I've watched this already and found it the best debate I've watched since Harris versus Peterson. Thank you Curt for making this happen.

There are several times Vervaeke comes across as imperious for example when he says “I would not give my time or effort if I didn't think Bernardo was articulating his positions well”.

Other times Vervaeke comes across as defensive and keeps cutting off Bernardo instead of allowing him to present his argument. For example, Vervaeke presents the concern of intention/metacognition for mind at large. Bernardo tries to explain that there is nothing outside mind at large, the only reason we have intentions is through disassociation there is a space for the observed versus the observer. Bernardo also argues that John's own metaphysics in physicalism hasn't solved the problem of intention.

Vervaeke seems to think intention and/meta cognition is a hard problem which I don't agree with, I believe it's a soft problem. Once you have the base phenomena consciousness it can be arranged in varying complex ways.

I also find Vervaeke doesn't seem to understand or maybe it's try to understand Bernardo’s arguments that idealism ontologically can be reduced to one thing, consciousness.

Bernardo on the other hand presents as patient and curious to understand John's position as fully as possible. I thought Bernardo was genuine and clever to focus on talking about points of commonality and it seems to get John more receptive to his ideas rather than defensive during the second half of the interview.

They both ended really nicely and professionally. Sounded like they could potentially be new bffs. ❤️

I look forward to their next conversation and hope that Peterson and Hoffman can join in as well. 🙌🏽❤️💕

@prevailution1570

3y↑18

The meaning crisis, if a symptom of disconnectedness, can resolve itself via postulating a unified single ontological substance. Bernardo calls this “mind at large.”

The acceptance of such a substance necessarily leads to the conclusion that oneself—and all “others”—and all “things,” share in this substances being.

Truly understanding this to ones core dissipates fear of separation and death.

Understanding oneself as this ontological substance opens one to the profound realization that oneself, ones core being, is simply reality—“all there is.”

This is why Bernardo’s work is important and relatable to Vervaekes meaning crisis. As Bernardo postulates such a unified single ontological substance in such a convincing manner.

But one must remember the semantics used for the single ontological substance are not the thing in itself. Calling it “mind at large” doesn’t make it “mind at large.” Calling it God, nature, process, the Will, doesn’t make it so.

It is ultimately ineffable. Trying to bottle this single ontological substance into language and symbolism is like the “eye trying to see itself.” It cannot be done. What is cognizing cannot cognize itself.

When Vervaeke tries to pin Bernardo to explain exactly what this substance is, structurally and functionally, Vervaeke is very hard nosed in assuming it can be known and understood in logical human and scientific terms to complete understanding.

At some point one must concede that this substance cannot be known in itself. For it is paradoxically the very thing doing the “looking.” And the eye cannot see itself.

But what can be taken away is that ones being is wholly integrated into this substance, such that “oneself is the substance itself.”

The profundity of such a realization should help with the meaning crisis.

@TheWorldTeacher

🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:

Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.

Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience.

The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment – just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity.
See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.

Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three.

The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).

Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.

An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.

Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system.
A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness.

So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair – why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17).
The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair – why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.

There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.

In recent years, the term “CONSCIOUSNESS” has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalized) to refer to a far more Homogeneous Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept.

The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena.
The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit).

Cont....

@TheWorldTeacher

The dialectic exercise in the following three paragraphs should help one to understand the nature of the fundamental conscious observer, that is, the ULTIMATE observer of all phenomena (i.e. the subject/Subject, which is the authentic self, as opposed to material objects):

If one were to ask you whether you are the same person or individual you were at birth (or even at conception), you would probably respond in the affirmative. So, then, what PRECISELY is it about you which has remained constant since conception? In other words, what is the self-identity you had as an infant, which is the present “you”? It cannot be any part of your body or mind, since none of the atoms or molecules in your zygote body are extant, and “you” certainly did not possess a mind at conception. If you are reasonably intelligent, you may claim that your genome is the same now as it was then. However, it has recently been scientifically demonstrated that genetic code can (and usually does) mutate throughout an individual’s lifetime. Furthermore, nobody actively conceives of their essential nature being a bunch of genes!

More intelligent souls would probably counter thus: “The thing which stays the same from my birth to the present time is my sense of self.” This too, is fallacious, since the sense of self does not emerge until at least a couple of years after birth. An infant has no ideation of itself as an individual actor. You may then say “I was a (male/female) human being” but that doesn’t specify any PARTICULAR human (you, yourself).

So, then, what EXACTLY is it which remains “you” from conception till death? That is the “I am” which precedes any artificial sense of self. In other words, rather than saying “I am a man/woman/human/king/pilot/etc.”, simply the impersonal sense of “I am”. That is the true self, which is the Universal Self. Therefore, your essential nature is Cosmic Consciousness, usually called “God” by theists (see also Chapter 10).

The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself.

Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real – “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri).
Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”.

REALITY is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings (which occur either spontaneously, or after a gradual process over many months or years), yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16 but have yet to awaken to their essential nature).

