I suppose it’s true enough to say that many so-called facts are at best true enough under the provisional circumstances, and are thus always subject to change (after all, it was once considered a ‘fact’ that the sun revolved around the earth, and it’s still a ‘fact’, according to materialism, that there is a mind-independent world of matter ‘out there’), and so perhaps Kastrup should refer to apparent facts. However, with respect, that doesn’t seem reason enough to stop reading at that point.

Anyway, my intention here is not to defend his ontology on his behalf, but rather to get input on his version of idealism, and idealism in general, so as to make some sense of it, one way or the other. The main reason being that my intuitive feeling, being more mystical than analytical, is that materialism, as the prevailing metaphysical model, fails to adequately explain even ordinary experience, never mind extraordinary or paranormal experience, and hence the ongoing search for an alternate model -- e.g. Idealism. Clearly it is predicated on the premise of the primacy of Consciousness, as the ontological primitive, and thus avoids the ‘hard problem’ faced by materialism, as there is no longer any need to explain its emergence, there being no ‘prior to’ Consciousness, and therefore no point of origin or causation. From there -- this being an admittedly simplified synopsis -- as the word idealism implies, it posits the emanations of the ideations of Consciousness (Platonic forms/ideas), akin to a Cosmic Mind, as the basis for the phenomenal experience of the individuated loci of Consciousness, i.e. sentient beings, which comprises one’s apparent subject/object perception. Our thoughts then become the recapitulation, or iterations, of that greater cognitive process. But of course one realizes that, while this avoids the so-called ‘hard problem’, it has its own hard problems, the challenge being to tie it in with the findings of quantum theory, evolutionary theory, the origins of life, etc.

Needless to say, idealism is at best a metaphysical model, as is physicalism, panpsychism, Hoffman’s conscious realism, indeed all such ‘isms’, and ultimately the map is not the territory, and one must bow to the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. Nonetheless, it somehow seems important to conceive of an ontological/cosmological model upon which to base a cultural ethos. The question becomes, which one?

You may indeed make a valid point, although even as a computer engineer he is also very dubious about the cyber-age culture that underlies the attempts to replicate consciousness in AI, and the now popular computational and/or virtual reality-based cosmologies. However, he does seem to have some affinity for the ideas of Donald Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at U of C, so perhaps there is a bridge to be built there.

Thanks for your constructive analysis -- though I'm still a bit bemused that apparent 'cranks' get consideration in Scientific American, and seemingly reputable academic journals, albeit I suppose that they aren't necessarily precluded from having a lack of scientific acumen. But I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and will wait until I can take the time to carefully consider your response, before replying further.

Meanwhile, from a strictly metaphysical perspective, perhaps this interview will stimulate some further analysis, and help with my own edification, as I'm admittedly no adept when it comes to Ideallst ontology.

Cheers

I came across him in book form, not via a cursory google search. However, forget google, did you check out even one of the several peer-reviewed papers that have been published in various academic journals, presumably not in the habit of publishing 'cranks'? Is not even one of them worth the time and effort?

Well, clearly it caught your attention, and dozens of reviewers on Amazon, so perhaps that's the intention. In any case, it's one title out of six, and I suggest the conclusion that he's not taken seriously seems a bit unwarranted, given that the editors of Scientific American find the ideas worthy of consideration -- hardly an obscure or unreliable source of information.