Frankly, I find your intellectual pomposity laughable, so I'm not going to address points arising from such hubris individually. However for those who are interested and actually watch links, here's one from a former materialist who worked on the CERN project that deals with your points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m7BxlWlvzc
Out of respect I have watched that video. I found the video editing very distracting, so I haven't watched the whole thing, but I have listened to it all. I'll address his claims below:
1) I have never said that our psyche is entirely under the control of our own volition. However, the assertion he makes that reality comes from consciousness doesn't necessarily follow. He's made a huge logical leap there. We may well each perceive different "realities" that are influenced by our psyches, but I would not say that that is necessarily reality.
2) I do not think reality is created inside our heads, but I do think it is possible that we each perceive reality in a different way but that will never be definitely testable (I cannot inhabit your psyche, for example). I think it is actually unlikely.
3) Here, Kastrup fails to actually say what consciousness comes from. He ridicules the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain, but doesn't really offer much of an alternative.
4) Ah, an argument I've used to a degree, and one I would agree with. The assertion that a syringe of propofol (which alters consciousness) is in itself a "process in consciousness" is very bizarre. I understand how propofol works; it suppresses consciousness largely by interaction with GABA receptors. It works on a molecular level to inhibit neurotransmitters and induce a state of anaesthesia. All very physical.
5) There is no reason to believe that our bodies aren't separate. He hypothesises a "collective unconscious (?)" but doesn't give any evidence to support it.
6) Again, he hypothesises a subconscious that we can't perceive because it is "obfuscated" by the conscious. But this isn't an argument I'd buy into anyway.
7) To buy this argument, we again need a "collective unconscious". Again, I need evidence that such a thing exists.
8) I don't buy into this argument. But, yet again, he makes assertions that simply don't have evidence. There is no evidence that our consciousness continues after our physical death.
9) This isn't an argument I'm making. Our bodies perceive and interpret the stimuli that we know as colour, taste etc. But they all directly correlate with the real world. Colour is our interpretation of the wavelength of light. Taste and smell are created in response to specific molecules triggering specific receptors in the oral and nasal cavities. These things still exist outwith our brains. What I perceive as red may not be what you perceive as red (we will never know if this is true or not), but it's irrelevant as we would both agree that we are seeing what we call red. It is independent of us. It is still red. And red is a manifestation of light at wavelengths in the 600-700nm range. We cannot directly perceive light outwith the 400-700nm wavelength, but it is demonstrably there.
10) He has jumped here to saying that consciousness generates the universe without saying why.
He may be right, I don't know. But he needs to actually provide evidence for his claims or they are meaningless. He'll probably claim that he doesn't need evidence because consciousness is supernatural. He doesn't really deal with my points (although to be fair I wouldn't expect someone on youtube to make a video that responds to a post on a railway forum that hasn't been made yet). He addresses some of them. He keeps saying that assumptions are being made, yet he seems to make lots more himself.
Maybe I'll buy his book someday and give it a read, perhaps he addresses his points better through the medium of the written word. I've got a long reading list though. He hasn't convinced me here. I had maybe hoped that he would have given me at least a reason to buy his book and consider his arguments better.
Since you "find [my] intellectual pomposity laughable", I won't be replying to your posts again. Perhaps if you had the decency to address my points rather than just launch into other arguments then we'd have somewhere to go with this.
