mismo llegarás a la conclusión de que su visión es la más plausible debido a su simpleza y poder explicativo.
No le pongo las 5 estrellas porque a mi gusto, completamente subjetivo, me hubiera gustado un poco más de estructura, esquemas, definiciones de palabras, etc en vez de un estilo tan literario, aunque puedo comprender que la gente prefiere este estilo de escritura.
Realmente, Kastrup relata ideas sorprendentemente ingeniosas y a la vez simples para hacer cuadrar las premisas sobre la vida que todos consideramos ciertas con las recientes investigaciones científicas. Además, sus ideas resuenan con muchos de los pensadores y corrientes filosóficas de todo el mundo, especialmente orientales (budismo, zen, hinduismo, y las partes más espirituales del cristianismo e islam).
Lo que me más me gusta de su estilo es que logra todo esto desde la lógica y la argumentación. Siempre he sido una persona interesada en cuestiones espirituales pero no me acababa de convencer que muchas cosas tenías que "creertelas" y ya. En cambio, BK consigue explicarte lo mismo pero desde un punto de vista más racional, donde tu mismo llegarás a la conclusión de que su visión es la más plausible debido a su simpleza y poder explicativo.
No le pongo las 5 estrellas porque a mi gusto, completamente subjetivo, me hubiera gustado un poco más de estructura, esquemas, definiciones de palabras, etc en vez de un estilo tan literario, aunque puedo comprender que la gente prefiere este estilo de escritura.
April 11, 2020
I would read this book repeatedly; it was a mind-bending for me. Kastrup makes you feel that you live inside his head (metaphorically) well I suppose as long as the head is inside consciousness not consciousness inside the head then Kastrup wouldn’t mind me saying this.
This was the very first book I have completed reading for Kastrup after starting off with ‘’Brief Peeks Beyond’’ I felt a coherent understanding on how Kastrup sees materialism and knowing what his worldview of the world would be sufficient in reading his other book so I can say that I started off from zero though all his books are written independently and you can read whichever one you like but that’s just me.
The book lays out the foundation of materialism, what its concepts, assumptions and how acquiring materialism as a world view is nonsense and it provides problems more than solutions. Essentially, he talks about how there’s no way you could possibly and logically deduce the properties of subjective experience from the properties of matter he introduces that providing neuroscience theories that support his claim with some thoughts experiment.
He then proposes a theory, which just amazed me. I was with him every step of the way, where he introduces consciousness to be an ontological primitive (note not a fundamental property as panpsychism claims) and from there he continues his line of thinking which presumes that mind (consciousness) as he refers to is the medium of reality and everything physical that we have (experiences) are nothing but the images of the excitation formed of mind itself.
Kastrup has a vivid imagination and it’s so easy to sometimes lose connection to how a metaphor can link back to the original point but I suppose Kastrup did a great job in eliminating this confusion to occur, he places his theory using many metaphors like the flow of water, the ripples of mercury and the vibrations of the membrane of mind to make his thesis accessible and easy to be understood.
You only know that a book has really resonated well with you when you get to the point while reading the book where you read a title of a chapter and then you subconsciously make a prediction on how would the author talk about this or if it was a problem how would he tackle it and you get surprised by how your predictions match those of what the author wrote, I got to this point when Kastrup introduced the whirlpool metaphor in the stream of mind when he explicitly confirmed that the neural processes inside your brain are nothing but a undulations – disturbances – of the medium of mind itself unlike what materialists’ way of thinking that the what you experience (photons of light, air vibration just say) are objective entities existing outside and independent of mind. Essentially in Kastrup’s view all knowledge is a motion of the medium of mind.
I like the way how Kastrup tackled the ‘personal unconscious’ and memory issue and how he made it fit according to his theory. Also, what really impressed me is the way how he defined freewill saying: ‘’I contend that freewill proper is the primary cause of all movements of mind; the freewill of the one subject of all existence. Freewill can never be experienced directly: it is the driving force behind all experience and, thus, never an experience itself … freewill must not have any explanation, otherwise it wouldn’t be free.’’ How deep and fundamental is that! However, here is my problem, he claims that we can infer its existence from the retroactive sense of free choice that we have immediately after making a decision so a free choice that would imply having a free decision which in turns leads to having a free experience, are we at some point having a control over the membrane of mind? Or I might be missing something.
