In Dialogue with Kastrup and McGilchrist: Reflections on Consciousness, Reality, Purpose, and Value

We will now examine some of the arguments as formulated by the renowned neuroscientist, psychiatrist, and philosopher Dr. Iain McGilchrist during a conversation with philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, hosted by the YouTube channel Weekend University in 2025.

Firstly, regarding our way of interacting with the world, it is interesting to observe that McGilchrist stated we experience "the real deal", so, even though we can't apprehend the noumena per se, the experience itself is absolutely real.

In relation to matter, he depicted it as a phenomenal manifestation of consciousness, which, to that extent, exhibits a qualified nature by virtue of being capable of multiple forms.

But how can consciousness, which essentially is presumed to be mental, have such a capacity?

This nuance seems to collide with what Analytic Idealism postulates, since the substrate of reality, which is also identified as consciousness, is deprived of that ontological potential for diversification.

Moreover, it is us, as dissociated alters, who perceive the noumena as multiple and diverse because of our perceptual and cognitive limitations.

In short, is this a matter of the ontological capability that is intrinsic to the foundation of reality, i.e., consciousness, or is it a result of the epistemological limitation that predicates the individuated subjects of experience?

Moving further, whereas Bernardo Kastrup bases the value of life in raw experience —regardless of its singularities—, for it is the way in which the very substance of reality discovers itself, Dr. Iain McGilchrist speaks of a process of co-creation and, therefore, co-discovery —resuming the steps of Whitehead— where the ontological significance of us as beings, our purpose, is genuinely bound up with value.

In the words of McGilchrist, the ultimate values of beauty, goodness, and truth are the most important things in the whole cosmos. This proposition, thus, seems to imply the existence of a moral fabric embedded in the cosmos, and again, displaces the alleged epistemological nature of axiology, turning what is conceived as a human construction into an ontological feature of nature.

Following this line of reasoning, one could argue that our particular capacity to experience —enabled by our superior psyche— should hence be considered as a necessary property for our participation in that co-creative and co-discovering process which is still unfolding in the eyes of God.

Arguably, this assumption would therefore entertain the possibility of humans —over other beings— holding a prevalent position in the dynamics of reality, which, in a more religious sense, could also be interpreted as humans being recipients of a divine gift, rendered to fulfill our fundamental telos.

On that basis, the reflection and enhancement of these supreme values, provided by our capacity to experience them, grants the opportunity to either nourish or to ignore them, even to berate them.

Hence, while their cultivation would incite a harmonious world —which recalls the nuclear concept of Oikeiôsis in Stoicism: to live in accordance with the nature of the cosmic logos, by means of aligning our own with it—, the latter would probably elicit chaos and destruction.

It could thus be inferred that the consummation of our intrinsic disposition, correlated to our ontological mission, consists of an empirical process of exploration, realization, and embracement, which demands a dual projection, both inwards and outwards.

Such a claim rests on the fact that reality is also understood as fundamentally monistic, so the values addressed do not reside only outside, but also within.

Lastly, there is another consideration I shall address. If, according to Dr. Iain McGilchrist, everything is an encounter of consciousness with itself, this implies a duality —in this case, a dissociation of the one element— whose components intervene —both conjointly and reciprocally— as actors in the process of co-creation that engenders the evolution of the cosmos.

So, despite accepting the existence of a single ontological substance, there is a co-participation in the phenomenal world that is partaken by the source and its qualified alters.

But then, wouldn't that radically positive conception of reality's ontology imply that destruction is not an opposite to, but, in fact, —and though apparently oxymoronic— a form of creation?

And if the supreme values of truth, goodness and beauty, are connatural to the essence of the cosmos —as Iain argues—, could it be that while "positive creation" will inherently contain them —and thus phenomenologically align with them by their nourishment and reflection—, destruction, that is, "negative creation", will ergo involve the lack and hence departure from them?

© Abraham Meghji Ramos 2026. This text is protected by copyright. Citation and partial use are permitted with full attribution to the author and a link to the source. Reproduction without credit or for purposes of appropriation is expressly prohibited.