18 Burst results for "Philip Goff"

"philip goff" Discussed on Science Salon

Science Salon

04:43 min | 3 weeks ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Science Salon

"This is all about what it does. That's it so it's like it's like it just like telling us just about what a chess piece jaws in how the night moves but not telling you what's what's made of what is so so and then you think you think we do know what chess pieces made up because you think it's made of molecules and but once you get down to the basic building blocks of matter actually. We don't know what the stuff is. We only know what it does right really useful information. And that's why we've got such incredible technology with rich information about stuff does and i think that's a creates an illusion that we really know what this stuff is. You know but but i don't think we really do started gap read eddington's book that philosophy physical science and i quoted that at my first book. White people believe are things because it's such a great example delimitations of science. Here i was discussing. Iq tests and racial differences. That sort of thing and it you know in terms of what you're using to measure that thing you think you're capturing in the head and iq test anyway. That's that's an aside. So here's here's his analogy. Let us suppose that an ic theologist is exploring the life of the ocean he cast the net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment surveying his catchy proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematize what it reveals he arrives. A two generalizations one no see creatures less than two inches long to all sea creatures. Have guilt in applying this analogy. The catch stands for the body of knowledge which constitutes physical sites and the net for the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use an obtaining the casting the net corresponds to observations now onlooker may object to the first generalizations wrong. There are plenty of sea creatures under two inches long. Your net is not adopted. The catch them dig. Theologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. Anything uncatchable by my net is if so facto outside the scope of theological knowledge. It is not part of the kingdom of fishes which has defined as the theme evict the theological knowledge in short. What my net can't catch isn't fish. I always liked that as kind of humbling of how restricted sciences. Yeah that's great. I mean he's pointing to a kind of selection effect. I suppose we call these days..

eddington Theologist scientist
"philip goff" Discussed on Science Salon

Science Salon

04:45 min | 3 weeks ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Science Salon

"So so so. I'm inclined to say the book. These guys did in the nineteen twenties for the signs of consciousness. What darwin did in the nineteenth century for the science of life and it's a real tragedy that it got forgotten about for so long various historical reasons. But it's really been rediscovered. In academic philosophy is causing a lot of excitement. I'm part of the reason i wrote. The popular book is to try and everything so specialized these days. I want to try and communicate to to a broader audience so so through their insight so the start. The starting point of russell and eddington is that physical science doesn't really tell us what matters is and that seems like a kind of really weird claim. I you know you read physics. Textbook seem to lend all this incredible stuff about space and time and matter but what what russell and eddington realizes that for all its richness. Physics is confined to telling us about the behavior of matter about what he does. He's a physics tells us the particles of mass and charge and these properties it completely characterized in terms of behavior. Things like attraction repulsion resistance to acceleration. This is this is all about what stuff does so not intuitively. At least there's more to what something is than what it does. So i like to give the example of a chess pieces. If you're playing chess in the book i think it's developed so if you're playing out today playing chess if you play chess you in you're interested in what the pieces do right. You're interested in what moves you can make what pieces you can take. But there's more to the physical nature of a chesapeake. The morning does does the nature of the matter. It's made of. It might be made of wood or metal or plastic so this is what philosophers call the intrinsic nature of a thing what a thing is considered independent. What does now coming back to particles like electrons. Quarks by analogy. You may very well be interested in what physics tells you about what they do. That's really useful information but you might also wanna know what what about the intrinsic nature of intellectual. What an electron is independently of what it does on about this. Physics just has nothing to say so it turns out there. Is this huge hole. In our standard scientific story of the universe. The proposal of russell and eddington was to put consciousness in that whole. So you know. we're looking for place consciousness..

russell eddington chesapeake
"philip goff" Discussed on Science Salon

Science Salon

04:12 min | 3 weeks ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Science Salon

"Give it a try when you're driving working out doing chores walking hiking. Whatever it's a great way to consume content all right. Thanks for listening my guest. Today is the philosopher. Philip goff in his new book is galileo's error foundations for a new science of consciousness So in this book. Philip and i in this conversation we discuss The problem galileo's approach to science solved and then the air he made in trying to solve the consciousness problem that is what it's like to be something the qualitative aspects of things redness spiciness. Whatever it's not in the substance it's in the mind but we can't study the mind the way we study planets. That's the air then. We go through all the different positions on consciousness problem. That is dual. Ism ism in pants ike ism. His book is a defense of pan psych. Ism then we look at a model dependent realism from Stephen hawking and leonard milan now and to what extent are models determine the nature of reality. Because philip is skeptical that science can drill down and get to the ultimate nature of reality. He doesn't think that's possible. We discussed free well in determinism incompatible ism in how pants ike ism Wrestles with those issues as well as objective moral values and then we kind of pull out a look at the big picture of how his philosophy of pants ike is. We'd lead to other philosophical positions that translate into things like attitudes toward other people and the environment and so forth so we cover a huge amount of really great topics in in philosophy in life. With that i give you philip. Doff this is your host. Michael sherman and you're listening to science along a series of conversations with leading scientists scholars and thinkers about the most important issues of our time. Thank.

Philip goff galileo Michael sherman Stephen hawking Doff leonard milan
Denial of Rebirth

5 Minute Dharma

04:48 min | 5 months ago

Denial of Rebirth

"I will argue that the Buddha taught rebirth. Now. He was either right about rebirth or he was wrong. I let us be clear about the fact that the Buddha taught rebirth. On the night of his awakening, the Buddha said I recollected my many kinds of past lives with features and details. This was the first knowledge which I achieved in the I watch of the night on quote. And just to be clear, it's wrong, too, so that he taught rebirth just for cultural and pragmatic reasons alone. The. Buddhist said quote, and what is wrong view? There is no meaning in giving sacrifice or offering. There's no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There's no afterlife. Notice the Buddhist said that that was wrong view. There's no afterlife. The first component of the noble eightfold path is right view, and the denial of rebirth is counter to this. The teaching of rebirth rights be boaty crops out almost everywhere in the Pali Canon. And is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduced the Dhamma to tatters. Was the Buddha wrong about rebirth. The Buddha has three insights on the night of his awakening the first, which we just read about was the recollection of his past lives. The second was the KARMIC death and rebirth of other beings, and the third was a complete grasp of the four noble truths. Now if we accept the four noble trues, why should we deny the other two insights? Psychologist Robert. Wright has written a book entitled why Buddhism is True. In it. He gives evidence that quote. Buddhism's diagnosis of the human predicament is fundamentally correct. And, that it's prescription is deeply valid urgently important on quote. But like so many modern people. He accepts the psychology of Buddhism while rejecting its metaphysics. I used to do this myself when I was a secular Buddhist. But. How could the Buddha be so right about human psychology and so wrong about the nature of reality? Was the Buddha right. In my opinion, it seems more probable that the Buddha was right about rebirth. But someone object. There's no solid scientific evidence for a berth. Remembering. That Buddhism teaches that we have six senses. The usual five plus the mind that respond. Scientists based on what the five senses tell us, but ignores the six sense of the mind. Without all our senses, we cannot know all of reality. It is like ignoring the sense of hearing, and then concluding that sound is not real. There's a name for this fallacy. It is scientism. Bryan appleyard defines it as the belief that science is or can be the complete and only explanation. Scientists Limited to the physical world, because it ignores consciousness it ignores are six sense. As Philip Goff states, nothing is more certain unconsciousness, and yet nothing is harder to incorporate into our scientific picture of the world. The problem of consciousness began when Galileo decided that science was not in the business of dealing with consciousness on quote. Pan, Sai Qasem tries to correct this error. Quote Pan psychics believed that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world on quote. Thomas Nagel argues if any two hundred pound chunk of the universe contains the material needed to construct a person, and if we deny both cycle, physical reductionism and a radical form of emergence, then everything reduced to US elements must have proto mental properties on-court. That means that consciousness is weaved into the very fabric of the cosmos. The great physicist David Bohm hypothesized that reality is incorporated. Of An explicit order and an implicit order which is unfolded. Consciousness would be part of that in folded implicit or That

Wright Pali Canon Buddhist Thomas Nagel Bryan Appleyard United States Philip Goff David Bohm Sai Qasem Physicist Robert Galileo
"philip goff" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

02:54 min | 7 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"Experience? This is the main energy of the punt psychics. Research Program is focused on. That might not work out in the end. But I think it's worth giving a shot now. You've clearly been entertaining and I guess to him for Awhile. Has IT CHANGED? How you think about reality. I mean how you live and think about your connection with world. Yeah that's a good question. I always want to emphasize that when we're doing science or philosophy we should be thinking not about the view. We'd like to be true but the view that's most likely to be true and I think there's a really good case for the probable truth. Append Psych is on the basis. That it's the best proposal about how consciousness fits into reality nonetheless. I do think is view of the world. That's maybe slightly better for a mental or spiritual wellbeing materialism is Kinda quite league. You've got this essentially mechanistic picture of nature and then the cold amenity of empty space whereas psych is view. We are conscious creatures in a conscious universe. It's maybe a picture of the world in which we can feel a little bit more at home a little bit more comfortable in our own skin and I also think it has potential to lead to a better relationship with the environment. We're in this environmental crisis right now. If you think of a tree is essentially a mechanism then you re inevitably going to think of its value indirectly in terms of what it can do for us in terms of looking pretty or sustaining her existence. More important but if you think as many pancakes do that a tree is in some very alien cents a conscious entity in its own right then chopping down a tree is is an active immediate moral significance something. This has the potential to lead to a very different healthier relationship to the environment. I am inclined to think. All current officials scientific worldview is in some deep sense inconsistent with the reality consciousness. Consciousness is at the core of human identity fundamentally relate to each other as conscious beings with feelings and experiences and emotions. I do wonder a little bit what effect it has on people's mental health if they're official worldview is somehow incompatible with their very core of their existence. I mean we're living in strange times. At the moment I wonder whether our official World View in its incompatibility in my view the reality of consciousness might have something to do with that Filipov. Thank you very much. Thank you very much been good mall. Philosophy Bites go to www dot philosophy bites dot com. You can also find details there. A philosophy bites books and how to support us..

official Filipov
"philip goff" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