Kastrup is a strict idealist, his theory does provide a new refreshing way of looking at the world but that doesn’t disregard the fact that it is all based on assumptions like for instance when the membrane of mind is at rest there’s no experience, but what does that imply in reality? Isn’t a non-experience an experience by itself? Or when he was explaining the origin of existence saying at some point, some part of the membrane moved where a fundamental awakening happened and a creod–a developmental path– was discovered: a path to self-reflective awareness, I don’t see how this could be different than how materialists view consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, if I was to accept Kastrup’s assumption I have no reason to not approve the materialists reasoning. Also, when Kastrup first said that the problem with panpsychism is that there is precisely zero evidence that any inanimate object is conscious now this made me wonder what evidence do we have that matter has evolved from consciousness? Panpsychism requires no such miracles or supernaturalism. It takes the position that both mind and matter are real and natural (neither one has ontological priority over the other unlike Kastrup’s idealism) and it also takes the position that it is inconceivable that subjectivity and sentience could ever evolve or emerge from wholly objective and insentient matter-energy.
This was the very first book I have completed reading for Kastrup after starting off with ‘’Brief Peeks Beyond’’ I felt a coherent understanding on how Kastrup sees materialism and knowing what his worldview of the world would be sufficient in reading his other book so I can say that I started off from zero though all his books are written independently and you can read whichever one you like but that’s just me.
The book lays out the foundation of materialism, what its concepts, assumptions and how acquiring materialism as a world view is nonsense and it provides problems more than solutions. Essentially, he talks about how there’s no way you could possibly and logically deduce the properties of subjective experience from the properties of matter he introduces that providing neuroscience theories that support his claim with some thoughts experiment.
He then proposes a theory, which just amazed me. I was with him every step of the way, where he introduces consciousness to be an ontological primitive (note not a fundamental property as panpsychism claims) and from there he continues his line of thinking which presumes that mind (consciousness) as he refers to is the medium of reality and everything physical that we have (experiences) are nothing but the images of the excitation formed of mind itself.
Kastrup has a vivid imagination and it’s so easy to sometimes lose connection to how a metaphor can link back to the original point but I suppose Kastrup did a great job in eliminating this confusion to occur, he places his theory using many metaphors like the flow of water, the ripples of mercury and the vibrations of the membrane of mind to make his thesis accessible and easy to be understood.
You only know that a book has really resonated well with you when you get to the point while reading the book where you read a title of a chapter and then you subconsciously make a prediction on how would the author talk about this or if it was a problem how would he tackle it and you get surprised by how your predictions match those of what the author wrote, I got to this point when Kastrup introduced the whirlpool metaphor in the stream of mind when he explicitly confirmed that the neural processes inside your brain are nothing but a undulations – disturbances – of the medium of mind itself unlike what materialists’ way of thinking that the what you experience (photons of light, air vibration just say) are objective entities existing outside and independent of mind. Essentially in Kastrup’s view all knowledge is a motion of the medium of mind.
I like the way how Kastrup tackled the ‘personal unconscious’ and memory issue and how he made it fit according to his theory. Also, what really impressed me is the way how he defined freewill saying: ‘’I contend that freewill proper is the primary cause of all movements of mind; the freewill of the one subject of all existence. Freewill can never be experienced directly: it is the driving force behind all experience and, thus, never an experience itself … freewill must not have any explanation, otherwise it wouldn’t be free.’’ How deep and fundamental is that! However, here is my problem, he claims that we can infer its existence from the retroactive sense of free choice that we have immediately after making a decision so a free choice that would imply having a free decision which in turns leads to having a free experience, are we at some point having a control over the membrane of mind? Or I might be missing something.