“If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state.
The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there.
Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.”
***********
“The ego is the identified consciousness. When the impersonal Consciousness identifies itself with the personal organism, the ego arises.”
***********
“The only true meditation is the constant impersonal witnessing of all that takes place in one’s life as mere movements in the universal Consciousness.”
***********
“Consciousness must first be there, before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth, must therefore, relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence, which as such, has no personal reference to any individual.”
***********
“Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness.
This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise.
Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.”
***********
“Just as the difference between the space in a pot and the space outside it disappears when the pot is demolished, so also does duality disappear when it is realized that the difference between the individual consciousness and the Universal Consciousness does not in fact exist.”
***********
“All there is, is, is consciousness. That is the Source from which the manifestation has come.
...And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness.”
***********
“All there is is Consciousness, not aware of Itself in Its noumenal Subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in Its objective expression. If this is understood in depth, there is nothing more to be understood.”
Ramesh S. Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.”
***********
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck,
German Theoretical Physicist.

@craigreedtcr9523

3y↑4

It seems to be Vervaeke articulated the clearest line of skepticism to Bernardo’s postulate. I’ve watched Kastrup present/debate this a bunch of different times and nobody else is even able to lay a glove on the theory because Bernardo is too intelligent and has been too rigorous in his thinking through of the various different parts of his theory.
That’s said: where ultimately his postulate will carry the day and more then likely prove revolutionary is in its explanatory power once adapted.
I think Kastrup is mostly right. The first time I heard him present this, I resonated immediately with it and it struck me as on point, insightful and mostly true from the jump. Vervaeke seems intuitively skeptical or not sure what to think. The difference between Vervaeke and other people who were skeptical is Vervaeke is smarter at ferreting out what his actual objection is.

This was a great discussion. Can’t wait for the follow up.

Ha ha ha. Prior to me discovering Kastrup, Vervaeke was my favorite person in this space. I watched his whole Meaning Series video lecture and was even part of a group devoted to discussing it. We interviewed Vervaeke and I’m pretty good friends with the guy who runs his Discord.
Kastrups theory is mostly correct. I think it will prove to be revolutionary. These are two of the best people on YouTube by far.

Great stream!

All comments from YouTube:

@fpalisse

3y↑185

@icygood101

3y↑24

Don't you think the "meaning crisis" might be largely solved by recognizing that consciousness is primordial, if not fundamental, and that we are in direct contact with this reality *all the time*. This is the meaning h-bomb to me, personally. Literally life-changing =)

It doesn't change what I think *I should do*, but breathes life into my idea of *what/who I am*. I had worked on the former, sans religion, through humanism, evo-psych, categorical imperative and the like; but on the latter, physicalism left me utterly devoid of meaning.

This has changed, largely with Bernardo's help (even though I've known about the "hard problem" for years. Donald Hoffman's ideas have also resonated nicely with a certain newfound beauty/joy I see in experience/awareness itself )

@donaldmcronald8989

3y↑4

@@icygood101 Gotta wait & see how it manifests

@fpalisse

3y↑16

@@icygood101 yes. Bernardo tries to ask this question to John who I think dodges the question. I could be wrong, I'll have to watch again to remember.

Bernardo has helped me understand that we are swimming in meaning and that has eradicated and cured my nihilistic dread. Though Bernardo's theory doesn't ease my anxiety about suffering and believing that I am both creating and experiencing profound levels of suffering in some other reality as factory farmed animals or children who are abused etc.

@mikailmaqsood7291

3y↑16

@@fpalisse I think john started becoming more receptive once he was able to relate it to his pure consciousness event. I do think Kastrup's base ontology is inherently more elegant (vs the endless processing metaphors of vervaeke's cog sci), but I think vervaeke provides more concepts by which we can actively cultivate meaning. I think they both have their strengths and I would like to see how they can integrate their theories, if at all.

@drmedwuast

How/where have you watched this already?

48 More Replies...

@johnvervaeke

3y↑223

I am actually an associate professor. I got tenure. 😀

@DrunkenBoatCaptain

3y↑19

Still taking in the depth of your words in this discussion John. Hope you both can do it all again soon! With Metta.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑29

Congrats man! My mistake as I foolishly copied what Google said. Check your email for dates regarding Round 2.

@IngridHurwitz

3y↑14

❤️ Congratulations. Way overdue. They should give you a massively funded research centre

@johnvervaeke

3y↑7

@@IngridHurwitz thanks!

@MattFRox

3y↑15

Professor Vervaeke, your discussion with Dr. Peterson was amazing. The viewer could tell that Peterson sees you as a trusted friend

25 More Replies...

@name._..-.

2y↑36

If I had professors like this I would not drop out university)
I can't believe that we can watch conversations like that for free without even leaving home.
Thank you Curt!

@user-qe1vz3qw1x

10w

Same here!

@tcl5853

1y↑24

Bernardo, right or wrong, is prepared to go as deep into it, as is needed. He’s got a sharp mind.

@olivercroft5263

3y↑57

Curt's timestamp game is something else. Great show bro :D

@Mjr._Kong

3y↑54

I am a barely evolved ape in the context of these two, but man oh man do I feel lucky to get to watch this exchange. BK edifies and elevates like few others.

@royalton2166

3y↑37

I had never come across a world view or ontology that could explain my own personal experiences until I happened across Bernardo Kastrup. Not for lack of trying as I'd been looking into most all disciplines for some 24 yrs. Many jewels along the way but nothing to stitch them togethr. Have consumed most all of Bernardo materials. Thanks so much Bernardo. And also to John and Curt for an inspiring presentation. Am eagerly anticipating future dialogues.

@TheoriesofEverything

Thank you

@SaorScotland

3y↑2

Ever looked into the Sunyata Doctrine of Madhayamaka Philosophy?

@royalton2166

3y↑1

@@SaorScotland No I haven't. Thanks for suggestion. Will take a peek.