15:32 min | 7 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"Pen. Psych ISM is the belief that all material things however small have an element of individual consciousness on the face of it. It sounds like a bizarre doctrine but Philip Golf believes that is better than all the alternative theories about consciousness. He argues consciousness cannot be understood in physical scientific terms and traces the origins of this position to the Italian polymath Galilea Filipov welcome to philosophy bites. Thank you very much good to be here. The topic we're going to focus on today is Galileo and consciousness now. Galileo is often thought of as an astronomer. What's he decided consciousness? Well Galileo is known as the father of modern science. And I think it's because it's Galileo that really shapes the philosophical foundations of the scientific revolution Galileo's declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science that the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary in many ways. This is the philosophical move that kick starts the scientific revolution. What's less focused on? Is the philosophical work. Galileo had to do to get the an how as well as being a great scientist who was also a great philosopher. So I'm not familiar with that. What sort of things did he say that a directly philosophical so Galileo wanted the new science to have a purely quantitative vocabulary before Galileo following aristotle people thought the world was filled with qualities the colors on the surfaces of objects and smells floating through the air and tastes actually inside food and measuring? You can't capture these kinds of qualities in a purely quantitative vocabulary. You can't capture the spiciness of Paprika in an equation. This was a problem for Galileo's aspiration to exhaustively describe the physical world in mathematics. So what he had to do was to propose a radically new philosophical theory of reality. Was that theory. So according to this theory the qualities aren't really out there in the physical world rather they're in the consciousness of the observer the readiness of tomato isn't really on the surface of the tomato. It's rather in the consciousness of the person observing the tomato or the spiciness of Paprika isn't really in Paprika it's in the consciousness of the person eating it so Galileo is it were stripped the physical world it's qualities and after he'd done that all remained with a purely quantitative features of matter size shape location motion properties that can be captured in mathematical geometry. So we've got this radically new worldview whether this division between the Quantitative World of science matter with its quantitative mathematical properties and the qualitative world of consciousness which for Galileo was outside the domain of science. That sounds very much like what I know. Is Boils Corpus Clarion hypothesis? You know the idea that read for instance is a quality that is in consciousness but it's produced by a texture things in the world the way the corpuscles arranges he would have it so there is a thing out there with these basic properties of shape and size that produces an effect on a certain kind of consciousness. The we will read and that sounds like a scientific explanation of what's going on. Yeah absolutely I mean this all goes back to Galileo I think and is is explored in more detail by cart and unlock comes up with this terminology. Primary and secondary qualities. And as you say oil takes it on. It's really the philosophical framework of the scientific revolution and one that lives with us to this day whether we realize it or not. It's crucial to appreciate that. Galileo Kicks Off Mathematical Physics which is of course gone very well but for these early. Scientists and philosophers physical science was never intended to be a complete description of reality in fact. The whole project was premised on setting consciousness outside of the domain of science. This is interesting about go but why is it important in our understanding of problems around consciousness specifically? I mean I think this has profound implications for the science of consciousness. It's broadly agreed. That consciousness poses a profound challenge for contemporary science. Despite rapid progress in our understanding of the brain we still. Don't have even the beginnings of an explanation of how complicated electrochemical signaling is somehow able to give rise to the inner subjective world of colors and sounds and smells and tastes that each of us knows in our own case but although this problem is taken very seriously one very common reaction is to say okay. Well you know there's a problem here but we just need to plug away with our standard methods of investing the brain. I'm GonNa one day cricket and I think the reason people think this is because they think well look at the great success of physical science and explaining more more of a universe. This ought to give us confidence that it'll one day solve the mystery consciousness. I think this view is rooted in a certain kind of misunderstanding of the history of science. Yes physical science has been so successful. But it's been so successful precisely because it was designed to exclude consciousness if Galileo were time travel to the present day and hear about this problem of explaining consciousness in terms of physical science. He'd say of course you can't do that. I designed physical science to deal with quantities. Not Qualities. Show. You're not giving up too quickly here. And just saying that Galileo settings off on the wrong foot because the Ronald philosophers who think that we are making ground in understanding quality of experience through a scientific explanation obviously neuroscience is absolutely crucial for a science of consciousness but I think what we need to share. What neuroscience provides us with correlations between activity in the brain and conscious experiences? So you know you can scan someone's brain and you can ask them what they're feeling and experiencing and you can discover for example. The certain kind of activity in the hypothalamus always goes along with the feeling of hunger. And that's a really important. Body of information accumulating these correlations and his theory of consciousness must respect that but that in itself is not a theory of consciousness. What we ultimately want from a science of consciousness is to explain those correlations know. Why is it when people have that kind of activity in the hypothalamus? They feel hunger and the problem is coming back to Galileo I believe our adoption of the gala lane worldview blocks from answering. That question is no getting away from the fact that consciousness is essentially quantity involving phenomenon. You know you think about the readiness of red experienced the smell of coffee. The taste of mint and these kinds of qualities by definition cannot be incorporated in a purely quantitative account of the physical world or the Brain. So long as we're wedded to Galileo's purely quantitative understanding of the physical world when Never Gonna be able I don't think to bring together the quantitative and the qualitative in a single unified theory reality or we're going to be able to do is what we've been doing for the past. Eight hundred years is mapping correlations. Does that mean then? That your a mysterious Colin Mcginn had this notion that we com ever understand consciousness. It's too difficult for consciousness to understand itself. Is that your position not at all so you know. Pessimists might draw from what? I've been saying that we'll never have signs of consciousness. That's not my approach. I think we can be confident that we'll have a science of consciousness but we need to rethink what sciences. If we now want to signs of consciousness to a more expensive post gala Leeann understanding of science a scientific methodology able to accommodate both the quantitative properties of matter that physical science has been dealing so well with for the past four or five hundred years and the qualitative reality of consciousness that each of us knows from our immediate understanding of our feelings and experiences. And what would that qualitative and quantitative science be like I think there is a way forward here And it's rooted in very important work from the nineteen twenties of the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the scientist Arthur Eddington. Who's incidentally the first scientists to confirm general relativity? I'm inclined to think these guys did in the nineteen twenties for the science of consciousness. What Darwin did in the nineteen th century for the science of life and it's a sort of tragedy of history that it got completely forgotten about for so long. The starting point of Russell and Eddington was physical. Science doesn't really tell us what matter is not seems at first like a kind of bizarre claim. Read a Physics Textbook. Seems you find out all these incredible things about the nature of space and time and matter but what Russell and Eddington realized is that physical science for all its richness is confined to telling us about the behavior of matter about what it does. Physical Science tells us that matter has mass and charge. These properties are characterized entirely in terms of behavior. You know charge is a matter of attraction. Repulsion masses defined in terms of gravitational attraction resistance to acceleration. This is all about behavior. Physics is completely silent on what philosophers like to call the intrinsic of matter. How matter is in and of itself independently of its behavior so it turns out. There's actually this. Huge hole in our scientific worldview and now the proposal of Eddington really building on Russell was to consciousness in that whole the result is a form of them. The ancient view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature reality. But this is a kind of pants. Ike Ism that stripped of any mystical or spiritual connotations. So the idea is that there's just matter nothing spiritual or supernatural but matter can be described from two perspectives. Physical Science describes it as it were from the outside in terms of its behavior but matter from the inside that is to say in terms of its intrinsic nature is constituted a forms of consciousness. So I'd like to put it. In the sixteen twenty s Galileo divorced qualitative quantitative in the one thousand nine hundred ninety s russell and Eddington finally found a way of bringing them back together. That's fascinating but could it be any evidence that it is an accurate picture of reality. My starting point is we know that consciousness exists. Nothing is more evident than the reality of our feelings and experiences if follows that that we have to take consciousness as a basic datum in its own right over and above the data of observation experiments. In this post gullion. We just have to look for the most simple elegant view of the world that is able to account for both the data of observation experiments and the reality of consciousness. I think as a scientific community. We still haven't quite got on board with this. Not many people prepared to deny the reality of consciousness but people don't appreciate that it follows that consciousness is a datum in its own right in addition to the data of observation experiments. If I've got a theory of reality that can account for all the data observation experiments but Khan account for the reality of consciousness. That theory concentrate or is it best incomplete because it misses out something real and what we're actually finding now is scientists and philosophers coming together to lay the foundations for this new approach to consciousness. Working out some of our leading neuroscientists theories in this new philosophical post Galilee and framework as far as consciousness is concerned. Doesn't that still leave a huge problem? If I say this table in front of me has some very very low level of consciousness. How do I get from the table? The material thing which is also conscious thing to me. Hopefully I'm going to higher level of consciousness than the table just putting lots more bits together doesn't seem to explain how I get self conscious. One common misunderstanding. The psych is needed thing that literally everything is conscious. The starting point is the fundamental constituents of physical reality perhaps electrons and quarks have unimaginably simple forms of experience but it doesn't follow that every random collection of particles like a table for example is also conscious. But you right. What is generally taken to be the biggest challenge for a gas theory? The so-called combination problem is how we get from facts about particle consciousness to facts about systems level human consciousness which is of course what we ultimately want to explain. I would say nobody yet has a complete theory of consciousness. It's very early days in the science of consciousness but it seems to me the problems facing the research program just seem to be more tractable than the problems facing a materialist research program for the materialist. You've got this huge explanatory gap. How on Earth to get from the purely quantitative objective properties that physical science talks about to the qualitative subjective properties of consciousness? And no one's given us the first inkling of how we bridge that gap despite lots of effort the challenge of the pen psych. It's rather is. How'd you get from simple forms of subjective experience to more complex forms of subjective.

