Philosophical Speculations

First time Ive seen Bernardo and Rupert in formal conversation, just watching it now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atq1frPdyxM&t=7s

Starbuck wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:59 pm First time Ive seen Bernardo and Rupert in formal conversation, just watching it now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atq1frPdyxM&t=7s

Brought to us by The Oxford Psychedelic Society ... Gotta love it !

Also, Bernardo wrote the Afterword in Rupert's latest book The Nature of Consciousness

Yes, it's a really great format - Rupert and Bernardo versus the prevailing paradigm. In a way, it's a shame Christof did not acquaint himself with idealism before the show; it would have saved R&B having to explain themselves in so many different ways. On the other hand, this proved a useful way to demonstrate the scale of the problem and the nature of the solution.

I must say, though, that I'm not quite grokking Rupert's statement that "there is no absence of awareness, only awareness of absence". Seems a bit glib.

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:09 pm Yes, it's a really great format - Rupert and Bernardo versus the prevailing paradigm. In a way, it's a shame Christof did not acquaint himself with idealism before the show; it would have saved R&B having to explain themselves in so many different ways. On the other hand, this proved a useful way to demonstrate the scale of the problem and the nature of the solution.

I must say, though, that I'm not quite grokking Rupert's statement that "there is no absence of awareness, only awareness of absence". Seems a bit glib.

I'm starting to think these debates are a bit futile - from the perspective of trying to convince an entrenched materialist. A gauge of this would be the 'steel man' exercise. Bernardo and to some extent Rupert could argue Christof\s theory almost as well as he could. However if you asked the same of Christof you get the feeling he wouldn't know where to begin, or would make some fundamental false assumptions. And we are talking about an extremely intelligent person here. John Verveake (sp?) seems to be the only one who had achieved this.

Most people who get B and R are coming from a place of dissatisfaction with the prevailing paradigm. They dont fully understand it but invest time and often spiritual practice in order to do so. From Christof perspective, if it aint broke then why fix it.

Starbuck wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:10 pm Most people who get B and R are coming from a place of dissatisfaction with the prevailing paradigm. They dont fully understand it but invest time and often spiritual practice in order to do so. From Christof perspective, if it aint broke then why fix it.

Exactly. No amount of philosophy can convince anyone who is satisfied with their current worldview.

From Christof perspective, if it aint broke then why fix it.

Hmm - it's easy to pretend it's not broke if you ignore the hard problem and don't even know what Idealism is...

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:21 pm

From Christof perspective, if it aint broke then why fix it.

Hmm - it's easy to pretend it's not broke if you ignore the hard problem and don't even know what Idealism is...

The pain of the hard problem is obviously less acute for him than the pain of professional ridicule, humility etc.

For most on this forum the hard problem was a gnawing toothache that seemed like it wouldn't go away! Dr Bernardo fixed it for me I must say.