@nickolasgaspar9660

3y↑1

This is how dogmas form and after subscribing enough followers we end up with a religion.

@BenjamUniverse

Check out The Seth Material

2 More Replies...

@sduffy9766

3y↑30

Just knowing that this conversation exists gives me such solace.

@cyclicsamsara9490

3y↑40

A conversation between Iain McGilchrist and Bernardo Kastrup would be amazing. I think they would have a lot to talk about ontologically.

@nodeinanetwork6503

3y↑2

Yes!

@halfacanuck

3y↑2

YES.

@evanblackie7510

3y↑1

Upvote

@adagietto2523

3y↑1

I agree!

@royalton2166

Yes

1 More Replies...

@yankous

3y↑17

If you have skipped the introduction, please go back and watch it. And support him, the guy clearly deserves it! 😀

@TheWorldTeacher

3y↑1

I heard it TWICE. ;)

@xmathmanx

3y↑2

Does anyone else think it isn't necessary for his wife to remain hidden the whole time?

@fredsk8x

3y↑24

I'm deeply familiar with john's works but Bernardo is new to me. And I found his point on distinguishing what we mean when using the term consciousness (meta-consciousness) & his concept of dissociation wonderfully insightful and useful.. thanks a lot to you all for putting this together <3

@threeothree

1y↑9

Two giants. Such wisdom filled me with tears of awe. Phenomenal!

@TheoriesofEverything

1y↑1

So glad you enjoyed!

@peteraddison4371

31w

... On,Anon, A+cross,
... The UNIVERSE-!!! ...

@rv706

3y↑67

You should try to do a Dennett "vs" Kastrup debate! That would be awesome

@fpalisse

3y↑1

Yes!!!! 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

@sviborgamulin3929

3y↑5

Yes there would be some fireworks for sure but I actually think the theolocution with John Vervaeke to be much more helpful as JV is far more open minded than Sennet seems to be

@bergspot

3y↑7

Interesting, but Dennett wouldn't render much.

@fishfrogdolphin2799

3y↑19

It wouldn't get anywhere. Dennett doesn't even believe consciousness really exists and Kastrup thinks consciousness is all there is and they would not overcome that fundamental disagreement.

@rv706

3y↑1

That would be interesting also for seeing how and if they manage to avoid talking past each other all the time

19 More Replies...

@domenicmolinaro6580

3y↑59

I watched live and it was one of the most fascinating debates I've seen on youtube. I think there is a real opportunity here to platform rigorous academic debates in good faith about things that matter. You already have a hold on long-form deep-dive conversations/interviews, I'd be excited to see if you can expand the 'theomachy' space and give us a chance to watch our intellectual heroes defend and evolve their positions in real-time. I didn't even realize this was such a sorely lacking space until I watched, the pangburn thing quickly devolved into a money grab and other debates are largely highly-charged political pissing contests. Having a controlled, intimate environment for these guys to clash and air out ideas would be highly entertaining, informative, and contribute alot to the 'meaning crisis' :) Thanks for you work

@mikailmaqsood7291

3y↑2

agreed! I think curt mediated the discussion in just the right places to keep it productive

@anjankatta1864

3y↑30

Organizing debates like this is amazing!! Please more debates, everyone is talking in silos, debates like this are exactly what the internet is missing!!

@tomj2810

3y↑1

Yeah I wish we could just get all the heavyweights in dialogue and debate and have them recorded and posted publicly like this

@jlmer616

I agree, one cannot make up one’s mind without first hearing opposing the ideas, and bringing together the leading intellectuals who disagree on key ideas is the way to go.

@peteraddison4371

31w

@@jlmer616...
i have no doubts that from here onout just a few more % points are required in order to tip the scales in favour of our mass redemption, & that our assention privilages will be granted ...

@drmedwuast

3y↑32

This was my first encounter with Vervaeke and I have to say he was absolutely fantastic in multiple regards

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑11

Check out his episodes on the Meaning Crisis. Lapidary lectures.

@S.G.Wallner

3y↑6

@@TheoriesofEverything The Meaning Crisis series can be life altering. Give it a chance and you will realize it's relevance.

@ashwinisarah

1y↑2

As someone who didn't go to college, and whose STEM game was rather lame in high school, TOE has been an amazing gift. What amazing times we live in that someone like me can have access to this kind of discourse. I've been following Bernardo Kastrup for a while now and I find his conversations full of compassion and understanding and humility, and above all incandescent and edifying....

Would love to see a conversation between him and 3 other great minds on similar subjects - Rupert Spira, Donald Hoffman and Swami Sarvapriyananda.

@prevailution1570

3y↑18

@fpalisse

3y↑2

Best comment ' 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽

@bpansky

3y↑2

Naturalism can already be monistic ("one substance"). So this factor cannot decide the debate between Idealism and Naturalism. On this view, all forms of meaning can be accounted for in terms of physical states and processes and interactions, such as cause and effect. The meaning of words comes from them physically interacting with memory in our brains, and the meaning of actions comes from their physical interactions with the world around them, and so on.

@fishfrogdolphin2799

Even if Bernardo is right, I'm not sure it resolves all issues of meaning or existential issues. Why does this mind at large exist at all? What caused it? If it is 'eternal', what does that mean and why should it be? Does anything exist 'outside' it? If not, why not and if so, what can be known about the reality external to mind at large? The meaning crisis of an individual life gets shifted to the meaning crisis of mind at large.