Galileo Arthur Eddington Bertrand Russell scientist Galilea Filipov Philip Golf Colin Mcginn Physics Textbook Ike Ism Leeann Khan
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

11:21 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"Hearts WANNA WANNA get rid of it when a privatize chefs. Oh so you know the the the we've got to have got. We can't get rid of these questions just like you can't get philosophical questions. The logical positivist tried and unfortunately they don't they don't they don't go away they just keep you awake at night absolutely at least they keep me awake at night and I think that's probably the case for a lot of people listening to this show. I think in some ways that is the appeal of talk nerdy and of and of all the different Crossover between the show and others that people listen to is that it promotes thinking and thinking is good. This is something that fundamentally feels good to be. I mean it's hard and it could be a little bit painful but on the other end of that pain is is meaning and You know I. It's easy to say. I think we often find ourselves in a very cynical place to say not enough people think anymore and I know that that's not true. I think fundamentally we are thinking more than we ever did in the past but There is a privilege again. I come back to that to not having to to do the work because of the kind of things that our parents and grandparents and grandparents grandparents have brought to us. They brought us a lot of other difficulties. That would have to work out but But the privilege to be a more educated and more literate society is definitely A net positive have so also the sorry just I mean the apartment anything else that the critical thinking skills you get enough philosophy degree are important. You know living in a democracy seeing through the bullshit of politicians arguments and you know that the logical fallacies they make you know being able to rigorously. Tara rigorously analyzed. Somebody's argument Munir. Even if you don't most people do a philosophy degree don't go on to do philosophy but those skills I think of of understanding arguments and Being able to riddick ridicule rigorously. Assess them I think is is a really important skill into democracy and Yeah so that's how I completely agree. I mean even at the Undergrad Level. Which that's kind of where my philosophy training stopped although. I think it's coming back in at the PHP level. Because I'm more interested in a philosophically theoretically grounded approach to psychotherapy But even as was my minor in Undergrad That armed me with some of the most fundamental critical thinking skills that have allowed me to kind of develop is sceptical thinker Yeah without without that kind of training I don't know I don't know where I'd be and also I think a lot of people forget that if you're getting a PhD in any field. That's a doctor philosophy and at the very beginning at least that's what that there was something was meaning to that you should think philosophically about your physics or about your simple science or whatever. The case may be yes. I mean what this book was. It was a defensive philosophies. Spent some time you know just defying this idea. That philosophy has a role to play such an important one as well. We'll fill up you know. I'm sure there are things we didn't cover if there's anything really striking that you think of in the next few minutes. Let's make sure that we do. But I wanted to let you know that I close every episode of Talk Nerdy the same way I ask my guests. These two basic big picture questions. Because I'm always so so interested to see how how each individual guests based on their work based on their life's journeys kind of conceptualize his thing so I was hoping that you'd be willing to take a crack at them show. What right so I want you to think about. The future in whatever context is relevant to you today. You know that could be informed by what's going on in the world could be formed by your work By your personal life whatever the case may be and I want you to tell me number one. What is the thing that keeps you up the most at night? The thing that you're maybe a little bit pessimistic. Even borderline cynical about like your true fundamental. Worry and then on the flip side of that What are you genuinely? Kind of? Authentically looking forward to optimistic about not just lip service but like truly have a have a positive outlook on wow spurs on the negative side. I'm I'm very. I'm I'm politics nerd and politics worries. May I suppose I mean I guess my my political philosophy is basically the the my my lifetime was when it all went crap forty one now. Nissim. My basic philosophy of recent history is You know the thirty is after the after the wall in after the second world will in the US the UK on much of Western Europe. We did it right right. We worked out how to have a properly mixed economy high taxation High Regulation and you know. Society got more prosperous. Society got more equal the baby. Boomer generation is the luckiest that ever lived and then from the eighties onwards we decided on wild west. Capitalism we cut taxes we cut regulation and we've had crisis after crisis. We've had two thousand eight when the bank is bull. The world's as and ordinary people have been paying the price for the last ten years So I think we've seen we've seen these two options tried out both options On I think we history recent history tells us which one works and some kind of some people think but when you had these high high levels of Taxation People didn't pay them but actually been a recent empirical study by two economists Berkeley. Come the names now that the wealthy did pay much more tax. They paid on average fifty percent of their income You know the entire income whereas now in the states this is by the way. It's it's around twenty three percent so so so so but you know what really. I thought. Two Thousand Eight. I thought what everything's going to change. Now everything's GonNa Change. This is been systematically proved that this market fundamentalism. This near Liberals Approach doesn't work and I was just flabbergasted is not us what as well as UK I was blown away by that all government in the UK persuaded everyone that it was just a fault of the Glass Labor government spending too much money and then we had ten year ten years of harsh harsh public sector cuts that resulted in tens of thousands of lost lives on A. I mean that's really politicized me is just And I'm you know so. I guess it's maybe pessimistic and we're now in this new crisis that is we're going to end up much more indebted than two thousand eight Governor paying right there. I think eighty percents of wages if anyone in the country. Who Work Are we going to spend fifty years of austerity fifty years of public sector pay cuts anyways? So that's what worries me. I have to say wh- what I'm optimistic about. I suppose is my work is not my work is what I'm optimistic. About is how things are changing on consciousness on this philosophy and science of consciousness. You know I think we've things have changed so quickly. We've gone from for much of the twentieth century. Consciousness was a taboo topic. That you you. It wasn't sort of as subject proper subject matter for serious science. You know POPs the height height of this was the behaviorists who thought the only proper focus for science of mind was behavior that you can measure and quantify. I think from towards the end of the twentieth century. The one thousand nine hundred ninety s we do start to get people. Taking the problem of consciousness is a serious scientific issue. Came to be okay to be working on consciousness and I think things are changing so quickly I mean I I but I think still though. The approach of money is to say are we. There is a problem we just need to do more neuroscience and we'll solve it so you know what I try to press is as I said. This isn't just another scientific problem. This in many ways or conventional scientific approach wasn't designed for this problem and I think that really people really are starting to come to this view. Now we're starting to see scientists and philosophers coming together to make progress on this On start to say that that we really need to not not that we can't have a science of consciousness but if we want signs of consciousness we need to really rethink what science is and I think you know. It's really exciting How much is changing quickly? And I'm really optimistic about the future and I think it's it offers. Hope not just that we can resolve this very deep challenge for contemporary science. But also I think that it can transform in a positive way our understanding of of what it means to be a human being and what it means to live in this universe and so yes. I'm very hopeful about the area. I work in Aunt on very pessimistic about.

UK riddick Tara Berkeley US Western Europe Glass Labor
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

12:38 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"You know. People still have this. Even though we've rejected at decades ago people still have this sort of scientistic view that You know we. We can get all the on system empirical science it all the time in the world that I exist in because you know other than my academic pursuits I have been working as a science communicator for the past decade plus and one of the podcast that I work on a skeptics guide to the universe. I'm heavily involved. In skeptic communities and one of I think the biggest fallacies that I find within the skeptic community is a heavy reliance on logical positive logical positive ISM without any room. Four would ice kind of my counter to that that is the is more constructivist or more postmodern view. Like figuring out how those things play nicely together. I actually just did a big talk on it when the last time I did a little bit of a tour down in Australia New Zealand Called like is constructivism. A four letter word simply because I wanted to bring this idea to a lot of the skeptics in the room that saying if science can't touch it or if we can't view it experimentally if we can't show some sort of Understanding utilizing this method that it's not relevant basically means that you're closing your eyes to the vast majority of experience like there's gotTa be other a pistol molecules out there for us to try and understand existence because science only by the way that it was designed can handle natural phenomena that are observable and and I guess changeable. You know you've got to be able to manipulate variables in an effort to be able to say anything about something scientifically. Yeah absolutely. I mean I think were of one mind on this. I mean skeptics are very important for debunking questions that are empirical questions like you know ghosts. How old is the universe? These are empirical question. We want empirical SKEP- scientists to subject them to you know people say Bullshit to put us not does not weirdly backed up but but not all questions are are empirical questions and I mean. This is the most straightforward thing that. I tried to press them and coming back to where we started. I think stunned. That approach to science is what we're trying to do is find the simplest theory consistent with what we can publicly observed what we can subject to public observation experimental testing. If you stick rigorously to that methodology you will not believe in consciousness because consciousness is not something that can be publicly observed You know we believe it on the basis of our immediate awareness of our feelings experiences. So Daniel Bennett. The philosopher is wonderfully consistent on this. I mean he's the polar opposite position on consciousness to me he thinks consciousness comp be observed from the third person so it doesn't exist. He thinks the only I mean he goes back and forth over. You know wherever you literally say Kay. He thinks conscious existence. Some sense doesn't in others but what he does think is the only data for theory of consciousness is publicly observable behavior fat saying once. We've explained the publicly observable behavior That's the end of the theory. Okay I think there's something else. We need to explain feelings and experiences. Where do they come from? Why do they exist? We know the rail but then not publicly observable so I think consciousness is the most obvious case where we do need to rethink. How we're thinking about science. I mean I kind of think we're going to phase of history where people are so blown away by the success of physical science and the wonderful technology is produced that this crates and people a sense of you know this is. This is the truth you know. We know We don't have this but we now to get them but I think it wants you trace back physical science too if you ask. Galileo about this if you told to Galileo about this problem explaining consciousness in terms of physical science. He'd say of course you can't do that. I designed physical signs for a very specific narrow task and it wasn't the task of dealing of accounting for the qualitative on observable reality of consciousness. So I think it's hard to shift people on this because I think it does get involved in people's identity and sense of themselves and you know people talk about religion as a crutch but I think a certain kind of scientistic well view can give people a sense of how how they understand truth in the world and yeah so so that's most important to me really is is more important than pump psych is is the problem of consciousness is not just another scientific problem and and I just try to hammer that home and I am the way I found most powerful for doing that. It's just to keep hammering home the point that it's not publicly observable and you don't off. I'm found yet a good answer to that apart from Daniel which is to say. Yeah so it doesn't exist but I don't think many people will go for that you know Pretty Righteous. The alternate has that kind of like as we were saying before. Maybe it exists. Maybe it doesn't but the fact that we can't interrogate at me and said it's not really relevant to our worldview like that various materialistic. Yeah logical positivist view. Which again I mean I guess I get it. I mean it's it's it's a clean way for some people to be able to make sense of reality and maintain a very consistent worldview. I just think it's a sadly I think it's a bit impoverished. I think it's like there's so much beauty and so much profundity that Viewing the world in that way is very lacking. It's it's an intellectually. I guess honest way to live your life but it's very narrow and I don't know kind of bums me out I physically. I can't exist in that kind of very strict pair of glasses because if I do so just continue to have questions about things. Yeah I think this is important. I think consciousnesses at the root of human identity. And you know it's fundamentally we relate to each other as conscious beings feelings and experiences It's arguably the basis of everything that's important in human existence. And so I think it it. It is a problem I think. I suspect if our official scientific world view doesn't have a place for consciousness which which I think it doesn't controversially dot com may be have an effect even on people's mental health. You know I think there's a lot of crazy shit going on in the world at the moment You know I think there are a lot of economic and political explanations about but I'm not talking about the corona virus by the way but I think some of some of the what's going on wrong with the world and I think a little bit of it might be a sense of alienation a sense of not understanding how we fit into the universe. How much the attraction of nationalism or fascism is is that tells you a story of how you fit into the world and I think one small part of that is the fact that we don't understand how as conscious beings we fit in to the universe so I think this is important. I mean it doesn't mean everyone has to work on it. It doesn't mean you know if you just want to do neuroscience and you know you're not interested in what's sometimes called the hard problem of consciousness that's fine right. It's not like it's not. Have you want us to do this? And the very important work you can do without in very important and Pirka work you can do without worrying about you know the these philosophical questions of consciousness butts and if you just WanNa say I'm agnostic. I don't know what the truth is. I'm not that's not what interests me. That's absolutely fine but I think it is natural noble human curiosity to know to WanNa be curious about what is going on in reality. I'm tryin have our best. Guess about what about what the answer is. Oh I so agree I think You know it's one of the things that we sometimes in modern society have grown. Maybe a little bit lazy or we've been privileged to be able to Forget or or become distracted from these basic fundamental questions. Like very often. You'll meet people that say. Oh I'm I'm not very political and I'm always like Oh that's such a privileged position to be like you have to be political if you if you are in a group. That has been disenfranchised right. Like it's a fundamental to your your freedom your safety to be political. And so it's it's it's a privilege to not be Political and I think in some ways it's a privilege to not think philosophically or do not think scientifically about these kinds of questions And again like you just said I want to reiterate that not. Everybody has to dedicate their lives to this things. That's why we're so grateful for people like you and for people like Sean Carroll and for people like X Y and Z. Because you guys have dedicated your lives and your academic career so that we get to read the fruits of your Labor but to never even think about these things to me is so Bleak LAKE TO IT. I would feel impoverished You know mentally if I didn't sometimes just question these things it doesn't mean I have to know the answer but I like to be as informed as possible. I have no idea if I agree with pants like ISM or not. I want to dig deeper into it but I'm glad to know that there are all of these problems that have been worked out or are being actively worked on. So that when I have a little idea a little kind of Light Bulbs going off in my head. I don't have to feel like I'm alone in the world and like I'm the first person to ever think about this. I can go and I can find. Other writers and other thinkers and other philosophers who have developed these ideas in kind of thoroughly fleshed out way so that. I can start to piece together. My own worldview because ultimately. Isn't that what it's about right? We're all kind of floating around interacting with each other. We have this relational. Inter subjectively and we just want to have a very rich understanding of our place in the universe. Yeah it's a common endeavour isn't it in the empirical science of the very important role to play the I think philosophers have a role to play and I mean I think part of the problem actually as they're talking my own profession knows philosophers? Don't reach out enough. I everything is so specialized these days and you know if you try and read an academic article in philosophy philosophy and you don't have a PhD. You're going to struggle to understand that you know. Every philosophers don't try and communicate to broader audience. And so you know I mean. This is part of the reason I wrote. I've written academic book a few years ago called consciousness. Fundamental reality aimed at an academic audience. But this I wanted to write this. Alejos era just trying to communicate in his accessible away as possible. These ideas that that that I think are important and people are interested in Just just to come out to the politics thing. I was just really knowing me in the UK at the moment with Corona viruses. Some people saying we've got to take the politics out of it and what they mean by that is you can't criticize the government's approach and I think the UK government's approach has been disastrous in many ways. Just slow on and I'm working to have tens of thousands of deaths. I am afraid I mean I hope not but I worry because of that and people saying I mean people saying you know. Take the politics out of it means you. You can't hold the government to account. It's the same with the National Health Service here. There's always often a call to take the politics out of it but it's it's a political matter because off current government at dinner..