Kastrup is a strict idealist, his theory does provide a new refreshing way of looking at the world but that doesn’t disregard the fact that it is all based on assumptions like for instance when the membrane of mind is at rest there’s no experience, but what does that imply in reality? Isn’t a non-experience an experience by itself? Or when he was explaining the origin of existence saying at some point, some part of the membrane moved where a fundamental awakening happened and a creod–a developmental path– was discovered: a path to self-reflective awareness, I don’t see how this could be different than how materialists view consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, if I was to accept Kastrup’s assumption I have no reason to not approve the materialists reasoning. Also, when Kastrup first said that the problem with panpsychism is that there is precisely zero evidence that any inanimate object is conscious now this made me wonder what evidence do we have that matter has evolved from consciousness? Panpsychism requires no such miracles or supernaturalism. It takes the position that both mind and matter are real and natural (neither one has ontological priority over the other unlike Kastrup’s idealism) and it also takes the position that it is inconceivable that subjectivity and sentience could ever evolve or emerge from wholly objective and insentient matter-energy.
June 4, 2015
Greatly recommended - a book to pull your head head out of the materialistic sand (apart from the part about death which I find highly speculative and logically not sound, maybe the publisher wanted to sell more books..).
So you think modern science must be taken as THE corect worldview, or metaphysics. This is what school taught us: reality is made of some particles/stuff out there, governed by the laws of physics. So far so good. Those somehow either accidentally or by the hand of an omnipotent being got togehter to create you, a being with (self reflective) consciousness - something you can hardly deny - in a rather misterious way that same science cannot yet explain, but hopes to do so someday (far) in the future. Transceding the "real", external material world, your consciousness can never experience it directly, but only through your imperfect senses. But hey, your consciousness, armed with science, _can_ still actually claim it will one day be able to explain how _itself_ emerged from that external world it postulates, but by definition cannot know anything about directly ! A very optimistic claim by any measure, given that the same moder science recently revealed big cracks in the very notion of reality "out there" (Bell type of quantum experiments challenging realism/locality).
This is what the book is all about: an excellent articulated case against scientific materialism - not against science, but against "scientism" as a metaphysics and actually against any form of dualism - including dualist religions. A must read for anyone with a mind.
Well, except for the death part :)
In the context of "mind as a medium of reality", the proposed idealistic view of the book, which makes a lot of sense, the author is arguing that, since everything is consciousness and our physical body a "partial image of a process of the mind", then our consciousness does not end with physical death, as physical death is merely a dissolution of the "egoic", self-aware part of our consciounsness in the "mind at large" and there could be other parts of non-self-aware consciousness (what psychology calls "subconscious") that would survive it. However, that is highly speculative ground and not a logical necessity in the idealistic view. So in the materialistic paradigm the physical death is necessarily the end of consciousness, beacause the body is the host of it. In the idealistic view, the body is a projection of the consciousness, which means that the logical claim to make is not that "conciousness survives phsyical death" or "there is no death", but "consciouness does not _necessarily_ end with physical death". This logical leap is irritating and does a disservice to the otherwise excellently written book.
So you think modern science must be taken as THE corect worldview, or metaphysics. This is what school taught us: reality is made of some particles/stuff out there, governed by the laws of physics. So far so good. Those somehow either accidentally or by the hand of an omnipotent being got togehter to create you, a being with (self reflective) consciousness - something you can hardly deny - in a rather misterious way that same science cannot yet explain, but hopes to do so someday (far) in the future. Transceding the "real", external material world, your consciousness can never experience it directly, but only through your imperfect senses. But hey, your consciousness, armed with science, _can_ still actually claim it will one day be able to explain how _itself_ emerged from that external world it postulates, but by definition cannot know anything about directly ! A very optimistic claim by any measure, given that the same moder science recently revealed big cracks in the very notion of reality "out there" (Bell type of quantum experiments challenging realism/locality).
This is what the book is all about: an excellent articulated case against scientific materialism - not against science, but against "scientism" as a metaphysics and actually against any form of dualism - including dualist religions. A must read for anyone with a mind.
Well, except for the death part :)
In the context of "mind as a medium of reality", the proposed idealistic view of the book, which makes a lot of sense, the author is arguing that, since everything is consciousness and our physical body a "partial image of a process of the mind", then our consciousness does not end with physical death, as physical death is merely a dissolution of the "egoic", self-aware part of our consciounsness in the "mind at large" and there could be other parts of non-self-aware consciousness (what psychology calls "subconscious") that would survive it. However, that is highly speculative ground and not a logical necessity in the idealistic view. So in the materialistic paradigm the physical death is necessarily the end of consciousness, beacause the body is the host of it. In the idealistic view, the body is a projection of the consciousness, which means that the logical claim to make is not that "conciousness survives phsyical death" or "there is no death", but "consciouness does not _necessarily_ end with physical death". This logical leap is irritating and does a disservice to the otherwise excellently written book.