@fpalisse

@@fishfrogdolphin2799 I think it resolves the issue of meaning but it doesn't resolve the fear of death and also raises other fears.

@fishfrogdolphin2799

@@fpalisse But how does it resolve the issue of meaning? If we are all this mind at large/cosmic consciousness, wouldn't questions of meaning also apply to it? Why does it exist? Does it exist in relation to anything else, like another cosmic consciousness external to it? Was it created? Why do I find myself as me at this point in time rather than as any other being if we are all at base an identical consciousness? It raises so many more questions even though it does resolve some philosophical and metaphysical issues.

4 More Replies...

@account1307

3y↑20

This debate is groundbreaking

@EpCAM647

3y↑12

I want to know what each speaker did after this debate. I like to imagine BK just shuts his laptop / camera, turns around and slam dunks a nerf basketball into a trash can.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑3

Check https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt, just tweeted this comment to them

@maxroy5246

3y↑5

Non duality is a hell of a trip. So grateful to live in a time where this information is both available and free

@bernardofitzpatrick5403

3y↑49

Skilfully and intelligently hosted show. Riveting content. I am a huge Kastrup fan but your skill in averting a flat out battle , helped me to listen to John with an open mind and heart. Seems to me that the overall intent was understanding rather than dominance of one particular view. I emerged still a Kastrup fan.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑9

I still don't think Fitzpatrick is your last name... Kidding.

@bernardofitzpatrick5403

3y↑6

@@TheoriesofEverything 🤣 🙃man I wish I could say I come anywhere close to his level of intelligence.

@peteraddison4371

31w

@@bernardofitzpatrick5403... Our LOVE can Only Ever BE EQ-u-all to Our Humility and Our Gratitude for Our Condfidence and Our Prowhess,
That WILL, stabilises Our LOVE ...

@peteraddison4371

31w

... yes, a highly enhanced & luminously revealing, 3way balanced exchange, indeed. Kudos, all around ...

@zardoz7900

24w

But, but, but, but

@TheArtien

3y↑12

Dude, we really don't mind if your wife has to get a snack. 😊😁😂. Poor girl I can imagine her looking at you after 5 hours of lock down. 😂 Thank you both for the sacrifices. This information that's being delivered is priceless to humankind. We need more of this. I promise when I can afford a place to live and can get out of my car I'll support u! Much love!

@jeffreygalket5883

3y↑3

If you really delve into the self, and truly examine what’s behind all the thoughts, feelings and emotions, and see that you truly are just an awareness, without any feeling or judgement or stereotype, you eventually see without a doubt what your true self is, you would never even question true reality. To me during this interview, it was so obvious that John just couldn’t grasp that was so obvious. BK is so aware of this that it’s is awesome.

@karl6525

3y↑2

Go to the cinema = 5 - 10 bucks
Streaming service = 5- 10 bucks/month
Supporting Curt and projects like his (this may be the gold standard) for entertainment, education and meaning seeking = priceless! (But 1 - 10 bucks either a pop or per month is not a good deal, it's a steal!)
Curt can you have these guys on once a week/month? X')
I respect and appreciate the abashed intro regarding Patreon and funding this project but please don't feel bad about it.
Not 1 ad has interrupted this conversation and youtube is "free".
Your time and effort is worth and well merits compensation.
Thank you for deciding this endeavor is worth the struggle! ♥️🙏

@seanmellows1348

3y↑6

Well. This was just awesome. What a privilege to be in the room, so to speak. Thanks, Curt.

@FortYeah

3y↑4

To answer Vervake's argument around 1:04:00 , we could argue that fire can't burn itself even though burning is what fire mainly does. That consciousness can't "conscious" itself is logical. Thank you again Curt for an amazing discussion, I'll pass by patreon soon!

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

Thank you!

@inglestaemtudo

3y↑67

Somebody has to let Robert Lawrence Kuhn know that Bernardo is already closer to truth!

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑17

I'm speaking with Kuhn this Weds, for this podcast.

@icygood101

3y↑3

@@TheoriesofEverything awesome! I'm used to seeing RLK picking others' brains but his own views must be really interesting.

@inglestaemtudo

3y↑3

@@TheoriesofEverything I won't lose it for the world! Thank you Curt!

@rogermarin1712

3y↑16

Been saying it for a while...Kastrup needs to be featured in closer to truth

@olivercroft5263

3y↑8

closer to truth is a great show

7 More Replies...

@barfyman-362

3y↑18

I would love for you to have on an “exploratory” guest, or “exploratory” episode where some previous guest and you, or a couple of previous guests who have viewed many of the other episodes on this channel discuss and explore bits and pieces of material presented thus far, and sort of “free associate” ideas from a variety of guests and see which systems of thought are compatible and even synergistic, and which theories are intractably opposed.
I’m sure you also have a few fans who have consumed a great deal of the material on this channel who could take a crack at identifying inter-theoretic tensions and proposing resolutions.
Maybe something for the TOEclippings channel?
— Ryan Conlin

@marakonttila5046

5w↑1

Excellent discussion. Thank you so much for hosting and arranging this and so many other interesting conversations Kurt, I really appreciate it. I wish all the best for you and your channel. And I hope that despite all the big and strange ideas your guests often propose you will be able to maintain a balanced, grounded and open life and perspective. ❤

@billwiall554

3y↑42

This was great! The instances where you stepped in Curt were well timed! It seemed like John initially came in ready to drop bombs, but as they discussed and began to agree on more aspects the general feeling became much more amicable. Haven’t seen Bernardo challenged to this degree before (and yes I am more biased towards his ontology haha). Though would’ve been good to hear more on John’s theories, as it seemed to be more of Bernardo stating his ideas, then John’s rebuttal, then Bernardo’s rebuttal of the rebuttal etc. Whenever B did go on the offensive J almost immediately turned it back on B’s own ideas. Looking forward to another if it happens!