Daniel Bennett UK WanNa Galileo Australia New Zealand SKEP Kay official National Health Service Sean Carroll Pirka
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

08:41 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"Approach in my view is that a has to try and bridge. This gap between the purely quantitative properties of neuroscience physical science and the qualitative reality of consciousness. You have to try and get from this. Purely quantitative story of what's going on in the brain to the qualitative reality of seeing blue and smelling coffee and so on and no one's made the slightest progress on bridging that gap and I think there are good philosophical reasons to think the attempt to do that is is is just is incoherent. I mean we could go into that. But so that's what you're trying to do in the standard approach. You're trying to bridge a gap. Which I which I think is unbridgeable. What we're trying to do in the pen. Psych is approach. We're not trying to bridge. The gap were putting consciousness in from the start. So the idea. Is You know. There's just really on this view. All there is consciousness so it's important to emphasize that this isn't Dulas them you know. This isn't when people hear about. They tend to think. Well the electron has its physical. Properties like mass spin and charge on that. It has these Consciousness properties as well. That would be kind of do you. Listen the The the physicists. Sabine Hudson felder as written a critique of pants like is on our blog recently but she was assuming this kind of dualistic position upon psych. But that's not clear. Subset miss this kind of Class LOSS AVI as opposed to Mona's them that there's there's the self or the soul or the mind mind is the best way to put it that the mind and the brain are two completely distinct things that can kind of interact or have power over one. Another as opposed to a bonus perspective. Which is that. They're kind of two sides of the same coin that they're so inter woven that for all intents and purposes they they can't be they're inextricably linked. I guess as a way. Yeah sorry I absolutely. I should explain. Not You know. The the ancient view that consciousness that this is designed side of the physical workings of the body in the brain. I spit similarly. You might have a kind of understanding upon psych is okay. It's not belief in the soul. But you believe in the physical properties of the electron mass spin and charge and also these consciousness properties. So there's two kinds of radically different properties. You've got the divide again but that's not the view. The view is that mass spin and charge off forms of consciousness. So science tells us what they do but what they are. A- forms of consciousness so the basic micro level we've got simple forms of consciousness at the At the level of neuro physiology of the human brain we've got complex forms of consciousness But this just consciousness there so you're not trying to bridge a gap now. What you you might still make the criticism that you that you alia made. You might say well this. Is You know explaining anything you know. Just assuming it right but you know science. There is plenty of precedent. Science full non reductive explanations. That is to say explanations where you take. The phenomenon is basic so for example in the nineteenth century when Maxwell came up with his theory of electromagnetism. He didn't explain electricity and magnetism. In terms of the kind of mechanical properties. Science was already committed to he postulated new electromagnetic properties and lows unexplained electromagnetism on that basis similarly for the past the early days in the science of consciousness but the final theory of consciousness eventually comes along. It won't explain consciousness in terms of non consciousness. It will postulate very basic forms of consciousness and explain human consciousness all in terms of those simple forms of consciousness. So it's just a different kind of explanatory project and so I'm I'm so interested kind of what I've always loved philosophy and I've always loved reading about different historical kind of stories that philosophers told about how to explain or perceive or reframe our understandings of reality. And I'm so interested in in kind of like I don't know what what it entails. What it's like. I guess I could add. I'm not even sure how to frame this question. But as a working academic philosopher like what do you do every day and like? What does the experience like for you? I think we've sort of lost touch with well. I if he's all about it. I think I think in many ways we've forgotten that there is a philosophy behind science than it was. It was designed four hundred days ago by Galileo and it has certain philosophical components that that aren't justified by experiment or observation. So I mean so you know before. Galileo people full the physical world was filled with qualities that there were colors on the surfaces of objects smells floating through the tastes inside food. That was the the philosophical worldview following aristotle but Galileo wanted this mathematical quantitative theory of Nature. And he thought we need to get rid of these qualities these colors and sounds it. Smells and tastes. So he said I'm going to propose a new philosophy of nature and according to this flossy nature those qualities color sound smells. They're not really out the in the physical world they're just in the soul so you know colors if you're looking at tomorrow you know. The the readiness isn't really out there on the surface of the tomato for Galileo. It's in it's in the consciousness of the person perceiving the tomato or the you know the spiciness isn't really in the Paprika. It's in the consciousness of the person eating it. And that kind of explains Inter subjectivity. It explains is your experience of a tomato is fresh and delicious and mine is gag worthy like well. It's fascinating That's another fascinating finding of of neuroscience we've just the more generally your physiology now how people's tomato tastes tomato tomato is is is so sensitive to To to actual physiological differences. So I think people who don't like tomatoes people look down on the middle bit thing. They're not cultured or something but it can actually be simply due to physiological differences but yes so so Galleno Strip the world of these qualities so that we could have a mathematical picture of nature And so you can't get rid of philosophy. I mean we. We tried to in the nineteen thirties forties with logical positive as the view that you know if if a sentence to the logical positivist thought if a sentence Kombi empirically verified or falsified and it was just meaningless. It was just gibberish. So they hoped in this way to dissolve philosophy and just get us down to questions that we can answer Im- with empirical science. Unfortunately the view is I mean. The view is now universally rejected by philosophers of science. Not least because people realized it self-defeating right because I remember learning this what I was doing philosophy high school and I was just upset fascinated through the. The point is the principle of the logical. Positivist was what I've just said right if a sentence can't be verified then it's meaningless but the principle itself cosby verified and so if it's true it's meaningless so you know people just realized that. I mean that's part of the role of philosophy analytic rigor of philosophy to see that. Actually this view was just self-defeating incoherent in a sense so actually you know the philosophy of science of universally rejected positive as them. But you do find. It still comes up..

