… He’s all over the place. If all he’s saying is ‘in the mind of man, all things are measured by the body, emotions, and mind of man” then that’s fine. If he’s saying that “all understanding must be computationally reducible to some linguistic sequence – well that’s true”. If he’s saying that operational (scientific) descriptions are necessary to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, but that those descriptions are reductions of subjective experience then that’s true. If he’s saying that we correctly observe physical local reality sufficiently to act within it, but that we use narratives to predict (imagine) from that point then that’s true.
On Bernardo Kastrup
… He’s using the problem of explaining Qualia (Phenomenal consciousness) as a precursor to consciousness. We can explain qualia. It’s not even difficult – now. It simply takes a great deal of knowledge. And no matter how we explain it, the language is always a reduction. His examples (centipede) are distractions from the argument, not an argument.
… So all I see after enduring this sophistry is another continental (french and german, unscientific,) attempt to grant priority to experience in order to limit adaptation to the world, vs the anglo analytic (scientific) attempt to grant priority to the world so that we continue to maximize adaptation to the world. We must understand that Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) thought was a set of counter-revolutions against European reason and Persian wisdom – both of which demanded (high trust) adaptation of the individual, the group, the society, the polity, and the civilization. A counter-revolution that resisted adaptation and created dark ages, ignorance, superstition, decline, and dysgenia. And that the European restoration of Aristotelianism by the Italians and English in particular produced the French, German, Jewish then Russian and world counter-revolution against science (testimonial truth) again. So there is no difference between the French and Rousseau model, the Kantian model, the Marxist-neo-Marxist-pomo-pc/woke model, the Hindu model, and the Buddhist, and less so Confucian model. Each is a counter-revolution to resist adaptation, evolution. When it was Europeans (at least European aristocracy) alone, that discovered tort law as its first institution, and from that developed legal primacy, empirical and technological thought, market institutions, and so Europeans MOST discovered, adapted to, and applied the laws of the universe: formal, physical, cooperative(natural), and evolutionary laws. And so European civ evolved fastest in bronze, iron, and steel ages. Offset by the bronze age collapse, the Abrahamic dark ages, and now the second Abrahamic dark ages. Man does not want to pay the cost of continuous adaptation. It’s stressful. Worse, what the human mind desires is relaxed auto-association, or reasoning, or rationalizing, which are all cheap and easy (philosophizing). Science, Technology, Economics, and War require COSTS. In exchange for the gains (discounts) of ‘civilization’ we need increasing incentives to adapt. So social orders seek an equilibrium of gains and costs that are increasingly temporal (short term). This leads to every social, economic, political (bureaucratic), military, and strategic problem we ever face.
… By the end of the first hour he’s devolving into Critique (undermining), devolving into psychologizing, moralizing, and distraction(Dennet). My work is in testifiable truth and the prosecution of the art of lying.
… Joscha Bach is more right than Dennet. Dennet is more right than Kastrup. (I’m more right than Bach.) And as far as I know the debate is over, and philosophy is limited to the determination of choice within the limits identified by science. And all else is lying. And in Kastrup’s case, it’s lying endemic in continental civilization, because (thanks largely to the catastrophe of the french revolution), napoleon destroyed, and the world war one anti-german forces completed the destruction of the restoration of European thought in the ‘Prussian model (territorial-Sparta) leaving only the anglo (naval-athens), and the result of their conflict leaving the American (Combined Arms-Roman) with the remains of their civilization, and in doing so, opening the door for the second Abrahamic revolt against European civilization by Gould, Boaz, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt, Postmodern, PC-Woke and the surviving (almost entirely ignored, and certainly uninfluential) continental sophists.