@TheWorldTeacher

@davidchou1675

Hmm, thanks for the confirmation; that's actually what I was hoping for here! Bernardo is rightly accorded a huge amount of respect but he doesn't get challenged at all, almost, and even more rarely challenged by someone with the intellectual knowledge to do so effectively -- so this sounds like a great interview indeed!

@johnthompson478

10w

@❤❤❤❤😂❤❤😂😂davidchou1675

@hatchlingone

2y↑9

Wonderful mutual respect from two incredibly intelligent and progressively motivated gentlemen. It is an absolute honor to be exposed to these ideas and have this unique opportunity to inject them into my life, and into my loved ones. Thank you, guys.

@craigreedtcr9523

3y↑4

@zackalil2920

Lol what about Kastrups theory is incorrect? It sounds to be that you dismiss it because it doesn’t make sense to you. I can tell you with great certainty that everything that he is saying makes absolute sense, he’s just framing something beyond language as developed as possible so it’s quite difficult.

@yoganandavalle

@@zackalil2920 it always makes me suspicious when someone says that someone is beyond criticism. I think you have to watch the cognitive science part of the "awakening from the meaning crisis" series of Vervaeke to understand the flaws in Kastrup's thinking

@jonvees

3y↑6

Great work Curt 👍. Thanks for hosting these conversations!

@Wayzer1er

3y↑2

I love you Curt! Thank You yet again.
thank you John and Bernardo for taking the time to do this.
This is some of the best content ive EVER had the pleasure of viewing.

@krzemyslav

3y↑3

I came here for Bernardo, but I've found out that John is occupied with "the crisis of meaning" which I find intriguing and worth exploring. Thanks to all of you: Curt, John and Bernardo.

@TheoriesofEverything

Thank you so much! Please do share as each tweet / facebook share helps this channel grow, and the algorithms don't generally reward highly technical talks on their own. It would be great to keep this podcast dense and precise.

@joeleonard5345

2y↑5

This was great. Love what you're doing Curt. We're very privileged that youre putting out so much great content. Thanks man!

@TheoriesofEverything

2y↑1

Thanks for watching

@ljohnson7124

2y↑4

This is THRILLING! I have lived long enough to know how extraordinary it is to be able to personally experience the intellectual and philosophical giants of our time - and you bringing them so us so very well. It has been a joy watching your channel grow with your sincere, humble, brilliant guidance. Thank you!!
(And congrats John on tenure!)

@peteraddison4371

31w

... & so, as such, what you said, applies to you&yours&ours, for this&that& them&those&they, & she & he & we, are all together, ha-ha-ha-he-he-he, see how they run, see how the shine, I'm sighyin' ...

@repton007

3y↑11

I like so much of what Bernardo said. Like he's trying to "dispell the new age association of cosmic consciousness" this is hella dope 🤠

@Footnotes2Plato

3y↑7

Fantastic dialogue, gentlemen. I learned a lot and because of how carefully and respectfully you each engaged I now have a much deeper grasp of each of your metaphysical positions than I did before.

@Fakery

3y↑9

definitely not a debate btw
This is a fun one! Thanks for hosting and sharing :)

@pauloh3591

3y↑6

Brazil hasn't won a world cup for many years but to have Bernardo is very comforting.

@Brunofromaraguari

2y↑1

Espero que ganhemos o hexa desta vez kk

@ryanhamilton8732

3y↑6

Best discussion EVER!!!
For round 2 - It would be good to see the continuation of the discussion about the problem of intentionality because I think a lot went unanswered. And to see Bernardo challenge John's position would be nice!

@matthewjbradley

3y↑4

Therapy timeout was next level 🙏

@TheoriesofEverything

I actually don't recall what happened there (I didn't write the timestamps this time, a volunteer from the Discord did). What happened during "therapy timeout"?

@matthewjbradley

3y↑3

@@TheoriesofEverything It was getting heated, you interrupted to ask for a brief pause to hear from each of them a few things about the other's work that they agreed with and it really opened up the conversation and created a positive and productive atmosphere.

@TheoriesofEverything

@@matthewjbradley Ah! I recall this. Thanks Matt.

@pnpsilver

3y↑11

Thanks for another great show Curt.
Youre doing a masterful job. It must be pretty stressfull setting these things up, hosting and staying engaged in such long conversations, I can only imagine.
I know personally its hard for me to stay engaged in these conversations at a resourceful level of tlanguage and terminology but the passion keeps me aware.
Again thanks for these great guests and discussions!

@TheoriesofEverything

Thank you Paul, and I'm glad you enjoy these.

@cattoes1609

3y↑3

So excited I am catching this. Will definitely re-watch

@MeRetroGamer

2y↑3

This is by far the best discussion I've listened to in my entire life, and there have been a few ones... I feel that all the important issues and questions have been addressed in such a clear and clever way that nobody could be unable to understand what's been said by these two titans.

I still haven't seen the last hour of the video and I have to go to sleep, but the first thing I'm going to do tomorrow after work is to finish this brilliant talk.