Galileo Sabine Hudson felder Mona cosby Maxwell
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

10:14 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"Our guys let's get back to the show and so I guess the thing that when I sort of have tried to wrap my head around Pan Psych. Ism that sticks out to me as something that makes it hard to square with my own basic. I Dunno personal. Understanding of reality is sort of the this is the right word to use but religious or maybe spiritual is a better word to use implications of it and as an atheist or somebody who's like purely secular That part doesn't sit as well for me but then again. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Pan Psych is a met its fundamental level. So so I was hoping maybe you could help us. A me and the listeners. Understand a little bit more. About what the I guess the theory. Would you call it a theory or the philosophy says? Yeah so I guess our in our standard way of thinking about things. Consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms on so consciousness exists only in a tiny part of the universe on only in very recent history attempts of the history of the universe at least but according to Plan Psych Ism Consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it so it it doesn't necessarily mean that everything is conscious. That's one common misunderstanding. Then the basic commitment is that the the fundamental building blocks of the of the physical well perhaps electrons and quarks have unimaginably simple forms of experience. And the very complex experience of the human or animal brain is somehow derived or built up from the very simple experience of the brains most basic parts so Y- it sounds a bit wacky as you say it has these unfortunate sort of new age spiritual ANA -tations. But you know I mean. This views gone from being laughed at insofar as it was thought of a toll to being taken very seriously certainly in academic philosophy in some parts of neuroscience and the people who were defending it You know myself you know David. Traumas and very good philosopher Luc roelofs. These people are complete. Atheists secularists right. They're not they're not interested in China. Defend some kind of transcendent spirituality. They just interested in explaining the natural phenomenon of consciousness feelings and experiences whether or not you believe in God. Aw some kind of spiritual reality most of us believe in pain and pleasure adds visual auditory experiences and the problem is those very Monday in a sense mundane phenomena you know people think consciousnesses mysterious in the sense. It's really mundane. It's just you know pain seeing red. You know it's the most obvious everyday thing. It's so obvious we sort of forget about it. 'cause it's just that all the time but it's it's it's such a challenge scientifically and philosophically to fit that into all stunned at scientific story the world and as I've said I don't think our conventional scientific approach was designed to accommodate conscious experience. So it's just about it's not about trying to justify something spiritual it's just about trying to accommodate this undeniable phenomena of conscious subjective experience. Do you feel like there's a lot of crossover with this idea of Pan Psych Ism and some more kind of eastern philosophies Taoism. I'd say.

Pan Psych Pan Psych Ism Luc roelofs China David
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

02:20 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"There's also a class workbook that you can download and of course you can learn on your own terms anytime anywhere at your own pace guys. I highly highly recommend you. Check it out. You can get unlimited access to every masterclass and as a talk nerdy listener you get fifteen percent off of the annual all access. Pass all you gotTa do is go to masterclass at dot com slash nerdy. That's masterclass dot com slash nerdy for fifteen percent off masterclass. I also WANNA thank express. Vpn for their support of the show. All right so what is expressed. Vpn and how does it work? Well It protects your privacy and security online but it also allows you to unlock movies and shows that are only available in other countries and a lot of third home. We're watching a lot of stuff on net flicks right now but eventually we're going to run out so this week. I've been checking out. Rick and Morty on Net flicks France why because I can. It's so easy to do. I just fire up the express. Vpn APP. I changed my location to France and refresh net flix. And that's it. I can see everything that's offered there see. This is how it works express. Vpn Your Ip address and lets you control where you want sites to think you're located so you can choose from almost a hundred different countries. It's like the Netflix Library of every country out there. It's amazing. If you love anime you can use express. Vpn To access Japanese net flicks and B. Spirited away and it's not just Netflix guys will work with any streaming service. Who BBC I player Youtube? You name it there are hundreds of. Vpn's out out there. But the reason that I like express. Vpn To watch shows is because it's super super fast. There's never any buffering or lag and you can stream in hd no problem it's also compatible with all of your devices phones media console smart. Tv's and so much more so you.

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

02:59 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"The taste of meant you can capture these kind of qualities in in the purely quantitative language of physical science so that you can't capture in an equation Itchiness of innate. Show the cold feel of ice so. Galileo said right-back in Sixteen Twenty. Three right if if we want a purely mathematical quantitative science we have to take these qualities of consciousness and put them in the sole right outside of the domain of science. Some Galileo's worldview you've got this radical divide in nature between two domains the the the quantitative demane of science and the qualitative domain of consciousness. So you've got the the fee on the one hand the physical world with its Julie Quantitative Mathematical Properties and on the other hand consciousness with its qualities of sounds and smells and colors and tastes so this was the star of Mathematical Physics. Which is gum incredibly. Well but I think what we've forgotten. Is that physics was never intended to be a complete description of reality. The the whole project was premised on putting consciousness outside of the domain of science. So I think if we now want signs of consciousness we need to find a way of of bringing it back in bringing the these two demands the the the quantitative domain of physical science and the qualitative reality of consciousness And I think you know. Punt Psych is the attraction of it is is. It gives us a way of of trying to do all right guys. I want to take a quick moment to thank the sponsors of this week's episode. We've got two new sponsors this week. Starting with masterclass now masterclass is an APP. It's accessible on your phone on the web or on Apple. Tv that offers a variety of classes on a ton of different topics and they're all talk a world-class masters at the top of their fields. Each class is broken out into individual video lessons and their downloadable materials for them which you can explore at your own pace you can learn about conservation from Jayne good. All you can learn about humor from David Sedaris and my personal favorite one that I want to tell you about today is Learning about scientific thinking and communication from none other than Dr Neil degrasse Tyson said and of course this is broken down like I mentioned into thirteen. Different lessons everywhere from cognitive bias. To understanding the scientific method to thinking skeptically cultural bias. That's so important understanding your audience. And of course the most important that how you think is so much more important than what you thank. So there's this lesson plan..

Julie Quantitative Mathematica Itchiness Galileo Dr Neil degrasse Tyson David Sedaris Apple
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

14:46 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"And behavioral functioning and electrochemical signaling could go on in the complete absence of experience. And so we're left with this mystery of how what we know about ourselves from the inside. Our feelings and experiences fits together with the nearest scientific story of the brain And some people think well you know this is. We just need to to carry on with us. Stunned ways of investigating the brain and we'll crack it. But I mean there are various ways in which this is really a really different kind of problem. One thing one way I like to press this just that consciousness is not publicly observable. So you know I mean. A whole scientific method is based around observation on. I think when when we generally talk about observation we mean what's publicly observable Yeah there's there's kind of consensus required. Yeah Yeah Yeah. Yeah so you know what you can test in a third person way what you can experimentally test and we can all agree on but the problem with consciousness is it's essentially private right. I you know only you can observe your own experiences in some sense you know. I can't look I can see the external markers of your sadness sawyer joy. You know your tears or your smell but I can't look inside your head and see your your happiness in your sadness. Now you know so. No Science is used to dealing with an observables right. Fundamental particles for example copied directly observed. True in all of these other cases we postulate on observables in order to explain what can be observed particles electrons and quarks postulated as part of the Standard Standard Model of particle physics. That explain so much that we can observe but I think in the unique case of consciousness. The thing we are trying to explain is not publicly. Observable I think this really constrains How we how we can deal with it experimentally. So you know what about it? We we obviously do do with it. Experimentally neuroscientists but because it's not publicly observable. What you the only way you can gather. Data about. Consciousness is by asking people write about the private observations of their own feelings and experiences. And if you do that while you're while you scan people's brains with NFL ARE FM is scanner. You can map correlations right. You can discover various ways in which brain activity. Various kinds of brain activity is correlated with various kinds of feelings and experiences. You know you can discover a certain kind of activity in the hypothalamus or something is correlated with feeling hungry or something I think I think that's the limits of what we can do experimentally because consciousness is not publicly observable but unfortunately important that data is. I don't think it's the full story. Because what we ultimately want from a theory of consciousness is an explanation of those correlations. You know why. Why a certain kinds of brain activity correlated with feelings and experiences. Why would that be? And I don't think just doing more neuroscience just gathering more correlations is going to do that so I think that's that's why we one way of saying why this isn't a problem which is gonNA solve experimentally. We need to sort of because consciousness. It's not a publicly observable phenomenon sound so that raises kind of two questions for me. The first one that comes up. Which is maybe the most striking is. What do you say to kind of? Some scientific thinkers who would respond to that by saying we don't care why sometimes we're never going to know why all we care is that it is. Yeah well it depends what you mean by. I mean I'm not asking. Why in sort of existential his career back to that. Why are we here? What's the meaning? There's an interesting article recently. Saying all these people worried about the problem of consciousness. It's just the thinking of why in the in this existential sense of Yohei What's it all about? But that's that's not the question that's being asked here toll. It's you know it's in science. We won't explanations rights. We want to know you know. Water boils at one hundred degrees. Why is that the case and we explain it? You know we. We have chemical theories that explain quite nicely this superficial properties of water. You Know Lightning. We see lightning in the sky. This flushing thing. We want an explanation of that and science comes along and gives us some theories of electricity discharge that explain that similarly when there are certain types of thing happened in my brain I feel pleasure or pain or I see red. We want an explanation of that. So so it's not why in some Some deeply kind of meaning of life since it's just the standard scientific Demand for explanation. It's just that the phenomenon we're dealing with here is is is a very unusual phenomenon and hence I think you know. The standard experimental methods of science don't quite important as they are. Don't quite give us the full explanation. I mean you could still say I don't care. You have a similar similar issue in quantum mechanics. I think were quantum mechanics is is one of our most successful scientific series. You know almost all of our modern technologies is based on quantum mechanics in terms of prediction. It's it's one of our most successful scientific theories. The problem is no one knows what the Hell theory is telling us about reality. And there are all these some scientists respond to that and say well who cares it works This is sometimes called the shut up and calculate approach. You know the the the you know. The scientists shown carols been talking a lot on his podcast about You know how how. It's been taboo for a long time to kind of worry about. This people couldn't get jobs because they wanted to know what is going on. What is quantum mechanics telling us about reality? But I think just because I think the natural human curiosity science isn't just about building bridges and curing disease and creating technology. It's about understanding the universe. We live in understanding reality reality. That underlies our equations. And that's what people want in quantum mechanics a lot of people increasingly one on. I think that's what we want. Consciousness yes the neuroscience is crucial those correlations that neuroscience gives us between brain activity and experience and new science can get very systematic about that. It's not just saying you know this brain state goes with this experience but ultimately what we're at the end of the day. I think what we want to know is what's going on in reality why you know why is it. That brain activity gives rise to Kinds of experience an adult so as a set for the reason I said. I don't think that's a question that experimental neuroscience can interesting so so the other question that kind of came up through those explanations for me and this is a more kind of from a neuroscience neuroscience perspective is. What do you say to or have you? Have you been able to read some of the literature and grappled with the types of experiments? That are much more interested in thresholds of consciousness. So you really looking at the difference between somebody who is conscious and somebody who has a loss of consciousness and what is going on Neuro scientifically whether we're talking about holistically in the brain or whether we're starting to become a little bit more Sort of fundamentalist and you know break it down into different regions of break it down into individual networks or even individual cells when people slip unconsciousness different levels of coma and things like that. It does seem like we're learning more and more about what is maybe minimally required biologically to maintain what we think of as consciousness. Absolutely I mean it's you know I'm fascinated by how how how much progress we've made him in some of the things we can do with with binoculars rivalry and and with various forms of masking Where we sort of I mean the more colloquial temple subliminal images right. You know where we where we we Slip in An image of something so quickly that the people don't consciously register it it doesn't come in to the the conscious awareness but we can see through asking various questions that that their brain has processed that information and it's gone quite quite detailed into the into the into the Kotex the processing that's gone on. I'm what we've discovered actually. I've been fascinated by that even Semantic Information Judgments of the meaning of words go can go on subconsciously. In these masking cases we can see this because I can't think of another specific examples but we have a sort of subliminal image of of of a particular word and then by even though the the subject doesn't consciously receive it. It's not in that conscious awareness. We can see that. The brain has processed the information about what that word means because of because of the satin is just they gave the associations that come to mind for them? So you know it's up. See fussing this is an age old philosophical question. She d need Consciousness understanding understanding the meanings of words. You might have thought as a philosopher that that you did but we can now show experimentally that That you don't this. Semantic processing of of the meanings of words goes on to a large extent subconsciously as well as consciously So you know this is all very important. Data you CA. You know we're GonNa have a science of consciousness without it and as you say we're making progress on theorising about the very general conditions for for what is required for consciousness in one popular theory. The the global workspace theory which is roughly that. What you are conscious of is a matter of the kinds of information. That's broad broadcasts throughout the shift the brain and is available for for many different regions of the brain controlling behavior. Daniel Dennis Coles fame in the brain or cerebral celebrity arrival view is the integrated information theory. According to which it's it's integrated information that's the whole Mauka consciousness. And one of the reasons people got interested in punt psych is is because actually this theory entails although it has some empirical confirmation in the sense that it can explain which regions of the brain associated with conscious in which not consciousness in which armed which periods of sleep or associated with consciousness in which on but it also has punt cyclist implications. At least to the extent that's it entails that consciousnesses more widespread than we ordinarily take two bay because some degree of integrated information is present in in many physical non-organic physical systems although there's disputes about how much empirical support the integrated information theory has but any case you know. This is all very important but at the end of the day. I don't think this kind of work can get us beyond correlations and the reason is because on the one dealing with two things that are known about in different ways consciousness. That's as it were only privately. Observable you know only the person having the experience can be directly aware of it on the brain. That's publicly observable. So what we're doing when we're trying to What sometimes called a neural correlates of consciousness? Trying to find out what needs to go on the brain to get consciousness where trying to correlate what we can observe publicly. I brain activity with what we can't observe publicly people's private feelings and experiences so by by relying on the testimony we can correlate them up. But that in itself won't give an explanation of why the correllated so that's I think what we have to step beyond the experimental neuroscience so I guess probably now would be a good time. Maybe I should have done a bit earlier to to ask you Perhaps you can just give us a little bit of a global overview of exactly what Pants Ike ism is and what it kind of seeks to like. What kind of explanatory power it? It seems to have for you. He is so you are stunned. Way of thinking about things. Consciousness exists only in the brain's actually could it connect. Can I say one more thing about the science stuff please? Yes one thing. I'm trying to press in my own work. Which is the reason for the title of my book. Galileo's era is that we shouldn't be surprised that are conventional scientific approach struggles today of consciousness. And that's because our standard scientific approach was designed to exclude consciousness so a key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo's declaration that mathematics is to be the language of the new science that the the new science is to have a purely quantitative vocabulary but Galileo understood quite well that you can't capture consciousness in these terms because consciousnesses a qualitative phenomenon. Just in the sense that it involves qualities if you think about the the retina silverados experience or the smell of coffee or.

