What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

[SanteriSatama]

Anywaaaay a strong consideration against Kastrup may (or may not) be the future possibility of AI developers fully activating subjection within some pseudo organic material construct that has no basis in real living DNA of any kind (because real DNA/genetics might be magical and the only way consciousness can manifest whether emergent or as alter) and is thus completely synthetic despite being intricately analogous in form and structure to the brains found in organic entities. But if this is achieved then what we would have to consider is would the precise architecture of an adequate brain form be a producer/generator or does it mathematically tie consciousness to one spot due to the dynamic of it's function in tandem with it's special architecture, as in does the form of accurate brain do something to localise MAL or pull in "souls" so long as it is "activated" or alive? We would have to ask this android of sorts these questions, after teaching it to speak and accentuate itself (chances are it may not know).

Do you mean that speculative hypothesis as a consideration against idealism in general (as a proof for materialism), or specifically against analytical idealism?

In the first case, possibility of creating tulpa thought-forms and assigning them to silicon base would be a counterargument against validity of proof of agentive AI. Preventing such Pygmalion type experimenter effect would be extremely difficult to control and verify.

In the latter case, the argumentation would be very nuanced comparison of analytical idealism vs. the sort of animism that enables tulpa forms.

[AshvinP]

What worries me is the way similar philosophies manifest in society, especially in my profession. There is an increasing push to get rid of intent, mens rea, as an element required for establishing a person's guilt or liability.

Well, that is a genuine philosophical, spiritual and sociological tangle of questions.

What comes now first to mind is something that Eckhart Tolle said when talking with Russel Brand. "Forgive them for they don't know what they are doing" can be taken as quite literal statement of being unaware when behaving highly mechanically. In our local legal tradition, analogue of 'Insanity defense' (which is English wiki link to the Finnish concept, but not same word-concept) is defined as absent or very low ability to understand cause and effect. Any case, in many or most justice philosophies that seems to be the common nominator that applies also to juveniles etc. as a requirement to establish consciouss intent.

Of course in more general philosophical and spiritual approach ability to understand cause and effect aka karma can go very far, also far beyond after spiritual awakening from ignorance (moksha, satori etc. in Eastern terminologies for "enlighetenment"); Wild Fox Koan is often characterized as post-awakening study of cause and effect, which seems to have no end, no final answer.

That's the general context, where some set of social norms and customs are supposed to make enough sense to be socially acceptable and benign, but of course the philosophical and practical problems are humongous.

As you mention the "woke" phenomenon of cancel culture etc. obsession for social exclusion of perceived ideological enemies as well as obsession of constantly seeking and creating new enemies to exclude, that's to me quite obviously a phenomenon of collective psychosis of ideological possession. If you have seen the document of Third Wave experiment, it's very similar or same phenomenon as what is called mass psychology of fascism. The name and details of the ideology in question are not what is most significant, it's the mass psychology phenomenon as such that is the real problem.

As the collective psychosis creates also very strong empathy barriers against it's perceived enemies and feeds from negative energies, it can also decrease awareness and understanding of cause and effect very severely. And possession by ideological super-ego is indeed a possession. When there was the NPC meme around, i thought it was not just a joke or ridicule from malice of their opponents, but in a sense also quite accurate diagnosis.

"Forgive them for they don't know what they are doing" applies very much to the woke phenomenon, IMHO. When I've tried to talk with them, of similarly possessed by other ideologies, there's often no ability to make a real connection, and a sense that there's nobody present there, just a mechanical thing. In our old language we would say that, an important part of the soul is lost, and to heal, needs to be retrieved. The part that is capable of autonomous and fully responsible intent.

Mods: not about politics, but about mass psychology of any and all ideological possessions.

I don't generally disagree with anything you write above. Certainly the "woke" ideology is not a one-off phenomenon or fundamentally distinct from any other ideology, rather a predictable manifestation of the spirit of the times. I just see a curious connection between claiming the author's intent in writing something is to be dismissed as largely irrelevant and what we are discussing about downgrading intent in the legal sphere or upgrading "racial bias" in the educational/corporate sphere . But since I was also arguing against conflating Nietzsche with moral relativism on another thread, I can apply that here and presume it is an abuse of post-structural philosophy rather than a necessary consequence.

[SanteriSatama]

I just see a curious connection between claiming the author's intent in writing something is to be dismissed as largely irrelevant and what we are discussing about downgrading intent in the legal sphere or upgrading "racial bias" in the educational/corporate sphere . But since I was also arguing against conflating Nietzsche with moral relativism on another thread, I can apply that here and presume it is an abuse of post-structural philosophy rather than a necessary consequence.