I can deeply feel what Bernardo is talking about and I recognize the titanic effort which is needed to put all of this into comprehensible words that can be understood by people who doesn't have the same insight, and the questions and problems exposed by John Vervaeke are of an unmeasurable value.

@sapientia2770

I got locked out of my account. You stated something about static, and a dynamic plurality?

@MeRetroGamer

@@sapientia2770 hmm, maybe in another conversation and context. I remember something about it but not clearly, I also think it was a question, not a statement. What are you thinking about?

@braedenwilliams6339

3y↑2

Can't get enough!! Its so perplexing to think that these sort of rich and fuffilling conversations don't add to, or ignite a fire inside everyone! These conversations and type of ideas are all yearn for 🙌🏾

With the ever growing number of YouTube innovators we're lucky to have working to feed the masses individually, there needs to be some sort of coordinated effort into forming a massive collective of intellectuals with their own major platform to maximize the spread of information to the millions of people who don't even know they desperately need this.

@jmholthuysen

2y↑1

Excellent work Curt. Such a great dialogue between two thinkers that I enjoy listening too. I’ll be showing my appreciation through Patreon.

@pnpsilver

3y↑8

Im really excited for Chris Langen eh, I hope you ask him some personal questions. I saw a short interview with him talking about how he had or could get into some high mental spaces that he considered to be spiritual. I have a lot of experience in the same realms under the same lense in similar pursuits of wonder/contemplation.. I think that Ego, Spirit, Will, Objective/goal, Discernment, Comprehension, and Empathy/Compassion) are big themes from the inner world of mind and heart and the Being perspective that has yet to be packaged.
Then again Maybe I should pursue these topics. But I send my regards again, and yeah...super excited about it.

@andresortiz664

3y↑6

Once again knocked it out of the park, Don’t stop what you’re doing, keep going! Been binge watching your videos since I saw your interview with Bernardo, kudos for all the work you’re putting in.

@TheoriesofEverything

Thank you Andres.

@sarahmccunn9838

3y↑2

Held my attention the whole way, a minor miracle in itself. I’ve been following Bernado for some time - this exchange was deeply enjoyable, thank you. Great format.

@rebekkahaas5472

3y↑6

Thank you for your offering Curt, I will check out the support option through Patreon. Also for your very inspirational style of really being honest with so well differentiated articulation. It’s a delicious conversation, there are paragraphs where my understanding or concentration capacity stays behind but often this dialogue is just that perfect bit ahead of my thought capacity so my own intelligence and competence can grow into that gap and expand.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

Thank you Rebekka.

@peteraddison4371

31w

... Right-there, Reb, & congratulations. With those few words, you, have artfully articulated an apropriate approach to meditation ...

@cagefury3789

11w

I watched this when it first went up years ago, and here I am again today. I'm somewhat familiar with both of their works outside of this, but for some reason I find this particular interaction to be one of the best pieces of media I've ever seen, full stop.

@kristofkovacs1742

3y↑1

This channel is amazing. The things I have learned here in the past few months sparked my interest in a way that I've almost forgotten. Thank you for your work Curt!

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

Great to hear=

@jowr2000

You are a great moderator. Stepping in at appropriate moments, otherwise letting the dialogue flow. This was an extremely informative interchange. Thank you.

@clarebags

1y↑2

Would it be possible to interview Francis Lucille. What amazing stuff here. I'm absolutely so excited by this channel. Thank you Kurt

@alittax

It's amazing that we get to watch these kinds of debates between intellectuals! This is WAY better than the podium debates with live audiences, although I appreciate those as well. With this format you get a lot more back-and-forths, which gives the participants greater opportunity to refine what they said and reflect on each other's objections. Thank you for your work! :) I'd love to see David Chalmers vs Bernardo, if I can give a recommendation.

@pheresy1367

2y↑1

I am here because of Bernardo, but really appreciate being introduced to John. I really loved this interaction (debate/clarification in good faith for everyone's benefit?). They are kindred spirits to each other and to me also.

@alighori89

3y↑3

Waiting impatiently for the next season!

@account1307

3y↑5

watching this makes me remember what it was like when I had more social confidence, it makes me want to engage in philosophical debates and dialogos, and the principled pursuit of true understanding

@peteraddison4371

31w

... the beginnings of a new human paradyme are always tenuous & iffy, but, once begun, & the momentum is maintained, there will be
No-Turning-Back-!!!

@RickDelmonico

3y↑10

The mind creates the meaning it is able to understand.
A form of map making.

@jcinaz

3y↑1

I would take that one step farther and say that the mind creates the meaning it wants to understand. Like fitting wrong puzzle pieces together because it completes a predefined image of the outcome.

@neoman285

3y↑13

Idealism's validity is largely the fact that it has the LEAST burden of proof over every other position. That is it, nothing else needs to be said. Great interview man.

@peterp-a-n4743

3y↑3

But imho it does this by cheating. It's like theism you have the ultimate Get Out of Jail Free card in God (which needs no explanation) that can ultimately explain everything (by explaining absolutely nothing but keeping it a mystery) Kastrup does something similar with his idealism. His simple (say consciousness - which needs no explanation) is so complicated that it serves to stand in for all the problems other monisms try to explain/dissolve. Like the theist he just avoids the explaining. Like theism, which is motivated by wishful thinking (theists want there to be a god) Kastrup is motivated by wanting there to be meaning. But maybe just maybe we aren't entitled to have meaning. Maybe there is no meaning and a yearning for meaning is just what was evolutionary adaptive and that's why we ended up with it.