Galileo NFL coma Daniel Dennis Coles flushing
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

14:39 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"About any further Adieu here. D is Dr Phillip Goff. We'll fill up. Thank you so much for joining me today. Thanks car. It's great to be a lot. We managed to cope. Oh I know right. It's been a while that we've been going a little bit back and forth and then of course. The world turned upside down None of us expected that so I think one of the I don't know if you call it a benefit but one of the things that's been happening That I've noticed as a podcast that well everyone's at home and so they're ready to record these crazy times Olympic and although I was just about to come over to the US actually to do some conferences and stuff and yeah obviously it's been council but The worst tragedy of of this. Keep thinking I'm GonNa wake up and it's all a dream you know I know a and I do I feel bad for a lot of authors and scientists who had book scheduled to come out Kind of right around now because all of their events have been canceled and they're having to move everything to an online format. Luckily yours came out right. Yeah I was just GonNa say my colleague Emily Thomas. Who's just GONNA trade book? Just come out. On the philosophy of travel just as the world has crazy travel restrictions. It's a bit of bad luck but came out in November I think so yup got chance to have a little bit of publicity before the world's shutdown so yeah okay. Well that's that's very good and I think it did benefit us them that up that we had to push back the interview a few times. So I'm glad to be chatting with you today and I'm really excited to be talking to you about Kind of the concept of your book. Galileo's error foundations for a new science of consciousness. This approach has a lot of crossover with the stuff that I've been interested in lately educationally even less so with my scientific kind of Communication and my journalistic coverage but. I've gone back to school to work on a PhD in clinical psychology and my My emphasis is actually in existential psychotherapy. So there's a lot of philosophy that feeds into this type of psychology and of course consciousness I think is a really important Conversation to be had that sad I wonder how different views are about consciousness. I'm very excited to dig into What you think. I don't know what what what is existential. Not The time to talk about it but a lot of interesting. It's it's really interesting. It's basically just a therapeutic intervention or therapeutic Idea I guess you could say it's a whole kind of theory. That's informed by existential views so instead of taking a more psycho analytic or more cognitive behavioral approach to psychotherapy. You take a approached. It's all about kind of deeper things. Meaning authenticity And then there are some views about like the fears of death and loneliness in finding meaning That that a lot of existential therapist INC UNDERLIE WHY people might seek therapy to solve any connection to What's his name now Viktor? Frankl logo late. He was kind of in some ways what people think of as founder and he. It's interesting because it would. It comes to exit essentially and I think the reason that I bring this up is because there are some parallels with What we're going to be talking about. Pan PSYCH ISM. When it comes to existentialism there are two ways you could slice and dice it. But they're too big camps that seemed to play Nice together and one is a very secular camp. And that's the Camp I'm in which is kind of a Yala Irvine. Y'All camp that it takes things for most of more atheist approach and then of course there is a more religious camp where you might see like a Kirkuk garter you might see like a Viktor Frankl. But it's kind of two sides of the same conversation you know. One of the differences is there is inherent meaning in the world in. It's our job to uncover it and then my view is that there is no no meaning in the world and it's up to create it a bit of Trivia there's the the UK publisher is the same publisher. That Viktor Frankl back in the day. Oh Wow oh man battle. Yeah no I mean this is not my area of expertise but you know I am. I have an interest in in in psychotherapy and I think it's I think it's been in the back of my head. Actually somehow the should they is the sort of a lack of thinking about the meaning of life and finding meaning in existence and You know so that yeah. That's the I found that one interesting. I'll investigate further. I love it. I mean there. I've always kind of felt like there's a lot of crossover between psychology and philosophy. Because you know some would argue. I guess I'm interested in your take on this. My background is neuroscience. And you know I was kind of trained as a much more kind of logical positivist original lay a much more of a materialist. That's in some ways been changing as I learned more about constructivism and postmodern views. And I'm trying to figure out how to square although circles together but Philosophy and and modern science natural science in many ways have long been attempting to answer some of the same fundamental questions. Haven't they yeah absolutely and Well might get onto this. I do think our scientific story of the world does have implications POPs off people's sense of place in the world and people's mental health ultimately. I mean so I'm inclined to believe I'm inclined to think our our standard scientific worldview does not have a place consciousness and I think that in itself can lead to a sense of alienation. I think many of us we know we have feelings and experiences. And our official scientific worldview tells us know all that's going on in our heads sort of complicated electrochemical signaling and the thing. Many people feel intuitively. That's not the same thing and I think this can lead to the The disenchantment of nature the sense that we don't have a place in the universe and I think I took a little bit about this in the final chapter book. Ultimately were maturing science philosophy. We should be interested in what not view. Not which view. We'd like to be true but which of you is most likely to be true and I make a case for psych isn't which will probably get onto the probable truth upon them on the basis that I think it it is the best scientific approach to consciousness bought. I also think it's maybe a picture of the world that slightly more consonant with mental and spiritual well-being It's a picture of the investment. We can sort of understand our place within it a bit more understand how we fit into it. So yeah I mean you know. I'm in some way a hard nosed scientists philosophy. We should be looking for the truth. You know that's the that's the fundamental but I think we don't do enough of reflecting on how scientific theory and scientific worldview impacts on how we see ourselves fitting into the universe. Nothing that is important. I couldn't agree more. I think that the more that I kind of learn about Realistic sort of constructivist and postmodern views. And I'm not talking about really really extreme versions kind of solid stick views but but more kind of middle of the road ideas in this. Kind of vein. The more I start to really I think in many ways support I don't know Endorsed this idea that. Of course the world is or the universe is or nature is right and the question becomes if we are the ones who are contemplating it filtering it through our tools and our consciousness at a certain point does what is matter if what is only itself through our own eyes and that becomes a really interesting question like this kind of idea of existence as something that is a concrete things that cannot be accessed or the idea of. How do we determine it through our own tools right and philosophy a natural sciences or tools? These are just Methods and and descriptions That makes sense to us as human beings like our perspective is obviously very different than the perspective of. Let's say an alien for many galaxies away. Yeah yeah absolutely Yeah I mean I think there are multiple things. Philosophy has a role to play. I think get part of it is reconciling our understanding of ourselves with the understanding of the universe that science gives to us. But I also think you know. They're all way maybe people as a bit neglected there are ways in which philosophy can contribute to our understanding of what the universe is like certainly with respect to consciousness. I think you know at the moment you know. We know that consciousness exists. We know that nothing is more obvious or evident than the reality of feelings or experiences but at this stage we really have no clue as to how to fit consciousness into our scientific story of the universe. You know despite you know great progress on our scientific understanding of the brain we still don't have even the beginnings of an explanation of of how complicated electrochemical signaling is somehow able to give rise to this in a subjective world of colors and sounds and smells and tastes that each of us knows in our own case. So you know I think there is a real philosophical puzzle. Learn you know how what we know about ourselves from. The inside fits together with with what science tells us about the body in the brain from the outside. And you know some people think this is just you know we just need to do more neuroscience we just need to carry on with our conventional ways of investigating the brain and will one day sold this mystery. But you know what I tried to press him at. Work is is as a philosopher. Is I think this isn't just another scientific problem. There are many ways in which is quite unique Under there are features of it. That means that all conventional scientific approach isn't really suited to dealing with it and in fact wasn't really designed to deal with it so that doesn't mean we will never have a science of consciousness but it means if we WANNA signs of consciousness we might need to rethink what scientists so so I would love to ask you kind of some basic questions about consciousness as I have understood it throughout my academic career. Going from psychology. So my Undergrad was psychology and philosophy. My masters was neuroscience and now I'm moving into clinical psychology and my PhD. Much you know years and years and years later after being out of school for a long time so kind of I. Let's see. I did my master's degree in seven so my kind of neuroscience expertise not that it stopped. There have been kept keeping up with the literature as a science communicator. But that was the era when I was doing neuroscience and I was working in a kind of network neuroscience and so where I kind of have always understood consciousness to wall use the word arise because that's sort of the right word for my framework has always been as As a property that sort of exists Yes secondary to to neuroscience but as something that's a little bit gestalt in that you can't break it down to individual neurons you can't break down to individual networks to neuro chemistry it's An emergent property as some scientists might say. Is that of you that you take or is that of you that you kind of fundamentally disagree with Yes I suppose depends what you mean by. Imagine really this I mean there's there's sometimes it's sort of emergent is the magic word for. It appears we don't really know how or is it a miracle happened but imagine can mean.

