Kock mentions that we have to trust in science because of its successes and they do indeed lend credibility to science, but is it not also true that science's successes are limited to understanding physical things? And not everything physical but only those things that are within the reach of our senses or measuring devices. That's very limited isn't it? It may be just a tiny little box of knowing as compared to everything there is to know. Maybe it's nothing more than a modern version of Plato's cave!? 🧐
i understand he went through a profound experience but loss of a sense of self is not really a common part of NDEs. even the scientist who saw his father in his NDE- how would he do that without the father having a "self"?
Yeah I'm just confused by it because his mystical experience led him to conclude that after death, our consciousness/awareness assimilates into the universe, but the egoic self is lost. But loss of self is not really a common part of NDEs so how can we conclude that's what happens after death yk. NDErs often see their passed on loved ones, would be hard if those loved ones didn't have a sense of self
Finally I got to see this video. I've been singularly moved by both Goff's "Galileo's error" and Koch's "Then I Am Myself the World" and it is s refreshing experience to see them both have a brief but sincere dialogue.
I think there are plenty of shades in the details of their theories, but I can't help thinking that the common shared ground is bigger and more fundamental
Great interview with Christof. You both expressed a desire for more integration between science and spiritual experience. I recommend my article which partly deals with this issue: "P. R. "Sarkar’s Yogic Philosophy Dissolves Descartes’ Mind–Body Problem and Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness" at my website https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research.
Life got in the way this year, but Keith and I have just agreed to do one every two months in 2026. And I'll be doing an interview here every month. Subscribe to both!
Enjoying this interview. So Kastrup's "Mind at Large" has its origin in William James. I did love his Varieties..., but read it over 50 years ago. Below is from the Epilogue of my novel (link on my profile):
In a recent interview, another contemporary philosopher/computer scientist, Bernardo Kastrup, saw our individual minds as manifestations of one Mind At Large. He used various terms, including localizations, dissociations, and doings. He explained this last term with an analogy of a whirlpool in a river. It seems to have a boundary in the same way our individual minds do, but it is just the river water, water doing something—making a whirlpool. Similarly, our minds are all part of one Mind At Large.
We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Also recently, Jeffrey Kripal’s 2019 book, The Flip, provides a scholarly look at “superhuman” psi phenomena that have been extensively documented. Luminaries he mentioned who had direct experience of these phenomena included the philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, author Mark Twain, physicist Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, philosopher A.J. Ayer, neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, biologist Barbara Ehrenreich, and even the noted sceptic Michael Shermer, among many others. About those “professional intellectuals,” Kripal says, “We would do well, though, to listen to these voices, even and especially when they struggle (and finally fail) to make sense of what happened to them.” That’s an important point. If I were able to make sense of a non-verbal, non-linear encounter with God (or The Divine), then it probably wasn’t an actual encounter. This may help the publisher’s legal department understand why God chose a non-linear-thinking crazy person as the perfect tour guide to the soul.
Physicists, neuroscientists and other professional intellectuals create entire philosophies around these experiences because they think that’s their job. But their conclusions are just as far-fetched as when some scientists’ calculations proved that bumblebees can’t fly. The calculations merely proved that bumblebees can’t glide. Like Nietzsche said, systems of thought are often flawed. In the cognitive realm, I imagine that similar miscalculations could prove that the human brain cannot think.
I don't understand what tangible knowledge was acquired from this mystical experience. why did Koch not already believe that "we are part of the whole universe"? being part of the universe is surely a very strong prior. what novel information is gained in such experiences that one can point to and say "look, you didn't know this, but I can show you it is true!" , to convince sceptics? the assumption without evidence seems to be that this mystical state supercedes regular pleb knowledge and, much like those who've taken psychedelics, is pointless trying the explain to the uninitiated. but this is rightfully no longer in the field of philosophy, it's not even on the same country. it's not how philosophers attempt to progress their understanding of the world.
From reading and talking to people who've had such experiences, it's an experience of a deep unity among all things. The best sense I can make is that it involves something like the Aristotelian understanding of universals. They think redness, e.g., is fully present in all its instances. In mystical experiences, people have a sense of something wondrous that is fully present in each of us, and that constitutes our identity in some sense.
It's a fascinating topic but I can't shake the feeling that what's happening is simply the usually present processing guardrails being removed/inhibited from the brain so it's no longer sieving the input data for us into understandable categories. The logical outcome would be what's reported in these states, i.e , everything, overwhelmingly, melting into oneness. But we already sort of know this about the universe, and the brain processing it for us. I don't get what's been revealed, mystically.
An interesting proposal. I imagine the person having the experience would hold this doesn't fully make sense of what they're experience represents to be the case, which would lead you back to the choice of whether to say it's a delusion. But hard to say. More research needed!
I'm firmly with James, critical of these 'vague monistic insights' of the supposed shallow superiority of 'abstract monism'. I would say more explanation needed from the people making the claims that sound exactly aligned with what cogsci would predict would happen, as to why they are different, or why they are surprising at all. :)
Kock mentions that we have to trust in science because of its successes and they do indeed lend credibility to science, but is it not also true that science's successes are limited to understanding physical things? And not everything physical but only those things that are within the reach of our senses or measuring devices. That's very limited isn't it? It may be just a tiny little box of knowing as compared to everything there is to know. Maybe it's nothing more than a modern version of Plato's cave!? 🧐
i understand he went through a profound experience but loss of a sense of self is not really a common part of NDEs. even the scientist who saw his father in his NDE- how would he do that without the father having a "self"?
