As many people in the comment section asks for interviewing Bernado Kastrup,  and I knew very little of him, I watch this video (thanks to the list," that was interesting drifting).<br><a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE"">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE</a><br><br>Here’s my notes:<br>Bernado Kastrup<br><br>1) He postulates that physics has reached a "resolution" limit", that quantum theory experiments in the 21st century have proven that materialism (in the philosophy meta-physics sense - materialism versus idealism) is a representation of reality that we can measure, is not reality," that matter in physics is a quantitative measure image of reality. A quantum field is only math. <br><br>2) I think he says that the schism between mind and body was introduced by Descartes to allow science to evolve objectively carving out the matter of interest of the church"," and that historically it became useful for science to develop without risk of church politics.  And that such politically bias-division still has consequences today and explains why we struggle with some of our models of reality.<br><br>3) He also postulates that the emergence of consciousness out of material complexity is using magic to explain something.  Thus he also considers nonsense ideas like we are living in a simulation", and he considers ideas like panpsychism useless. He uses the example of a really fine liver simulation," that will never piss on your desk. <br><br>4) His insights on death comes from lab experiments with high-dose psychedelics. Analysis shows that an effect of LSD is to slow down all brain functions", particularly the cells that control Ego formation. An effect of psychedelics during a trip is to dissolve the Ego," so is the closest sensation one can experiment to death that we know. For ego dissociation see the podcast with Karl Desseiroth. <br><br>Comment: Say someone is in a permanent vegetative state", well its Ego is dissociation is complete," he is then like a big plant I guess… he is still conscious but not meta-conscious in his parlance. <br><br>5) His philosophical hypothesis is that the whole universe is one", a field of consciousness. That everything can be reduced for explanation as pattern of excitation of that field of consciousness, that one must also see as what we measure as sub-atomic particles living in the real world. He uses the metaphor of the airplane cockpit," where science only produce the measurements of what we can see through the window (if we could actually see the real world as it is).<br><br>Comment:  It’s probably easy to do a form of mental slip here", he divides the World (universe) in inanimate objects and living creatures, defined for consciousness as entities that can establish a dissociation boundary (have cognition, roughly meta-consciousness?) and the rest. The dissociation boundary term is now used in the psychiatric observation sense (disorder of separation of self and body).  And defined for living as that has metabolism, although the sense of self in mono-cellular organisms might be borderline here.  In general, it could be that the old german enlightenment terminology he somehow uses might be an obstacle here," obfuscates the conversation. <br><br>In essence", when one comes to think about it, this might just be very much like any thought systems that treat God and Nature as one and the same thing, google says that might be pantheism or pandeism (see Carl Sagan notion of Spinoza type god)...  Also," nature might be seen in teleological (purpose) terms.  This is getting too philosophical literate for me here (I will never read or reference Schoppenhauer). A side-note is he considers the two foundational thinkers of the 20st century to be Karl Jung and Thomas Kuhn. He actually just released a book “decrypting” Karl Jung writings.. <br> <br>6) Under such scheme or model of reality", moral and religion are then human constructs evolved over time (pressure of evolutionary survival) to produce some social cohesion with some evident well-being benefits.  I buy that," good luck finding the genes  for that. The Nature mendation field (mendation: act of thinking) he says is likely not self-reflective. <br><br>Comment: This is not a new idea", just a refresh with new cherry-picked contemporary scientific arguments. Again to assign mentality to Nature is semantically confusing I think, it does reintroduce a strange loop in my own head. There must be better neutral language to just say the Cosmos, Nature, the Universe,  and God is the same thing, here we won’t assume any human culture religiosity. And one way to visualize that (to project that something a human can comprehend, that Bernado likes," is to see the real world is as vibrating waves being excited by what happens. <br><br>So important point", is God-like without organized Religion.  He conceptually prefers this model over Penrose or m-theory, spaghetti monster or others as it’s in his word, is more parsimonious (reduces to one in this case, 3 in Penrose case). I read Penrose about that a long time ago, I don’t fully recall nor feel like looking back, was too hard. Essentially Penrose view was not dualism but 3," leaving materialism of physics intact but trying to integrate somehow existential/experiential qualities with the instrumented capture of physics experiments and derived mathematical models. <br><br>Comment:  He is not anti-science", quite the opposite. He just states that the job of science is to measure Nature behaviors and produce predictive models of nature we can apply.  He does not say but we know, technology is a consumer of these scientific models but technology also has non-scientific / cultural inputs as well. Technology does not need to understand how something fundamentally works to get the job done, essentially reduces what it needs to functional fictions.  He has a similar example using a 5 years old champion of some video game without having a clue of how a computer works...  Finally, I do have some difficulty understanding how he navigates quantum entanglement relative to persistence of objects. It seems to me obvious (common sense) that matter stores the car in the garage so it’s there the next day, and the rock in the forest is there, is never just potentiality. He also has great sympathy for Donald Hoffman (see that Lex podcast) interface theory -  conscious realism.  I don’t fully understand as he says they have distinct finality, where Hoffman’s model has two interacting units and he has one. Since Bernado creates boundaries, seems the self-reflective meta-cognitive unit is also in a two unit interaction with Nature by definition.