@neoman285

3y↑7

@@peterp-a-n4743 Thanks for the comment. I personally find the opposite to be true in a sense. I find that materialists are driven by despair and a desire for that despair to be acknowledged by others, ie. “there is no self, look at me and feel bad for me.” I don’t think idealism posits anything about meaning whatsoever. It simply says that consciousness cannot have evolved or be a product of material outside itself. God and meaning are separate. I say this because I used to think exactly what you wrote for over a decade. I used to argue and even scream at people over it. If we simplify the argument to the basics and ignore god and meaning, there is simply no way for qualia to evolve FROM something else. Things must start from experience, even if it’s all meaningless.

@Sam-hh3ry

3y↑7

@@peterp-a-n4743 Nope. All ontological positions require at least on inference, and Kastrup’s is universal consciousness. From that starting point, he accounts for the emergence of life, the universe, and individual subjects. In comparison, competing positions like physicalism and panpsychism have starting inferences that are less empirically grounded and are completely unable to account for either consciousness or the emergence of individual subjects. You don’t understand the arguments very well so you’re projecting your own imagined psychological motivations onto the position.

@moesypittounikos

3y↑2

@@peterp-a-n4743 friend, your comment has been put to Bernardo in many video's and he is able to answer them.

@tsugijoludi6216

@@peterp-a-n4743 it's a much more elegant, plausible and in contradictory 'get out of jail free card' than the big bang, however. I'm not sure what your advocating for that doesn't initially start with the promise of a get out of jail free card? Seems we either must concede to one or to a paradox

2 More Replies...

@novalongclaw5215

3y↑9

Would be great to hear you interview Paul stemets!!! Thanks as always

@curtjaimungal

3y↑6

Trying but he's too busy

@nosafespace.4marty

2y↑2

GREAT CONVERSATION! THANKS to Curt, Bernardo, and John! ! !

@MichaelSchels

2y↑2

You´re moderating a relevant dialogue in a very concentrated and likable way. Unfortunately I understand only about 80 % (as a not native english speaker), but I´m very excited of your way of asking and thinking. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your work.

@samkeen

3y↑1

This was a beautiful, extraordinary conversation. Thank you Curt for facilitating this!

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

I'm so glad you're finding the content useful / enjoyable, man

@cattoes1609

3y↑2

Just fantastic 👏. Thank you Curt for creating and holding space for this exchange. Definitely one I will have to listen to over and over.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

Great

@Right_in2

3y↑4

Thankyou for opening our minds! Best podcast so far, love this style!

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑3

Anything with Kastrup and Vervaeke will surpass all previous podcasts.

@drmedwuast

3y↑14

Joscha Bach and Bernardo Kastrup would be the ultimate conversation, in my view

@EpCAM647

@poimandres

3y↑2

Not sure. Kastrup is not a researcher at an institution doing or engaging in science--Bach and Vervaeke play in a different league.

@artandculture5262

3y↑2

Joscha is not interesting and plays artist in an aggravating way.

@drmedwuast

@@artandculture5262 I respect your opinion

@Sam-hh3ry

3y↑4

@@poimandres
Kastrup already made Bach look pretty bad in a brief exchange they had on his blog

5 More Replies...

@simonfilemon1066

3y↑4

Bless this channel!

@ailingsoong3113

3y↑2

The guests on this show are remarkable. For someone who was not aware of all the contemporary thinkers in the field of philosophy and neuroscience is so so fascinating. And they really push the material so deep, standing of course on the shoulders of the great philosophers in the past, but still manage to bring their own unique nuance to each theory. But beyond that CURT, genuinely man, you are incredible. How you are able to understand and converse and challenge and keep the attention of these intellectual giants is beyond me and clearly shows you are without a doubt on the same level as them. I am so happy this show exists. And will 100% become a patreon supporter to keep your timeless work going. KEEP IT UP MY BROTHER.

@TheoriesofEverything

Thank you so much!

@dropsoftruth

1y↑1

Thank you, Curt. For all that you do, for yourself and for others.

@noobslayeru

3y↑9

I just found out about this channel, and I got to say that it is super cool brother.

@TheoriesofEverything

Thank you!

@ashvinpandurangi9541

3y↑4

Yes, the best debate I have heard between any two guests by far! It's not even close. Now we need Peterson and Kastrup and/or Vervaeke. Fingers crossed.
BK makes a very interesting point about MAL experiencing from "two sides", the instinctive side of Nature and the "meta-cognitive" or "self-aware" side of human alters. The "two sides" language must be a statement used to distinguish relational perspectives, because ontically there can only be "One Side" of experience, which is the interiority of MAL. Therefore, if I am now understanding BK correctly, self-awareness is an ontic aspect of Reality.

@ludoski68

2y↑1

Every talk on this channel it's so mind blowing and intresting, thank you Curt

@TheoriesofEverything

Glad you think so

@ZheannaErose

36w↑1

I love this channel so much. Thanks, Curt. <3

@visavou

3y↑3

Ty for your sacrifice.