Viktor Frankl Dr Phillip Goff US Olympic Emily Thomas Yala Irvine Galileo UK publisher founder official
"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

Talk Nerdy

01:43 min | 8 months ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Talk Nerdy

"Hello everyone and welcome to talk. Nerdy today is April twentieth. Twenty twenty and I'm the host of the show Cara Santa Maria and before we dive. I WanNa thank those of you who may talk nerdy possible this week. Remember Talk Nerdy is and will always be one hundred percent free to download and that's because of the support of listeners. Just like you this week. I WANNA call out Michael Gauchet. Christopher Pets Mary NAVEA PASQUA'S GELATI. Will Rica Hagman DAS. Anita's Brian Holden Daniel Lang and David J e Smith for your support of the show. If you WANNA support talk nerdy just gotTa go to Patriotdepot dot com slash talk nerdy or you can visit my website. Cara Santa Maria Dot Com. There you can click through to the Patriot on page and you can also find the talk nerdy store. That's also it talk nerdy MERCH DOT com. And you know I think some of the best ways to support the show or to rate and review on Apple podcast. Google PODCASTS STITCHER. Spotify wherever you listen to podcasts That really helps me out a lot. A right guy. So I am super excited about this week's episode because I had the opportunity to sit down with Dr Phillip Gough. He is a philosophy professor at Durham. University and consciousness researcher and his newest book is called Galileo's error foundations for new science of consciousness. We're GONNA be talking about something. Called Pan Psych. Ism interesting so guys.

"philip goff" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

14:46 min | 1 year ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

"Everything everything else space time matter particle fields are just particular human constructions to conveniently talk about what that function does overtime show yeah so so so I guess at that point what I would say is okay the navy e familiar Newman's problem I've heard of it but I couldn't explain it so why don't you explain it yes the problem is I can't remember the details either but yeah okay I mean the way I've thought about these things is the the the Coles will structuralism faces this regress problem on the more pure structuralism faces Newman's problem but it's a while since I looked at the details got able to defend that but but let's say let's say you persuade me that the the the mad dog ever eighteen is you've just described is describes as possible reality on the very can account full data old-age Obsession Experiments Then I then I'd say fine that's fair enough but I'd say well look this other Dayton how'd you come to this the and then we'd be back to the knowledge argument we'd be back to to Mike claim that Yukon con accountable Quantitative Hillary so so anyway look I I just think the reality of consciousness is a Dayton in its own right over and above the data of experiments and observation if you've got a theory that can account for all the data bulbs as experiments but uconn account for this in your theory doesn't work I mean I guess you've said Okay of course you're not GonNa want to deny consciousness but you know in all of the cases that's an option right that's if you know there are lots of phenomena that are difficult to fit into all scientific worldview facts about value than a you're interested in facts about free will abstract objects solidity in some sense maybe I'll folk entity or folk notions of time in all of these cases it's at least an option to either deny the phenomenon over revise our understanding of maybe there aren't really about valley maybe we're not really free in the way we think we are maybe time isn't how we thought it was but I think think consciousness it's a reality that we know in such a direct way that I don't think it's an option to either deny over revise it so I think it's it has a very special place in a methodology and because of that I will needs to be hesitant about whether the stuff we postulated to account for observation experiments can also account to this and I haven't heard from you got got a story about how that's done you said that it can do it but you haven't told me how it does it well I don't think we've done it yet so there you go very happy you to admit that but I my the extent to which I'm impressed with materialism is just so vast that of course consciousness the involved with the most complicated structures we know of in the universe will be the last thing that science successfully explains not because inquires something separate just because it's hard that's why it's hard but anyway I think we could get stuck here rather I would I want you to here's your chance I mean I think that's where it comes back to the Galileo point besides maybe let's look at it you know it it's that yes scientists is is so impressive but it's impressive at a very limited task describing the behavior matter roughly mathematical models that culture it was never in the business of accounting for subject these subjective elective qualities that were immediately aware of that's never been doing so I'd like to say oh it's it's been good at this one thing so it's going to be good at this other thing I just think there's something confused going on this analogy in my book bits when I was first my first years Electra the head of department very kind let me off administration and I was pretty good at the other aspects of the job was pretty good at teaching pretty good research the fact that I was good at teaching research doesn't give you any reason to think I'm going to be good right similarly the fact that the fact that physics has been really good physical signs mode Gemini Really Good at these mathematical models to describe behavior. Why does that give you any reason to think it's going to be able to capture these subjective qualities that were immediately aware of anyway sorry no no actually I that's wonderful I'm glad you said that let me respond to it and we'll see whether or not we can straighten ourselves from okay I think that's crucially important because is when you have something like consciousness it's like when you have any part of scientific explanation or broader philosophical explanation that isn't finished get right we admit that we don't have the full understanding none of us does and therefore as individual scholars researchers we make bets we have credence this is about what the is the most likely future path of progress right and I talked about this in my upcoming book I kind of breezed through it in the big picture but in something deeply hidden when I'm talking about quantum mechanics I think that it helps eliminate why some people are cheerful Everette the INS and some people find it to be imporant and therefore gopher hidden variables calls or something like that and it's because we we do have the world of our experience our sort of objective data collecting experience variance and our subjective inner experience lump it all into one thing and we haven't yet fully explained it and which is more likely among the following two options number number one is an explanation that is more or less close to the phenomena that we're observing like the structures within the explanation nation there's a lot of them and it's Kinda complicated set of things going on but the map between those structures and what we experience in what we see is very clear and crispin easy that'd be a hidden variable approach to quantum mechanics where of course there's particles and waves in the double slit experiment because there's particles in ways in my oncology or the other option is you have an extremely beautiful all steer simple powerful underlying formalism but the road from there to explaining seeing the world of our experience is log in peril right that's the ever ready in perspective where you know like I said you have one vector and embiid Hilbert space and you you have a lot of work to do to say why the world looks like three dimensional space plus time with fields and all that stuff and either one of those options is very much on the table all and there is a matter of taste or style that comes into saying oh I'm pretty sure it's this one right and I think likewise for consciousness like of course we have not not explained consciousness in any convincing way as materialists but I have no trouble believing that it will eventually happen because because materialism is so beautiful and elegant and so powerful and and I get even if I don't agree with the perspective that says I just don't see how we'll ever forget here from there and yeah I think that's perfectly valid perspective and will I think the progress will be made and we'll figure it out and you think what do you think when we when when we get the final physical explanation it will be able to convey to a congenitally blind neuroscientists what it's like to see red by going into manipulating their brains not by talking to them so it can't get just like I can't teach some I can't teach someone to be a good free throw shooter by talking to them either this is working despite okay let me this is not this is not getting back to it but I mean I completely agree with that whole thing you just said with every phenomena every phenomenon sorry except consciousness because I think every of the phenomenon is capturing the coastal structure of us but this is we don't know about it in that way we know about it in a very different way hey on so I think that gives us the entitlement to give a different credence to it because you know we have a very different logical relationship with it I think we apprehend end it's reality directly we know something about it's reality directly I think I tend to the qualities in my experience I know something about the nature I don't have tables you know if I had that tables if I could magically know something about the nature then maybe you know that would give me less credence physical science can explain it but I don't have that it's just but with consciousness I think I have some direct access to its nature and so that's why I think I can have very different credence in the possibility of physics I ended up ended up coming back to the argument I said I wouldn't I know and I'm biting my tongue things to say it really WanNa say tell us what pans like is actually says let's give the sales pitch you're at a you're used car dealership and you're he used consciousness theory dealership in someone's wanted onto the lot and you would like to sell them this a pen cyclist vehicle that you've been trying to move for a long time what is your sales pitch well I mean I think in a in a way I've already described it the that this just Mata- There's just what physical science describes it describes but but let let me emphasize actually how numbed you listed as because often the people and they think and I think actually you said this a little bit in your book that you think it's a well the the electron has has its physical properties like mass charge and spin and it also has these countries properties anew rightfully said that to show in in physics these extra the properties of the view right view is mass been in charge of themselves forms of consciousness right so physics tells us what aspin a judge do but it doesn't tell us what they are what does what does properties are on so since radically non-journalistic realistic account and by the way it's set up it's going to be completely consistent with what we've what we know scientifically how would I sell it let me just I say can I say just briefly how I think about the signs of consciousness actually could you could you do me a favor and tell the very charming story that you told in the book of your conversion experience I don't know my wife told me to take that out because he thought cringing no asks S. who it's part of being a good sales pitch you don't have to tell if you want to win through various phases of always always been obsessed by the consciousness as far back as I can remember and you know what I thought I was materialists material yeah how can claim to know what it's like to be material I eventually came to the point of view that somewhat dementia in point of view if materialised you you incompatible with the reality of the qualitative consciousness defended that for a while whilst feeling like I was living in bad faith that I was was sort of not really believing and yeah just just one night didn't just send vivid experiences got to May and just decided this can't go on anymore but I a at that point I was told as fluffy undergraduate the only two options materialism activities in Judaism and I thought hopeless and I was very disillusioned a rope undergraduate dissertation on how the problem of consciousness copy the results that I went out and did something else and then I disc- Pun Psych Ism was not told discovered there is this elegant middle way that does accept reality consciousness but it's completely consistent with our empirical knowledge of the world so I think that was the say something like mass charging spin are properties of consciousness is that is that no they are they all forms subconsciousness forms of consciousness? Okay I mean what I want to say is what in the world does that mean well I think I think nothing is.

