 DP Don South wrote, for a question for Bernardo, while I do love full-blown idealism, I think we know what he means, it does fail to get to grips with the whole range of unusual human experience, i.e. spirits, aliens, NDEs, reincarnation, et cetera. It's one thing to say that consciousness is fundamental, it's another thing to say, okay, what does that mean for these extended consciousness realms that we keep bumping into? And how does that ontological shift allow us to better explain what we seem to be observing there? I will answer this directly, but can you give me like 10 seconds just to make an observation before I sink my teeth into the question? I think, you know, before we even get to extraordinary experiences and the paranormal, there is a challenge here to explain the normal, the ordinary, because the ordinary and the normal are not explained under mainstream physicalism or mainstream materialism. There is no explanation for why we feel the qualities of experience, why we see red, why we feel warmth, why we feel disappointment. There is nothing about mass, momentum, charge, spin, in terms of which we could deduce phenomenal properties, what we experience in consciousness. So there's an enormous gap for explaining the normal. That's why I focus on the normal, since the paranormal is the next step, we haven't explained even the normal yet. If you look at the extraordinary things that are mentioned in the list, and the ease, spirits, I think with the exception, perhaps of aliens, they all have one thing in common, which is that consciousness doesn't stop upon physical death, the death of the body. And that is something that is inherent indeed to idealism. If consciousness is fundamental, if it's not just an epiphenomenon or something generated or constituted by particular arrangements of matter in the form of a brain, and if those arrangements then dissolve, then consciousness dissolves as well, if instead consciousness is fundamental, then it cannot disappear because it's what there is. It has nowhere to go, it has nowhere to disappear into. It's death out of which everything arises. So consciousness itself cannot disappear. But then the question becomes, but what is the form of that consciousness? Because clearly my own personal consciousness is not all in compassing. I'm not aware of what's going on on the other side of the galaxy. I'm not aware even of your thoughts just across the globe. I'm not aware of what my girlfriend's thinking downstairs. And I know what the neighbors are watching on television. So clearly my personal consciousness is very restricted and yet I'm saying that consciousness is the ground of all existence. So I think what's important for people to understand is that idealism is not solipsism. The claim is not that all nature happens as my own personal dream. The claim is that nature itself unfolds in consciousness but consciousness is transpersonal. It extends beyond my personal consciousness. And my or yours personal consciousness is a dissociated complex of universal consciousness if we could call it that way. And if life is what these dissociated complexes of universal consciousness look like, what is death? Death would be the end of the dissociation. It would be the reintegration of what we consider to be our personal consciousness into a broader, more basic matrix of experience that corresponds to the universe at large. And in that sense, what I'm positing here does support the idea that consciousness continues. To what degree of dissociation it continues? Is it still personal consciousness? Is it individualized in some form? I don't know. Perhaps if it is, then there is grounds to talk about what people refer to as spirits. But in one way or another, it validates this idea that consciousness continues.