@lievenyperman9363

This was just amazing. Hands down the best debate I have ever heard. I sincerely hope there will be a part 2. Thank you Curt for making this possible and for the excellent moderating. 👌🙏
Edit: Oh shit, just found out there already is a part 2, looks like sleep will not be an option for me tonight. 🤦‍♂️👌🎉🎊

@lievenyperman9363

@@TheoriesofEverything Trust me, I will be sharing this and talk the ears off of everybody I speak to in the near future about these debates. You got my full support and I will do all I can to spread the word of this amazing channel. Thanks again for the great work you are doing. 🙏

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

@@lievenyperman9363 Aw thank you so much

@4567mariusz

3y↑1

It gets really interesting when differences of opinion (or understanding) arise. Great stuff!

@PavelSnagovsky

33w↑1

Curt did an amazing job in keeping, these two incredible thinkers of the day, constructively have a conversation. He did not intervene almost at all, and did when it was necessary to keep the conversation going.
Absolutely incredible conversation from start to finish between all three. I encourage everyone to view the whole discussion, it is worth it. Cheers!
Special thanks to John and Bernando, I would love to have a beer with you two. Though it is intimidating to have a beer with "Gods" :)
Thank you @TheoriesofEverything, please take my support in a form of a comment for now, I will do more when I have a chance!

@PavelSnagovsky

33w↑1

I wish there would be a 10X like button on YouTube

@girlplanetboy

3y↑9

I really wish I could contribute financially to your channel, as you and it are one of the most erudite and profound podcasts to emerge in recent times. I feel a twinge of guilt at being able to access the shows for free on YouTube. I hope that you can start to live a little better in order to continue your brilliant podcasts. Very funny anecdote about your wife holding two cups of piss snarling at you! Thanks Curt (and angry wife)

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

Haha. EDIT: She's extremely lovely and supportive. A wonderful woman.

@ericmunn330

44w↑1

mind-blowing stuff. 3hrs:10mins and it get better, incredible convo

@soubhikmukherjee6871

3y↑2

Sending love to you and your wife ❤ 💚💙💜

@purememory939

What an amazing conversation, thank you so much!

@KiKs0n3R

43w↑1

Im watching this for the third time can we please have another part 1/2 this season I love listening two you three chat all of you are so passionate and bounce of each other really well.

@tjs8628

3y↑1

No words to Express my gratitude. Thank you. 🙏🙏

@skemsen

41w↑1

I feel like this is fundamentally the most important debate recorded for human kind so far. I only hope it will "trickle down" and thoroughly influence everywhere it could possible have the reach it ought to have.

@TheoriesofEverything

41w

Thank you so much. Do share on Twitter / Facebook. It genuinely helps

@NotIT777

So happy i found this channel!! Love these two, also you yourself seem to be a stand up human!

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

I'm so glad you're finding the content useful / enjoyable, Alex

@user-if7oy4ss9u

17w

The bridge between the mystical and the mundane is humor. If you can’t laugh at the absurd and strangely beautiful terror of reality then you are absolutely and hopelessly lost.

The most profound moments of this “theolocution” were those in which everyone shared a relieving moment of light-hearted laughter together

@SparlordPrime

Wow, I only just now stumbled upon this gem of a channel. I have been following Bernardo's work closely and have been reading Dr. Donald Hofmann book on consciousness recently, the idealistic wordview just resonates with me greatly. The information and approach with which John approaches reality is truly convincing and fascinating as well. Thank you for providing a platform and format in which these two intellectual titans can so eloquently and amicably converse.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑1

I'm so glad to have you aboard. Thanks for the love and hopefully you enjoy some of the other podcasts on the channel as well. - Curt

@SparlordPrime

@@TheoriesofEverything Will certainly check them out Curt! Thank you!

@VipulAnand751

1y↑1

Curt your interrupts are welcomed and relevant 🎉❤

@detodounpoco37

3y↑1

Consciousness is beyond words, these type of instances are fantastic to learn new ideas from others, but everything that we can say goes beyond common language.
In order to understand this is fundamental to study an integral approach and, most importantly, deeper states of individual consciousness to get in touch with the deeper unnamed Mystery

@carter5945

3y↑2

Amazing discussion. Thank you for what you do, Curt.

@TheoriesofEverything

3y↑2

Thanks Carter

@akirabaycrest4398

3y↑2

Thank you Kurt to making such an effort to bring this interesting debate. I am a big fan of Bernardo and feel that he is very logical and scientific in his approach. Thank you.

@7HornyToad

3y↑5

Awesome conversation...touches on a lot of points in my own research

@AtypicalPaul

1y↑1

Loving this conversation. Very thought provoking

@bettina4374

2y↑1

Based on the comments, I think you found a ‘gap in the market’ with the format of and the guests on your show. Congratulations Curt! Good work! This discussion was a win for everyone.-the guests and listeners!

@jimmybolton8473

Yep this was a great one Kurt. Great Titans of language in conversation I love it.

@alexanderjenkins7929

3y↑1

This is a really great discussion. It's really refreshing to find such great minds sitting on different sides of the debate that can articulate their debatable points so well.

I'd love to see some more up-and-coming great minds platformed and allow them to have their ideas coaxed out into the public discourse

@TheoriesofEverything

Thanks Alex. If you have guest suggestions, do let me know.

@alexanderjenkins7929

@@TheoriesofEverything
There are some interesting theories which I would say have good answers to the "mechanism" question we come to at around 2:45:40 in this video.

One such model is Eidomorphism by Neven Knezevic, who I would consider a genius in his own right. however I know he is working on an updated version of that model as we speak. But Eidomorphism is certainly worth a look and his ideas would certainly add to the discourse

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now