This Man Says Reality Isn’t Physical – And He Can Prove It

John Tan shared:

A taste of luminous clarity.

I like his explanations, even though they are not based on "emptiness." If he were to replace "substance" with "nature"—eliminating the need for a "substrate" entirely—all physics, theories, and laws would function perfectly without contradictions. Nevertheless, his insights are very strong.

Recognizing manifestation as YOU is the insight of non-dual luminosity.

Recognizing manifestation as empty is the beginning of freedom.

When manifestation is both luminous and empty—vivid yet unfindable, intimate yet ownerless—then radiance does not bind. It self-releases.

Computer Scientists Don't Understand This! | Conscious AI lecture, Bernardo Kastrup

John Tan shared https://youtu.be/mS6saSwD4DA?si=UaNHWxL7j_eXe9iU

Jt: “This is a very insightful presentation by Bernardo, arguing that AI can never be sentient. He aptly pointed out that computer scientists aren’t computer engineers; they are primarily power users of computers and don’t understand how computers are made. I appreciate how he compares modern AI to his research as a CERN scientist’s project—it clarifies many things for me.”

Jt:

“However I disagree with the last part when someone asked about what if there is a language that uses verbs and not no nouns and he disagrees. He also mentioned he disagree with Carlo Rovelli.

This comment he made during q&a session is incoherent from what he said in his whole seminar that there r no "things"; "things" r reified constructs mistaken as real. This is incoherent in terms of what I called desync of view and insight.

There is also a big difference in how eastern nominalists (Buddhism) and how realists understand and de-construct substance view.

Btw Bernardo has experiential authentication of "I M".”