Physical objects do not exist as such in a basic manner

[inavalan]

All physical matter exists first as an idea or mental image. The idea of mental image has its own reality, and is charged with energy, and this energy can never be withdrawn.
...
Now you see the energy does not reside within any given physical object, but in the idea form that is within it. Physical objects do not exist as such in a basic manner. You can only perceive large areas of reality data however by transforming it into terms that can be picked up by the physical senses.
As you know, you create or construct all physical matter. What you see are your own constructions. This does not mean however that there is not something within or behind what you perceive. All thoughts are composed of energy
...
Every thought therefore has this kind of reality, which is the only reality, basically speaking. (Long pause.) Sense data itself has a reality independent of any given object. This sense data has its own intensity. If you can tune into that intensity, so to speak, you will automatically translate it into physical data, and you will perceive a physical object.
If you tune into that intensity imperfectly, you will have a pseudophysical object, that is in one or more respects different from a normal object. It may be obvious for example to some of your physical senses, and not to others. It may be only partially materialized.
...
we shall have several sessions at least, dealing with the reality of sense data, and the un reality, comparatively speaking, of matter itself.
The whole discussion will be leading us to an investigation of the similarities and differences between such data as dream objects, hallucinated objects, and physical objects.

[Sena]

All physical matter exists first as an idea or mental image.

inavalan, this is the philosopher of Idealism. The Dutch philosopher Bernardo Kastrup would agree with Seth on this:

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/

[inavalan]

@Sena Thanks! Very interesting. Bernardo Kastrup had several books published over the last ten years.

[Sena]

@Sena Thanks! Very interesting. Bernardo Kastrup had several books published over the last ten years.

@inavalan , it may be worth pointing out that the question on the front of the video (Is reality all in your head?) is rather misleading. Reality is NOT all in my head. My head is physical in nature. Reality is all in consciousness.

[inavalan]

@Sena Yes. I remember him saying something like that.

I browsed a couple of other videos with Kastrup; one with him being interviewed by Deepak Chopra. Kustrup speaks very well, and has a pleasant presence. Just once or twice I noticed him getting a little annoyed by a question.

I couldn't find, so far, how did Kastrup get to his beliefs and theory. Browsing the contents of a couple of his books, I'm tempted to hypothesize that he might've had some altered states of consciousness experiences. I'll certainly browse him a little more.

[Sena]

Browsing the contents of a couple of his books, I'm tempted to hypothesize that he might've had some altered states of consciousness experiences.

@inavalan , you are correct. Kastrup did experiment with "altered states of consciousness":

He authored six books so far of which the video in the OP is meant to discuss one of them. This particular book "Dreamed up Reality" does not include a definite model of reality but more of sharing his personal experiences with altered states of consciousness, which can be induced in many ways such as mind machines, psychedelics and meditation.

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=35715

[inavalan]

@Sena

Thank you for the link. I finally watched the video:

As you wrote, and as that poster explained, there is more information on the path that Bernardo Kastrup went, and about what his findings mean to him.

I recognized some of what I've experienced in my own spiritual quest.

I think that it would be a pity for him to stop where he is now, and not go deeper. He says that "reality is mental", but that is like "this is a door" and not getting the idea that he should open it.

Kastrup seems very intelligent and well read, but those could actually work against him, if he doesn't put aside all his conscious and unconscious beliefs; he realizes that he interprets and distorts his experiences. Kastrup still thinks too linearly and overemphasizes the role and the position of the physical existence in the big scheme of the wider-reality. He, in my opinion, hasn't gotten some of the more important answers, and the reason is that he doesn't ask those questions. He thinks that there isn't "anybody" to answer. He says that it felt like a "curriculum", but didn't wonder who or what set that up.

Once again, thanks for bringing Bernardo Kastrup to my attention!