Emphasis on the authors intent in literary criticism presupposes a strong form of individualism. Liberation of reader from that frame enables better reading of archetypal structures - which are largely inseparable from inspiration / spirit possession, as well as authors/first readers as less individualistic owners of meaning, but more as links in chains of various cultural traditions as well as archetypal possessions. Exploration and revelation of new transformative meanings is an archetype of its own.

I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, which has been developed to justify the patent and copyright politics. According to wiki the patent practice go back at least to city states of renaissance Italy, but the philosophical 'intellectual property' justification goes back to Locke. I don't think that e.g. analytical idealism gives much support for intellectual property claims by alters. Authors intent is not exactly same as intellectual property, but closely related concept.

[SanteriSatama]

'Racial bias' and racism in general, including it's inverted forms, has much more to do with materialist belief system than post-structural philosophy. The classical theory of genes is inherently racist, as critically commented by Heidegger.

Post-structuralism is reaction to structuralism and it's mechanical and simplified over-emphasis of polar opposites. It's mainly about general linguistics and benign criticism of de Saussure.

Conflating post-structuralism in any way with American culture wars would be abuse of it, I agree. Those culture wars are based on extreme either-or black-or-white abuse of structuralism. Internalizing post-structuralist critique would diffuse those wars, not pour oil in the flames.

[Lou Gold]

From my very naive philosophical position, I don't see how creativity can occur without co-creating duality. Every manifestation includes its opposite. The tiniest creation generates part and whole. What am I missing?

[Astra052]

Hi,

I've been studying Bernardo's work for some time and I'm currently reading Decoding Jung's Metaphysics. I totally resonate with Bernardo's... ToE?

I have found this thread in the old forum, from 2017 with some interesting contributions and I would like to know what do you think about it in 2021.

It would probably have to be straight up physicalism that denies any kind of universal consciousness and states that consciousness is just the physical process of the brain. I don't think there any good dualist arguments because dualism just doesn't pass muster. Ultimately I think the biggest clash of ontologies is between physicalism and idealism. They are the only 2 ontologies that actually account for reality in my opinion. Schrodinger endorsed idealism, or at least the idea of a universal consciousness that we are all part of rather than individual souls in his book "What is Life?". Both Von Neumann and Wigner believed that consciousness was necessary in the quantum process which would indicate the belief that consciousness is somehow fundamental to the universe. Bernard d'Espagnat was an extremely accomplished physicist who also came to the conclusion of idealism. I think you could probably find a lot of issues in Bernardo Kastrup's philosophical ideas but the idea of a universal mind or idealism is the only ontology that could be true given our scientific experiences of reality if physicalism is false. Right now I don't now if we can say for certain if physicalism is outright false but I think a lot of the great minds in physics came to the idealist/MAL conclusion for logical reasons.

[SanteriSatama]

Ultimately I think the biggest clash of ontologies is between physicalism and idealism.

The question was about strongest arguments against BK's approach. Physicalism fails at the starting line. Physicalist supervenience of mathematics - circularity of explaining mathematical cognition with math, leads in current form to Badiou's set theoretical ontology. Which anybody sane could not accept as materialism, and would consider a form of idealism. Badiou himself claims to be materialist, but he's that in the Marxist sense of dialectical materialism, not in the metaphysical/ontological sense of scientism. There's no obvious conflict between dialectical materialism and platonic idealism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

From my very naive philosophical position, I don't see how creativity can occur without co-creating duality. Every manifestation includes its opposite. The tiniest creation generates part and whole. What am I missing?

Lou ... just because one's dreaming creatively manifests as myriad relational, polar-opposite entities doesn't entail that the dream is comprised of more than one fundamental, irreducible ontological category. In the case of idealism that is Mind.

[SanteriSatama]

From my very naive philosophical position, I don't see how creativity can occur without co-creating duality. Every manifestation includes its opposite. The tiniest creation generates part and whole. What am I missing?

Lou ... just because one's dreaming creatively manifests as myriad relational, polar-opposite entities doesn't entail that the dream is comprised of more than one fundamental, irreducible ontological category. In the case of idealism that is Mind.

Shu, Lou was on the spot with that comment, he's getting to the root of parsimony with admirable clarity. Any substance is just metaphysical speculation. On the other hand experiencing as such necessitates presence of part-whole relation in some way or another, but part-whole relation does not necessitate substance speculation. It only enables it.

PS: a comment on terminology. A codependent relation does not mean dualism. It means relation. The core idea of relativism is that relations are more fundamental than objects. Objects don't have relations except in most superficial sense, they are created by and consist of relations. Buddhist anatman means relativism in this sense.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Santeri ... What 'substance' are you referring to?