Meditations on life, the universe, and everything

T

Thomas

Christ plays in ten thousand places
Veteran Member
Messages
17,207
Reaction score
5,962
Points
108
Location
London UK
Thus Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, PhD (yeah, two of 'em), declares on his website.

A Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence), Kastrup is a Dutch philosopher and computer engineer whose work centres on consciousness studies and 'analytic idealism', a form of metaphysical idealism developed within the analytic tradition.

He questions physicalism and argues that consciousness lies at the foundation of reality.

He also has written much about AI and its misunderstandings.

Actually, he's written a lot about a lot.

Worth checking out.
 
wil said:
I wonder what is the difference between "consciousness is the foundation of reality" differs from "we live in a simulation "
Click to expand...
I imagine the "simulator" would have to be conscious for them to mean the same thing?
 
Sorry! It was a simple response to @wil's question.

It's an extract from a 2-hour discussion here:

The discussion is between Prof. Bernardo Kastrup and Prof. Donald Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at the University of California.

Discussion of Simulation Theory occurs about 50 minutes in.

Hoffman:
"The argument that some property of space-time will give rise to consciousness fails on the basis that none has yet been able to explain any one specific conscious experience."

(Simulation Theory seems like an infinite recursive argument to me ... )

Bernardo:
I think Don already summarized the the main issue I have with it. I would go even beyond and say it's worse than being wrong, it's useless. It does nothing.
 
Thanks Thomas, yeah I did a little background reading on his website. I guess his ideas are internally consistent, but I can't see why he's so convinced they're preferable.
 
I think his argument takes a rather strident position because there is an assumption that physicalism is logical, rational and unassailable.

I know which side of the argument I favour, but then I'm not sufficiently insightful enough into the actualities of the arguments for my opinion to make a difference, simply that those who argue empirical solutions to subjective experience have not offered any empirical evidence in support of that argument.

As I innocently see it, there's a 'world of difference' between measures of neurological activity in the brain, and the subjective experience/response of/to a particular shade of the colour blue or the taste of vanilla, the sound of a voice, a song, the reading of a poem, the contemplation of a koan, the love of another ... all that kind of stuff.
 
Thomas said:
unassailable
Click to expand...
What? The joy of science v religion....

Science doesn't hold the unassailable.....when new info proves old assumptions wrong....changes are made.

Pharmaceuticals are approved and removed from the market based on new info the PDR is edited and changed.

And while we do have new versions of the bible...for many the KJV is unassailable.

I aint going to no doctor that is looking up leaches for therapy based on the 1600s PDR...
 
wil said:
What? The joy of science v religion....
Click to expand...
Is not such a 'joy' simply a pleasure in being provocative? ;)

wil said:
Science doesn't hold the unassailable...
Click to expand...
That's not what I said, to be fair.

wil said:
And while we do have new versions of the bible...for many the KJV is unassailable.
Click to expand...
There's nothing theologically or morally wrong with the King James Version, but there are certainly more accurate and more accessible translations. Then again, there's no single 'most accurate' translation. Some like the KJV for its 'Olde Worlde' English.

(The 'KJV-Only' brigade is an American phenomena :rolleyes:.)

wil said:
I aint going to no doctor that is looking up leaches for therapy based on the 1600s PDR...
Click to expand...
🤣 Nor me! My hip replacement is a combination of ceramic, titanium and cobalt! Loads better than shaved oak and iron hinges!!!

Then again, for spiritual insight and guidance, new does not necessarily mean better. Horses for courses, and all that.

+++

All that aside, did you get what they were saying about 'simulation theory'?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wil
I've more holes to pick in Kastrup than I care to. I think I can summarise though how his framing feels to me:

It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck.

Science: The most reasonable thing to do, for all practical purposes, is assume it's a duck and treat it accordingly. Of course if new evidence comes to light we'll reconsider.

Kastrup: A field of pure quack produces the illusion of a duck!
 
wil said:
Science doesn't hold the unassailable.....when new info proves old assumptions wrong....changes are made.
Click to expand...
We know very little about 5% of the universe. We are blowing in the wind; when we try and understand what was around 20, 50, or a 100 billion years ago.

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history; there is a truth, regardless of all the conflicting ideas and beliefs held today. Either God created everything, or there is no God.

Every one who has died to date, has died in ignorance to the big questions, as will future generations. If we are truthful, all we have are beliefs.
 
Thomas said:
But it's a baseline to start from! :)
Click to expand...
True! I'd much rather deal with simple, bold statements than the swathes of obfusticating waffle many "thinkers" churn out.

I suspect we'd have solved all these philosophical problems millenia ago if the ancients had discovered bullet points 🤬🤭
 
Top of my head:
God is the universe
God emerged from the universe
"Architects" created the universe and handed it over to god
More than one god worked together to make the universe
There are many gods
Etc.
 
Bloodshot said:
Top of my head:
God is the universe
God emerged from the universe
"Architects" created the universe and handed it over to god
More than one god worked together to make the universe
There are many gods
Etc.
Click to expand...

My 2c.
There is One God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen. The same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We can call God by any name we choose, this cannot change who God is.

The creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. There is a truth.

The real search is for Truth, not arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top