"philip goff" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

12:40 min | 1 year ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

"Learns something new she loves what it's like to seek color one problem with this is so that's the story and people because the story some simple I think people are too quick quick to think they've got the argument but so he's the argument the knowledge argument that's based on this story the thought is if if materialism is true then in principle neuroscience ought to be able to give us a complete story of the essential nature of color experience very it's a complete account of what's going on Mary by stipulation knows that so there ought to be nothing more she can learn about the nature of color experience right she knows it all as the analogy I give him a book is you know if you've got the complete final Syria black holes right you you ought to be able to it ought to be the case that you can't learn anything new any new essential features of black holes because you've got the complete violent there so ought to be materialism is true there's nothing Komo Latin American line and yet when she comes out of a room she does gain some new information about the essential nature of experience she lends what it's like to see color in this is information that couldn't be got from from the neuroscience and so in so in some sense the neuro scientific account must have been incomplete because this information about color experience that goes beyond what the neuroscience resigns can provide and then so just to link it back to what I've been talking about a lot already what is that information what did she she learns about the qualitative character the colors the retinas experience that's what I- congenitally blind neuroscientists no matter how much neuroscience they learned will napa know about so there's there's information that goes beyond neuroscience can capture just a bit long winded no this is good so here's what I would say about that I mean let me I have a long thing to say short thing if Mary knows everything about the neuroscience of color that is to say what exactly happens in the human brain when human being looks at something that is read a clearly that is different from experiencing red argues with that right and so the analogy analogy to me is if I give you all the laws of Particle Physics and atomic physics and gravity and so forth and you know them and you have the equations in front of you say okay tell me about the life cycle of star well that's in principle you could figure it out in practice there's enormous amount of work to do in principle tipple Mary could say okay all I need to do is to have my neurons fire in the following way which are the ways that they fire if I were seeing red so I will myself up to the correct electro stimulator machine and I will make those neurons fire in the right way and I will experience experience of red and I don't see anything in there that gets the way being a materialist production if you learning theory of black holes so yeah look I completely agree I think this is I think there's a little bit of people say always think the argument is about I've heard about the change in Mary you know the Oh how come she can she knows all the sites how come she con experience read that's that's not the argument of course of course you know the materialism materialist I does not have to deal that's not a problem in materialist but notice analogy right to know the relevant facts about black holes tells you you picked a complicated example themselves to know all the facts about black holes you don't have to become a black hole it's it it ought to be the case that you know everything there is to know about color experience from the neuroscience and terrorism strip not saying you ought to be subtext colors no that's not the point you ought to be able to know all the facts from the neuroscience and you've just conceded that you can't do see that you have to she has to have changes in an urines why why does she have to do that at materialism is true if materialism is true all the information should be them in the neuroscience lights and she's got it you don't have to tiny stuff into a black hole to learn the theory black holes why do you have to make changes to your brain to know the full theory of what color experience is yeah I mean I think it's because you set up the question a certain way like do you need to be a black hole to know what what is like to be a black hole and of course the difference which which I which I completely agree with is that black holes don't have self awareness or or I thought or anything like that so you can argue there isn't anything the disliked to be a black hole I can see that there is something it is like to be a person but that's because we have the capacity to hold in our brains representations of ourselves and attitudes towards things and therefore it's I thought I would say that's not a very good analogy there is something that that is different even if you're a materialist does information Mary Ann Black and white room do you think there's information about the nature of color experience she doesn't have in principle no but right but that is different to know a bunch of facts about neuroscience and to experience something I just from knowing those facts about neuroscience you can experience something without actually experiencing it you can make your brain do the things that it would do if you were experiencing it and that would be the same as actually experiencing because all that's happening is things that are happening in your neurons something that's two different things going on here one is a question of complexity that the principal question on that was your your life cycle of a star what was it the light of the stall and this is something often presses and I think it's a little bit of a red herring I it's maybe an unfortunate consider the way Jackson set up the thought experiment each you know she knows everything physical you know every quark every but I don't think you need to set it up like like that presumably you know the future newer scientific theories is going to be you know a natural extension of what we have today so I I don't I think it's an implausible to thank a normal human being could know that so I don't think I think we can set on one side these worries about in principle knowing the point is as you except to the some information here that you have to make changes to your brain to get that what information and I'm suggesting it metabolism is true that's weird why would you have to make changes to your brain to to get the information so we're all let me put it we're all agreeing that you have to make changes to have the experience but as far as the Mike why shop the experience to get the information the that doesn't seem even a little bit surprising to me like I could tell you in gruesome detail the correct way to shoot a free throw in basketball and you can sit at your desk and you can study everything there is to know about shooting free and if you've never shot a free throw before your duck of very good at it because the way that we learn thing is in our ears and recording information is just different than our how our body reacts to these things okay it surprising as materialist okay good good now presenting I think is what's known as the ability hypothesis response right which is which originally by what's his name memory was but his was defended by David Lewis sues quite a bit figured generally so so anyway the the view is here so I keep trying to press on new information does inflammation Mary can't get in Blah but what what Lewis says is a number of she knows she doesn't get new information she gains know-how new abilities that's what she loves she lands how to imagine red categorize things red red and so on so she gains you know how now that that would that's a perfectly good response because then yeah neuroscience gives you the information She just gained some new abilities that that that's not a problem materialism okay so I think there are a couple of problem to this response Do you WANNA technical intuitive will give us both whatever you want I'll let you decide technicals fine we're not where we have an hour long here you know funny time technical one and is it seems you can put these sentences about what it's like to see red into deductive syllogisms so you could save American site this is what it's like to see rather than this is what it's like billy to see read this is what it's like community the Ford is what it's like for Billy to see red too there's a valid truth preserving argument but not forget whether the premises true false but it seems that seems to show that the what its likeness sentences I'll truth claims and the problem of the ability hypothesis is it doesn't have any account of that it just talks talks about abilities but abilities are not the same as truth claims so that's the sort of this is actually I mean maybe maybe it'd be helpful helpful to talk a little bit about Intrinsic Nature which I mentioned before and you talk about in the book because I think this is the fundamental underlying issue that we have that you you know Galileo and I have with intense like the idea that La on my side well you know invading errors Are you gotta live in it. I'll stop interrupting I think yeah so well why why don't use I I shouldn't put words in your mouth why don't you tell us what you mean by the idea the physics doesn't tell a physics tells us what things do but it doesn't tell about trends intrinsic nature and this is also it goes back to Bertrand Russell right and I I actually learned from your book that Russell was one of the one of the big big names in pens like ism I didn't know that yeah well actually Russell put in some of the Butler didn't quite have upon psych interpretation tation of it but didn't quite I it's as close as dumb just because he had some fully terminological issues but anyway yeah so I think actually should he there's been a real resurgence of interest in pawn psych is in an academic philosophy in the last eight to ten years it's gone from being laughed at Insofar as sort of a toll to being taken quite seriously and I think this is largely due to the rediscovery of this work input Mike in the nineteen twenties by author Eddington scientists than veteran Russell so I'm inclined to these guys did in the nineteen twenties for the science the consciousness what Darwin did signs of life in the legends engine it's sort of a tragedy of history that it got kind of forgotten about an okay so the the starting point is as you were just alluding to that physics tells us a lot less than you might think about the nature of physical reality so in the public mind physics giving us this complete story of the nature of space time and matter but what Russell and Eddington realizes that upon reflection it turns out that physical sciences confined telling us about the behavior of matter about what does that physics tokes about mass and charge you know we characterize mass intensive gravitatational attraction resistance to acceleration Asian charges attraction repulsion they sold concerns.

"philip goff" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

02:51 min | 1 year ago

"philip goff" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

"How the brain gene looks at the world and figures out what is where and how to respond to it but the hard problem of consciousness what makes us who we are how we experience the world what is like to be us that inner subjective first person view that we have a reality now if you've been following me for a while you know that I'm a naturalist sure list I mean physical list in fact which means I think the world is made of stuff obeying the laws of physics and that's basically it except when that stuff comes together to form complicated complicated things like human beings there can be new emergent phenomena that arise in consciousness is one of those consciousnesses just an aspect of the collective live action of underlying stuff obeying the laws of physics but you will not be surprised to learn that there are those who disagree and those who disagree need not be hard core four Cartesian duelists they don't necessarily think that there's a disembodied mind that somehow interacts with the body it can also be true that you believe the world is made of physical stuff but the physical stuff has extra properties mental properties and this point of view drives you in the direction of pain Sikhism Sikhism thinking that everything is a little bit conscious it's not just that something new happens when atoms and particles come together to form a brain but there was something that was there era all along and it becomes important noticeable once you get something like an organism or a brain so for today's guest we have Philip Goff who's a professor of philosophy at Durham University in the UK and one of the leading thinkers on Pan Sikhism. He's all for it I'm against it so we have a very nice conversation. Philip is is the author of an academic book called consciousness fundamental reality and also a brand new just published popular level book called Galileo's Error Foundation for new oh science of consciousness so I have fun in the podcast with the idea that I'm on Galileo side and Philip is against Galileo side but basically phillips also pro Galileo he thinks that Galileo Leo made a mistake in overly matthew touching the world that we live in that there's a qualitative aspect to the world as well as quantitative aspect so so you can listen to what we say back and forth about both sides of this mostly as usual again phillip chance to give his sales pitch for his side but you can tell where my sympathies lie remember that if you want to support the podcast you can go to the web page preposterous universe dot com slash podcast there you can find transcripts very episodes and audio Jio player in show notes links to the person we're talking about their twitter bio and so forth you can also find a patron link so if you support on Patriots on you get the podcast cast without any ads and you also get a monthly ask me anything episode and of course you can go to apple or itunes Lee reviews for the podcast we always like that and with that let's go.