Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

[Ben Iscatus]

Great discussion - I liked the adjectival vs adverbial qualia idea. Personally, I'm glad DH wasn't there, I think he'd have dampened down the interactions.

[Simon Adams]

Yes, while it seemed JV and BK have more in common than not, intentionality was one of the sticking points.

I just clued in that the term 'dissociative', while it is normally associated with psychiatry, with trauma being a possible motive force, it is also a term used in chemistry, as in 'causing a molecule to split into atoms, ions, or smaller molecules, especially in a way that is reversible.' But the point remaining that it presumes some motive force as a cause.

And since, as he makes clear in this chat with John Vervaeke, BK understands intentionality as a function of being in the dissociated subject><object state, then the dissociative motive/process can't be intentional, and raises the question: what is the causal origin, beyond it being just an immanent imperative of some endogenous ideation to be emergently actualized as the apparency (maya) of the dissociated subject><object state? JV seems to make a good point that there seems the 'hard problem' of getting from non-intentionality to intentionality, inherently related to getting from non-dissociated to dissociated. My intuition is that it cannot have been precluded, and is indeed immanently imperative.

Yes - amusingly they seem to have switched positions on this one, with BK then arguing for emergence (of intention), and JV claiming that as magically inventing something new. BK would presumably say it’s not a different kind of thing, unlike mind from matter, and I think that’s a fair point. However I still think you need a ‘first intender’ at the root of everything in order for anything to be as it is.

[Starbuck]

Great discussion, but once again we are dealing with one party (Vervaeke) failing to see the absurdity of reducing one ontology (consciousness) into another ontological category (matter/energy/information etc). Until that is fully grokked, he will regard any attempt at addressing decombination (dissociation, phenomenal/metacogntive distinctions etc) as more problematic than the culturally conditioned absurdity he has swallowed. We live in a cult.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I felt JV came across as noncommittal, and if anything more of a dual-aspect monist, or Whiteheadian process leaning, while never pinning down what the ontic fundamental actually is. I'm not sure he is so much ruling out BKs premise, just challenging BK to account for what he perceives to be its own explanatory gaps ~ such as mentioned above. And while he seemed dissatisfied with some of BKs explanations, if taking into account that he's only recently become aware of the model, and is open to further dialogue, then there would seem to be some room for further grokking.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Btw, just realized that CJ has taken down the livestream video for post-production video and audio improvements, so those original links no longer work. Cleaned-up version will be available on May 3rd ...

[Astra052]

I felt JV came across as noncommittal, and if anything more of a dual-aspect monist, or Whiteheadian process leaning, while never pinning down what the ontic fundamental actually is. I'm not sure he is so much ruling out BKs premise, just challenging BK to account for what he perceives to be its own explanatory gaps ~ such as mentioned above. And while he seemed dissatisfied with some of BKs explanations, if taking into account that he's only recently become aware of the model, and is open to further dialogue, then there would seem to be some room for further grokking.

I think this is why I felt like JV was very close to where I was during the discussion. Right now I lean towards duali-aspect monism and Whitehead but I consider Bernardo's model very promising and plausible. Perhaps I'm overly dependent on empiricism but I feel like I would need more evidence to really hang my hat on it. That evidence can come from a personal expereince that helps me grokk it or a newly discovered fundamental in the universe. Until then I can only keep trying to parse through all the arguments and evidence.

[AshvinP]

FYI this is happening now (50 min. in). I am on the chat.

[Eugene I]

see, BK is talking about only experiences, not ideas
"it's all experiential"

[Soul_of_Shu]

see, BK is talking about only experiences, not ideas
"it's all experiential"

And what is being experienced other than Mind's ideation as it appears in Mind's alter-mode percepts?

[Eugene I]

what is experienced are ideations, true, but those are forms. The experiencing itself is not an idea, not a form, but the experiencing of any form/ideation. If there would be no experiencing, what would be ideations without experiencing them?