November 16, 2016
I was attracted to this book by the title; I'm interested in alternatives to the mainstream materialist view, and after reading the first few chapters of this I realized I didn't really even know what the actual materialist view was, and it was stranger than I had thought.
The theory of reality offered in this book is from an idealist perspective, and the writer mostly uses analogy and metaphor to get his points across. He offers reasons why an idealist view might be more sensible than a materialist view, and how it can resolve the 'hard problem of consciousness' that materialism leaves us with: that is how subjective experience (mind) can arise out of matter; so the idealist perspective inverts this to matter arising out of or in mind, with the brain being a partial image of mind made manifest, and through which mind (consciousness) can have a localized, seemingly segmented experience, though it is never actually disconnected from the larger non-localized matrix of mind, or the collective unconscious, which is reached in dreams, and perhaps post death.
The seeming disconnect we experience is brought about by our repetitive neural patterns giving rise to the illusion of an ego-identity or egoic loop. On this point, the book resonates with eastern philosophy as regards the death of the ego bringing about liberation and connection to a higher innate structure of consciousness that is usually obfuscated by the discursive mind. Anyone who has meditated for a period, or just watched a sun set or sat near the ocean and experienced a few moments of this inner silence will know what that means.
Very interesting philosophical theory and it's a quick read; but if you're looking for some scientific empirical explanations you may be disappointed; since mind is studying its most intimate self from a conceptual standpoint, in this case, it is not possible to measure or accurately quantify the examination.
So, if you'd like to take a 200 odd page thought experiment on the nature of reality using metaphorical imagery such as whirlpools, protrusions, and mercury oceans to describe different states of the one fabric of mind, then this book's for you;)
The theory of reality offered in this book is from an idealist perspective, and the writer mostly uses analogy and metaphor to get his points across. He offers reasons why an idealist view might be more sensible than a materialist view, and how it can resolve the 'hard problem of consciousness' that materialism leaves us with: that is how subjective experience (mind) can arise out of matter; so the idealist perspective inverts this to matter arising out of or in mind, with the brain being a partial image of mind made manifest, and through which mind (consciousness) can have a localized, seemingly segmented experience, though it is never actually disconnected from the larger non-localized matrix of mind, or the collective unconscious, which is reached in dreams, and perhaps post death.
The seeming disconnect we experience is brought about by our repetitive neural patterns giving rise to the illusion of an ego-identity or egoic loop. On this point, the book resonates with eastern philosophy as regards the death of the ego bringing about liberation and connection to a higher innate structure of consciousness that is usually obfuscated by the discursive mind. Anyone who has meditated for a period, or just watched a sun set or sat near the ocean and experienced a few moments of this inner silence will know what that means.
Very interesting philosophical theory and it's a quick read; but if you're looking for some scientific empirical explanations you may be disappointed; since mind is studying its most intimate self from a conceptual standpoint, in this case, it is not possible to measure or accurately quantify the examination.
So, if you'd like to take a 200 odd page thought experiment on the nature of reality using metaphorical imagery such as whirlpools, protrusions, and mercury oceans to describe different states of the one fabric of mind, then this book's for you;)
September 22, 2024
Despite the provocative title and the author's absurd claim to have "empirical evidence" for something metaphysical (and his persistent cocky tone), this book really made me think about how the modern world takes materialism as a given and by doing so implicitly rejects any competing metaphysical paradigm. I grant that materialism can explain a lot about how the world works, but this book lays out a very convincing view of reality that when really broken down, is not fundamentally at odds with materialism, but instead turns it on its head to encapsulate certain experiences that do not fit the materialist paradigm. All in all this is a beautifully written book that even the hardcore material rationalist can appreciate, for as long as the hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved, we might as well entertain the idea that mind is primary, and not matter, because doing so opens the door to endless possibilities otherwise shut out by the materialist worldview.
December 8, 2024
Spirituality in disguise: not the right way to debunk materialism
Oh my, what a terrible book... so bad that I had to skim through the last three chapters. Before we start, here are two very good YouTube videos explaining what is wrong with Bernardo Kastrup and his analytical idealism: https://youtu.be/zdZWQe46f1U?si=m9jqc...
https://youtu.be/zdZWQe46f1U?si=m9jqc...
