Cosmology Intelligent Design Mind

A cosmopsychist talks about the universe, God, and free will

Spread the love

Cosmopsychist (a form of panpsychism) Bernardo Kastrup discusses these issues with Michael Egnor:

In a recent podcast, “Does the Moon Exist if No One is Looking at It?”, Michael Egnor continued his discussion with philosopher and computer programmer Bernardo Kastrup. As a scientist, Kastrup has worked for The European Organization for Nuclear Research and for Phillips Research Laboratories, and has authored many academic papers and books…

Bernardo Kastrup: Well, there certainly is something out there that is independent of all of us as individual minds, and which seems to hold the state of the world when nobody is looking at the world. Because when I park my car in my garage at the end of the day, and I come home and I fall asleep, and the next day I go down, hey, I find my car right there where I left it the last time I looked. So there is clearly, something out there that is holding a state independently of all of us.

The question is, is this something out there physical, in the sense that we attribute to the word? In other words, is this something out there constituted of defined objects, with defined positions in space-time which are outside, and independent of consciousness itself? That I would say is not the case, but I do think that there are transpersonal mental states that are not under the control of my volition or your volition, which do not depend on my looking at it or your looking at it.

News, “Does physics today point to mind rather than matter only?” at Mind Matters News

Bernardo Kastrup also tells Michael Egnor that he does not think God is self-reflective. That, he thinks, is a unique job for humans.

Cosmopsychism is being treated respectfully these days, mainly due to the obvious impossibility of the naturalist (materialist) view of the mind. For that, see Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself.

Here are some other discussions between neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and philosopher and computer geek Bernardo Kastrup:

Bernardo Kastrup argues for a Universal Mind as a reasonable idea. The challenge, he says, is not why there is consciousness but why there are so many separate instances of consciousnesses. He tells Michael Egnor why his view, cosmopsychism, makes more sense than panpsychism.

and

Why consciousness couldn’t just evolve from the mud. Kastrup, a panpsychist, is sympathetic to the basic intuitions behind the idea that there is design in nature (intelligent design theory). Philosopher and computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup discusses the problems with such claims with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor.

One Reply to “A cosmopsychist talks about the universe, God, and free will

  1. 1

    Cosmopsychism is not a form of panpsychism. Kastrup has clearly explained why this is no the case in prior Kastrup articles you yourself provided here. That’s like saying Islam is a form of Christianity.

    Although Kastrup has done a lot to show how mental reality theory is the only viable worldview left, he often demonstrates his inability to understand what that means, which leads him to make statements out of habit that are rooted in the physical, external-world concept. Clearly, just because he finds his car in the same place the next day doesn’t mean “something else” is “independently” maintaining its presence there while it is out of his conscious observation. In fact, it means the exact opposite.

    We need look no further than 3D virtual world video game to see this. Only the landscape within observational reach of the player’s avatar is rendered, and what renders it cannot be “independent” of the avatar. Indeed, under Kastrup’s own mental reality theory, if what was “holding the car in place” was actually independent of the avatar, then the avatar might walk down to his car space and find a different car, no car, or a box of crayons. The avatar and the the maintenance of the car itself and its location are inextricably linked and cannot possibly be independent of each other.

    It is the very thing – the consistency of things in a mental ocean of infinite potential – that Kastrup concludes indicates the existence of maintenance independent of the observer that proves the very opposite; the two cannot possibly be independent of each other or else the observer would live in a incomprehensible world. It would be up to the independent thing to “decide” if a car was there or not every time.

    In this case, as in many others, he’s fallen to the habit of thinking in terms of an external, physical world.

Leave a Reply