What is Alan Kay’s view on analytic idealism by Bernardo Kastrup?

This world unfolds on its own, according to its own inherent dispositions, and reveals some phenomena our senses (and sense aids) can pick up

Geometry and Experience, Lecture before the Prussian Academy of Sciences, January 27, 1921

The ideas in it are put forth as an essay into Philosophy, particularly focused on Metaphysics (the nature of Being itself).

Scientists Just Solved a 14,000-Year-Old Puppy Mystery - Gizmodo

I like — and subscribe to — Einstein’s reminder to scientists in his 1921 talk in Berlin:

Human reason can recognize and model what it thinks are regularities in this phenomena, and in some cases can predict future phenomena

Wikipedia’s definition is good enough:

Anker recalls over a million power banks after reports of fires - TechSpot

Analytic Idealism In A Nutshell is also a book that provokes mulling. The subject matter is a few levels more murky and abstract than TOOCITBOTBM, but trying to understand what is being attempted and pondering whether its arguments actually hold water can be quite enjoyable, and to some extent, illuminating.

I wonder if I understand enough about the general subject area — Philosophy in general, and Metaphysics in particular — to make it worthwhile to share my opinions? My thought patterns are primarily within the general outlooks of science, math, engineering, and some of the arts: musical, visual, theatric, literate, etc.

A book that I’ve enjoyed very much — and which provoked much mulling — was Julian Jaynes’ “The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind” (TOOCITBOTBM). It is perhaps my favorite of this kind of book. I doubt its conclusions, but thinking about the issues, evidence, and forms of argument have. quite widened my thoughts over the years.

A physical therapist says bad posture is mostly caused by these four common lifestyle factors—here’s how to overcome them - Fit&Well

For example, an argument of the form “because the thing in question is not this, this or this, it must be *that*” only works in reasoning/logic/math, etc., if you can first show that you have enumerated all the candidates and eliminated all but one.

We create a kind of a map that is its own internal world, and — if we are sophisticated — we realize that our map should not be called “reality”, and at best we have to negotiate between the limitations of our mappings and the phenomenal evidence we can detect. This internal world each human has is sometimes called our “Private Universe”.

And, he starts arguing right away. It is not at all clear to me that his arguments (a) work, and/or (b) perhaps can be made at all. I am prejudiced in favor of essays which spend a lot of their front matter in exposition and follow this groundwork by argument. This is not done here.

When did washing a dog exhaust you very quickly?

I will try to fit the rest of this within a Quora-sized (albeit one still too long) answer.

One way to approach this is to ask whether his initial premises — which I agree with — actually allow his thesis — that Being is a kind of universal mentality that is very unlike the internal mappings that physical scientists try to make of Nature — to be successfully argued.

I think most scientists — including me — would agree that these five are highly likely. Kastrup calls these realism.

The Action Network: Cracker Barrel 400 predictions, picks, odds for Nashville - NASCAR.com

Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A Straightforward Summary of the 21st Century's Only Plausible Metaphysics

Complex phenomena can be “sufficiently accounted for in terms of simpler ones” (basically non-linear reductionism).

I got his book — Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A Straightforward Summary of the 21st Century's Only Plausible Metaphysics — and have read it.

Alzheimer's: Common insomnia treatment may prevent brain damage - Medical News Today

Kastrup starts out with his version of this idea — one I’ve also used many times in talks — that

I’m sure that I need to read his forthcoming book in order to attempt an answer:

See you in November …

mRNA, once lauded as a scientific marvel, is now a government target - statnews.com

Taken together, it looks as though these premises of Analytic Idealism make it difficult to do more than claim any ultimate knowledge about anything “out there”. I.e. I think that Kastrup can claim his thesis as a proposition — but, given the premises, I don’t think he can substantiate his claim. As Einstein pointed out, logic/math/language/inference with the aim of “certainly” with regard to chains of thought will not refer to “reality” but only — if done as well as possible — to the consistency of the arguments.

Kastrup adds several other postulates in his Introduction. Here are his additional four (partially quoting):

Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge

Sean Combs Trial: Second Mistrial Motion, 'Freak-Off' Audio and Peek Inside Mogul's Bank Accounts - Rolling Stone

" ... as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

There is an external world out there, beyond our physical minds

The needed enumeration is not done here, and I don’t think it can be done.

Why do I sometimes hear full conversations when I am alone?

Kastrup likens the internal map to a dashboard inside a hermetically sealed airplane where the instruments provide enough information to fly the plane, but do not at all resemble what we’d see if we could look outside the plane (this is a quite good example/analogy).

Here are my reactions as of Nov 6th.

Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity, space and time, change, causation, and the relation between matter and mind. It is one of the oldest branches of philosophy.

What do you think of Andrew Tate?

I’ve ordered it — it is not out yet — due to arrive Nov 1st this year (2024).

However, I should reveal a personal prejudice against what I understand is the basic idea. As with most prejudices, it doesn’t have much substantive behind it, but I’ll be trying to keep this in mind when I read the book.

In Philosophical terms, the 5 premises above are essentially epistemological. Wikipedia again:

Prints Aren't the Only Stable Thing About Your Fingers - Newser

The writing style of this book is nicely clear, but very repetitious. There is an air of “I need to explain this many times because you are probably not understanding”. The last part might very well be the case, but repetition doesn’t help.

what we think of as “out there” is actually going on in our brains: “in here”, between our ears.