I just can't fathom how authors of these pseudo-intellectual types assemble in institutes to solve the mysteries of life, the universe and everything else! Flabbergasting. This author in question has not an iota of a notion of what makes for sound scientific/philosophical argument. How can anybody serious take his book seriously if this is the level of discourse we are dealing with? Let me explain using snippets of text. Spoiler alert.
Boy, this was an exhilarating experience. It really was. Lmao. I'm never reading anything from him again. This book is a compilation of the best unenlightened conclusions ever written in consciousness research. It really is.
January 23, 2021
The author asserts that correlation between brain states and mind states doesn't imply that the former causes the latter, and shows that scanning the brain has yet to reveal any consistent one-to-one mapping between neural activity and experience; and therefore sees it appropriate to seek an alternative explanatory model to refute the widely accepted metaphysical view, that is "Materialism".
Espousing Idealism, he establishes that "Mind is an irreducible ontological primitive that couldn't be explained in terms of anything else" and thus that there is no "stuff", only subjective perception, and that reality itself including the brain are all in mind, not the other way around. By this he claims to have eliminated the hard problem of consciousness, as the brain in the idealism framework is just a localized image of mind, which I think poses an even harder problem. He then goes on trying to illustrate this postulation using different metaphors and analogies throughout the book.
I found most of the claims to be impalpable, especially when it comes to his views on the supernatural, clairvoyance and death, for example claiming that "Physical death does not entail the end of consciousness".
The book didn't as much make me abandon the materialist view as it did arouse a pessimistic view on our pursuit to understand the fundamental nature of reality, as whether it's materialism or idealism, we will probably never know. As it was said in the book "We're stuck in being the very process that we seek to understand and control".
Espousing Idealism, he establishes that "Mind is an irreducible ontological primitive that couldn't be explained in terms of anything else" and thus that there is no "stuff", only subjective perception, and that reality itself including the brain are all in mind, not the other way around. By this he claims to have eliminated the hard problem of consciousness, as the brain in the idealism framework is just a localized image of mind, which I think poses an even harder problem. He then goes on trying to illustrate this postulation using different metaphors and analogies throughout the book.
I found most of the claims to be impalpable, especially when it comes to his views on the supernatural, clairvoyance and death, for example claiming that "Physical death does not entail the end of consciousness".
The book didn't as much make me abandon the materialist view as it did arouse a pessimistic view on our pursuit to understand the fundamental nature of reality, as whether it's materialism or idealism, we will probably never know. As it was said in the book "We're stuck in being the very process that we seek to understand and control".
January 2, 2020
Simultaneously a very fascinating and boring book. Hard to read for a snoozer like me but also very mind boggling (and for a book of this mentally hefty type it was actually rather readable). My main problem is that the author just seems so right that I don’t trust him. The whole argument seems so perfect that I feel like I’m reading some twisted propaganda. I need to hear how it’s not perfect because as is, it feels like some wild Putin made story that’s too good to be true. That aside I really do sort of buy that materialism is indeed boloney but perhaps My skepticism prevents me from diving in all the way. All in all a very fascinating read to get you thinking (and at times completely convinced of certain theories) but not a very fun book. I’d recommend for someone looking to do some deep reflecting. Perhaps it is not propaganda and indeed revolutionary. We shall see.
February 8, 2024
Wat een rollercoaster
January 7, 2023
No es una lectura fácil. Durante los primeros capítulos ni siquiera pensé que lo terminaría. Sin embargo, el autor tiene una gran habilidad para mostrar sus razonamientos por medio de metáforas, armando estructuras de pensamiento que uno se siente satisfecho por poder atisbar al final.
Aunque me gusta la filosofía, creo que es el primer libro que leo centrado en la metafísica y me ha sorprendido mucho el rigor, el escepticismo y el espíritu crítico que muestra. El autor apoya una versión idealista de la naturaleza del mundo, de la realidad y la contrapone con la mayoritariamente aceptada visión materialista, que se cuela a menudo en la cultura popular como la visión más científica y rigurosa.
Es posible tener una metafísica alternativa sin tener que cambiar la física sobre la que se apoya.
