A Response to Analytic Idealism and the possibility of a meta-conscious cosmic mind

Written by Ron Yacovetti - BA Communications. 

Original Essay by: Prof. Richard Grego, PhD

The paper is very nicely constructed, very thoroughly researched and cites very important aspects of Analytic Idealism and its tenets, however, there seems to be some points where there is a divergence in the understanding and defining of Analytic Idealist views. 

One example being, “Kastrup is nonetheless claiming that human consciousness is somehow a causal product of biological evolution occurring in space-time. This claim seems to reverse completely the actual causal direction running from universal consciousness to individuated meta-consciousness to the physical universe, as well as invert the ontological priority of universal consciousness to its physical forms. Analytic Idealism holds that the physical world is a construct of individuated meta-conscious observation, which, in turn, is an excitation of universal consciousness. So, the contention that meta-consciousness is a product of physical evolution inverts this causal process.”

I think this is confusing itself in its own argument. Universal Consciousness is not itself metaconscious in the sense of being able to reflect upon itself or plan, as that would require the subject/object perspective which it would not have, given that, under Analytic Idealism, there is nothing outside it, being deemed the substrate of reality…in other words, consciousness itself is reality’s foundation. Metaconsciousness is not a product of physical evolution, nor in any sense "solidified" by the “physicality born of measurement’ notion. And even more importantly, to put forth the “black swan” argument, the exception and example…One can metacognize about endogenous states such as one's hunger or fear, where no physical representation to be observed is required or in play, in order for said metacognizing to have played out.This point of contention with Analytic Idealism, I felt, hinges upon one element of metacognition and then relegates it to an implied exclusivity to physical evolution.

Another point of confusion within the paper seems to be this, “And this "use of the “monkey on a rock in space” reference is partially intended to prevent purveyors of spiritual “woo” to misappropriate his ideas—perhaps using them to support irresponsible grandiose metaphysical claims " - notice he says "partially intended" but by exclusion, makes no mention of the other ingredients that it "partially" explains it with. I would argue what is omitted in the use of the reference is its most pertinent and intentionally meaningful part, which is…

The monkey statement being a means of addressing the hubris and arrogance that science has, can or will (and humanity too, for that matter) solve and unravel all of the answers to the cosmos and reality. A metaphor implicating a need for humility and grounding - not a physicalist-scientific rhetoric representation, not a scientific materialist trope in any fundamental or explanatory sense. It unties what Bernardo sees as something culturally laced into acceptance as plausible. So untying it, meaning to undo it in terms commensurable with how it was made, seems reasonable to do. In fact that which it intends to offset in this manner is itself rooted in physicalist scientific rhetoric, so one would think it is best served by deconstructing something upon its own foundation instead of moving it to higher or more sensibly placed ground to do so. In other words this critique by Dr. Kastrup, of what science cannot reach and what humanity thinks it can, a knowing of everything in terms of physical properties, is made via a humanistic and scientific curtailing. 

I found the essay both respectful in the acknowledgement of Dr. Kastrup's work, yet a bit silly in its declarations of inconsistency then immediately following that, the way Bernardo DOES account for or address these things. This is like saying Bernardo keeps accidentally starting fires and leaves us to figure out what to do...but oh, by the way, he handed me an extinguisher and an active water hose. 

He does it here saying, "The ripples and whirlpools in water require water to exist, but the water does not require ripples and whirlpools to exist”. Then he breaks down how Bernardo DOES account for this. So, ripples and whirlpools in water require water to exist, but the water does not require ripples and whirlpools to exist?? Uh yes - correct-a-mundo (Happy Days TV Series, “The Fonz” reference) - hence Analytic Idealism's suggesting that the "Water"/Universal Consciousness is the ontological primitive - So..it need not be nor can it be explained by any constituent parts or behaviors of itself, in order to BE. One may throw a wrench in frustration but that is not to say that this “doing/behavior” is an integral component of said person and it is not to say that it is odd to still have a frustrated person in the absence of the throwing of a wrench. And…to also reference a Dr. Kastrup metaphor, which is done often in this essay, but reworded here, to make the point, “The dance (a doing) requires a Dancer but the Dancer need not dance to be” 

This is yet another such unusual statement and example of pinning the declaration of “Fire!” on Dr. Kastrup, as if he leaves this stone unturned, then shares HOW Bernardo explains or accounts for such. It states, “So, describing the emergence of individuated consciousness as being, on any level, a product of physical evolution still seems to contradict the basic tenets of Analytic Idealism [Editor’s note: according to Kastrup, what we call physical evolution, just as anything else physical, is a cognitive representation of mental processes; in other words, physical evolution is merely what mental processes look like when perceived by dissociated subjects; as such, individuated consciousness is not a product of physical evolution, but a product of the mental processes that are cognitively represented in us as physical evolution]." - Again the editors note provides a solid response to this pre-editors note, point of contention. It lines up with Idealism and displays no contradictions or inconsistencies at all. The reasoning to me is odd. Is the point of contention the tenet of Analytic Idealism or the accounting of it or both? And,if you understand these tenets of Analytic Idealism, then you would not say or suggest that individuated consciousness is a product of physical evolution. You would understand that the dissociation itself is mental and that physical evolution, which itself is representative of mentation, is not causal or suggested to be, here. 

Also I understand it that metacognition, as evolving in higher level mental function, as a means to enhance survival, which Analytic Idealism is in league with, given we have what is salient to survive via dashboard exposure, is a mental acquisition via its (Universal Consciousness) fractal states, aka us folks.I would think this akin to a dreamer interpreting a message in a dream as represented via some physical thing or process which unfolds, thus leading to something learned or realized, all of which happened within conscious mental states. 

I do agree with the paper in its stating that what mainstream science and the Physicalists would term mystical woo stuff, but that which categorically is not, such as NDE's and many preternaturally categorized experiences, DO have a reciprocally beneficial relationship with Analytic Idealism which allows a space for such and is easily explained via its tenets and ideas. And many times Bernardo states that language requires concessions to implying space-time, that it can be unavoidable, so perhaps interpreting things as physical/causal or as physicalist tropes is simply a linguistic concession, unavoidable in its conveyance,  and thus via interpretation, being tethered to an argument of expression that is conflated with one of intention.  

Respectfully,

Ron Yacovetti