I think Christof was saying he had both a mystical experience and an NDE...I'm not sure if the absence of self was present in the latter...
Yeah I'm just confused by it because his mystical experience led him to conclude that after death, our consciousness/awareness assimilates into the universe, but the egoic self is lost. But loss of self is not really a common part of NDEs so how can we conclude that's what happens after death yk. NDErs often see their passed on loved ones, would be hard if those loved ones didn't have a sense of self
As I say, I think the absence of self thing was from the mystical experience rather than the NDE
Good to see a consciousness researcher actually getting his hands dirty
Fantastic, what a great convo thanks Philip!
thanks!
Finally I got to see this video. I've been singularly moved by both Goff's "Galileo's error" and Koch's "Then I Am Myself the World" and it is s refreshing experience to see them both have a brief but sincere dialogue.
I think there are plenty of shades in the details of their theories, but I can't help thinking that the common shared ground is bigger and more fundamental
Hello Philip,
Great interview with Christof. You both expressed a desire for more integration between science and spiritual experience. I recommend my article which partly deals with this issue: "P. R. "Sarkar’s Yogic Philosophy Dissolves Descartes’ Mind–Body Problem and Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness" at my website https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research.
Richard
thanks, looks interesting!
what happened to Mind Chat?
We just did a Christmas special! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o7RvGVAWyM
Life got in the way this year, but Keith and I have just agreed to do one every two months in 2026. And I'll be doing an interview here every month. Subscribe to both!
What was the conference based here in Sweden??
yes!
I mean which one was it 😃
Downloaded the audio. Can't wait to listen to it!
Enjoying this interview. So Kastrup's "Mind at Large" has its origin in William James. I did love his Varieties..., but read it over 50 years ago. Below is from the Epilogue of my novel (link on my profile):
In a recent interview, another contemporary philosopher/computer scientist, Bernardo Kastrup, saw our individual minds as manifestations of one Mind At Large. He used various terms, including localizations, dissociations, and doings. He explained this last term with an analogy of a whirlpool in a river. It seems to have a boundary in the same way our individual minds do, but it is just the river water, water doing something—making a whirlpool. Similarly, our minds are all part of one Mind At Large.
We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Also recently, Jeffrey Kripal’s 2019 book, The Flip, provides a scholarly look at “superhuman” psi phenomena that have been extensively documented. Luminaries he mentioned who had direct experience of these phenomena included the philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, author Mark Twain, physicist Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, philosopher A.J. Ayer, neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, biologist Barbara Ehrenreich, and even the noted sceptic Michael Shermer, among many others. About those “professional intellectuals,” Kripal says, “We would do well, though, to listen to these voices, even and especially when they struggle (and finally fail) to make sense of what happened to them.” That’s an important point. If I were able to make sense of a non-verbal, non-linear encounter with God (or The Divine), then it probably wasn’t an actual encounter. This may help the publisher’s legal department understand why God chose a non-linear-thinking crazy person as the perfect tour guide to the soul.
Physicists, neuroscientists and other professional intellectuals create entire philosophies around these experiences because they think that’s their job. But their conclusions are just as far-fetched as when some scientists’ calculations proved that bumblebees can’t fly. The calculations merely proved that bumblebees can’t glide. Like Nietzsche said, systems of thought are often flawed. In the cognitive realm, I imagine that similar miscalculations could prove that the human brain cannot think.
You might find Carl Jung's theory of consciousness. Can we agree that it is a function of the mind? See attached: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crmv2D2sceU&t=485s
I think I'm focused on answering different questions to Jung, but he's a fascinating thinker
3. Perfect-knowledge (Jnana)
Which arises from recognizing that all things are only what is seen of the mind itself.
And from recognizing the emptiness, un-born-ness, and egoless-ness of all things.
https://burnteliot.substack.com/i/180553008/perfect-knowledge-jnana
I don't understand what tangible knowledge was acquired from this mystical experience. why did Koch not already believe that "we are part of the whole universe"? being part of the universe is surely a very strong prior. what novel information is gained in such experiences that one can point to and say "look, you didn't know this, but I can show you it is true!" , to convince sceptics? the assumption without evidence seems to be that this mystical state supercedes regular pleb knowledge and, much like those who've taken psychedelics, is pointless trying the explain to the uninitiated. but this is rightfully no longer in the field of philosophy, it's not even on the same country. it's not how philosophers attempt to progress their understanding of the world.
From reading and talking to people who've had such experiences, it's an experience of a deep unity among all things. The best sense I can make is that it involves something like the Aristotelian understanding of universals. They think redness, e.g., is fully present in all its instances. In mystical experiences, people have a sense of something wondrous that is fully present in each of us, and that constitutes our identity in some sense.
It's a fascinating topic but I can't shake the feeling that what's happening is simply the usually present processing guardrails being removed/inhibited from the brain so it's no longer sieving the input data for us into understandable categories. The logical outcome would be what's reported in these states, i.e , everything, overwhelmingly, melting into oneness. But we already sort of know this about the universe, and the brain processing it for us. I don't get what's been revealed, mystically.
An interesting proposal. I imagine the person having the experience would hold this doesn't fully make sense of what they're experience represents to be the case, which would lead you back to the choice of whether to say it's a delusion. But hard to say. More research needed!
I'm firmly with James, critical of these 'vague monistic insights' of the supposed shallow superiority of 'abstract monism'. I would say more explanation needed from the people making the claims that sound exactly aligned with what cogsci would predict would happen, as to why they are different, or why they are surprising at all. :)
Thanks for sharing. Is this a description of something that happened? Where did it come from?