Me ha encantado poder disfrutar de la frescura de la versión idealista del mundo para afrontar el problema difícil de la consciencia, aunque solo sea para poder plantearme alternativas al conocimiento más establecido.
Aunque me gusta la filosofía, creo que es el primer libro que leo centrado en la metafísica y me ha sorprendido mucho el rigor, el escepticismo y el espíritu crítico que muestra. El autor apoya una versión idealista de la naturaleza del mundo, de la realidad y la contrapone con la mayoritariamente aceptada visión materialista, que se cuela a menudo en la cultura popular como la visión más científica y rigurosa.
Es posible tener una metafísica alternativa sin tener que cambiar la física sobre la que se apoya.
Me ha encantado poder disfrutar de la frescura de la versión idealista del mundo para afrontar el problema difícil de la consciencia, aunque solo sea para poder plantearme alternativas al conocimiento más establecido.
March 27, 2021
This is not an easy book to read. It has many interesting metaphors to help understand Kastrup's philosophy. It definitely warrants a second reading.
October 15, 2023
Interesting theory with particular implications for the Christian worldview
October 2, 2024
This book is everything it needs to be. And that makes it potentially paradigm shifting.
Why Materialism is Baloney is a perfect critique. Not only does it challenge today's generally accepted views of reality, but it offers a greatly elaborated alternative to it. The alternative? (analytic) Idealism; the idea that mind is not a product of matter, but matter a product of underlying "mind-stuff".
Someone told me when i started this book "Remember, when you go down this rabbit-hole, there is no going back". Well, I have all but regret.
Why Materialism is Baloney is a perfect critique. Not only does it challenge today's generally accepted views of reality, but it offers a greatly elaborated alternative to it. The alternative? (analytic) Idealism; the idea that mind is not a product of matter, but matter a product of underlying "mind-stuff".
Someone told me when i started this book "Remember, when you go down this rabbit-hole, there is no going back". Well, I have all but regret.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 14, 2019
A very well argued alternative metaphysics to materialism. Through metaphors, the author attempts to explain the true nature of the mind. The mind that is not in the brain, but the brain in the mind. And it's not only the brain that is in the mind but rather all of reality. This book truly deconstructs materialism with very cogent argumentation and evidence.
Bernardo claims that the brain is simply a filter through which the overall consciousness passes through. The uses the metaphor of whirlpool to illustrate the point. The whirlpool is made of self-reflective material and just as a vibrating string when it vibrates it reflects on its own self-existence. This is the creation of the ego self. The ego is the perception through which reality experiences itself. The object needs a subject to observe it. Without the subject, no object could exist.
The localized awareness (ego) has no intrinsic free will but rather it is has a subset of total infinite awareness. Thus, by definition, the ego's will is not free but rather limited. The ego whirlpool is bound to live with limited awareness until total collapse into infinite awareness.
Some paragraphs I really enjoyed:
-This filter hypothesis explains how traditional techniques for the attainment of transpersonal insight work: by reducing the activity of certain brain regions, they partially or temporarily take the filtering mechanism offline, allowing consciousness to de-clench and expand beyond the space-time position of the body. While countless reports of mystical, spiritual, and transcendent experiences throughout the millennia cannot be explained by materialism – and, therefore, must somehow be dismissed – the filter hypothesis explains these reports quite naturally
-Mind is not generated by configurations of matter and energy. Instead, configurations of matter and energy arise from the dynamics of mind. They only exist insofar as they are experienced . Mind is the ground of the real.
-There’s nothing outside mind. Mind is not in you; you are in mind
-The entire mental process that occurred in my psyche as I wrote this book has been an attempt by mind to ‘see’ and investigate itself through the reflected images in the mirrored membrane loop that my ego is. The entire mental process that is occurring in your psyche as you read this right now is also an attempt by mind to ‘see’ and understand itself through the mirrored membrane loop that your ego is. You and I are examples of a living attempt by the ‘eye’ of mind to create, out of itself, a mirror upon which it can contemplate itself and answer the ultimate questions: What am I?
-I contend that freewill proper is the primary cause of all movements of mind; the freewill of the one subject of all existence . Freewill can never be experienced directly: it is the driving force behind all experience and, thus, never an experience itself
-But notice this: if this possibility turns out to be true, then our lives are meaningful in the strongest way imaginable! It implies that we aren’t just students redundantly having to find out, the hard way, answers already known to others. Instead, we are researchers at the leading edge of knowledge . We aren’t receiving knowledge, but generating it. Our suffering is not redundant: it is part of what happens when we try to figure out what is going on, because we are what is going on. We are like a desperate physician performing exploratory surgery on himself – without anesthesia – to find out how his body works and then, hopefully, be able to master it. But the physician feels every slice of his scalpel and every pinch of his tweezers. In his agony, his hands aren’t steady and he sometimes – maybe too many times – slices more than needed.
-Since the eye that sees cannot see itself directly, mind can never understand itself literally . A literal – that is, direct – apprehension of the nature of existence is fundamentally impossible, this being the perennial cosmic itch. The vibrations of mind – that is, experiences – can never directly reveal the underlying nature of the medium that vibrates, in the same way that one cannot see a guitar string merely by hearing the sounds it produces when plucked.
-We can speculate that, through the evolution of life in all its known and unknown forms, mind at large is trying to find its way to this single global loop.
Bernardo claims that the brain is simply a filter through which the overall consciousness passes through. The uses the metaphor of whirlpool to illustrate the point. The whirlpool is made of self-reflective material and just as a vibrating string when it vibrates it reflects on its own self-existence. This is the creation of the ego self. The ego is the perception through which reality experiences itself. The object needs a subject to observe it. Without the subject, no object could exist.
The localized awareness (ego) has no intrinsic free will but rather it is has a subset of total infinite awareness. Thus, by definition, the ego's will is not free but rather limited. The ego whirlpool is bound to live with limited awareness until total collapse into infinite awareness.
Some paragraphs I really enjoyed:
-This filter hypothesis explains how traditional techniques for the attainment of transpersonal insight work: by reducing the activity of certain brain regions, they partially or temporarily take the filtering mechanism offline, allowing consciousness to de-clench and expand beyond the space-time position of the body. While countless reports of mystical, spiritual, and transcendent experiences throughout the millennia cannot be explained by materialism – and, therefore, must somehow be dismissed – the filter hypothesis explains these reports quite naturally
-Mind is not generated by configurations of matter and energy. Instead, configurations of matter and energy arise from the dynamics of mind. They only exist insofar as they are experienced . Mind is the ground of the real.
-There’s nothing outside mind. Mind is not in you; you are in mind
-The entire mental process that occurred in my psyche as I wrote this book has been an attempt by mind to ‘see’ and investigate itself through the reflected images in the mirrored membrane loop that my ego is. The entire mental process that is occurring in your psyche as you read this right now is also an attempt by mind to ‘see’ and understand itself through the mirrored membrane loop that your ego is. You and I are examples of a living attempt by the ‘eye’ of mind to create, out of itself, a mirror upon which it can contemplate itself and answer the ultimate questions: What am I?
-I contend that freewill proper is the primary cause of all movements of mind; the freewill of the one subject of all existence . Freewill can never be experienced directly: it is the driving force behind all experience and, thus, never an experience itself
-But notice this: if this possibility turns out to be true, then our lives are meaningful in the strongest way imaginable! It implies that we aren’t just students redundantly having to find out, the hard way, answers already known to others. Instead, we are researchers at the leading edge of knowledge . We aren’t receiving knowledge, but generating it. Our suffering is not redundant: it is part of what happens when we try to figure out what is going on, because we are what is going on. We are like a desperate physician performing exploratory surgery on himself – without anesthesia – to find out how his body works and then, hopefully, be able to master it. But the physician feels every slice of his scalpel and every pinch of his tweezers. In his agony, his hands aren’t steady and he sometimes – maybe too many times – slices more than needed.
-Since the eye that sees cannot see itself directly, mind can never understand itself literally . A literal – that is, direct – apprehension of the nature of existence is fundamentally impossible, this being the perennial cosmic itch. The vibrations of mind – that is, experiences – can never directly reveal the underlying nature of the medium that vibrates, in the same way that one cannot see a guitar string merely by hearing the sounds it produces when plucked.
-We can speculate that, through the evolution of life in all its known and unknown forms, mind at large is trying to find its way to this single global loop.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews