NOUS The Podcast
SUBSCRIBE on Google Podcasts here: https://goo.gl/i2Br9T
SUBSCRIBE to on Apple Podcasts here: https://apple.co/2AxGPXB
Panpsychism can seem like a bonkers theory of consciousness, but according to Philip Goff and a growing chorus of leading thinkers – from philosophers to neuroscientists – it might just be right…
In this episode we discuss why Philip rates panpsychism as ‘the worst solution to the problem of consciousness – apart from all the others.’
We explore his dramatic claim that Bertrand Russell and Arthur Eddington did for consciousness science what Darwin did for the science of life, how ‘Galileo’s Error’ made it impossible for science to ever fully explain the experience of seeing a rose, and why the taste of Marmite can never be satisfactorily explained by neuroscience.
We also cover why physics can never tell us about the intrinsic nature of stuff – just how it behaves. And Philip shares his proudest moment in philosophy – when he persuaded Daniel Dennett he was wrong…
Philip Goff’s website can be found here www.philipgoffphilosophy.com his Blog is here – www.conscienceandconsciousness and he is on Twitter @philip_goff.
His forthcoming book is Galileo’s Error: A New Science of Consciousness, August 2019, published by Rider in UK, Pantheon in US
Source
According to these two, dualism states that consciousness interacts with the human brain yet is not a part of the physical world and that that is implausible. Yet that’s literally what’s happening as we speak. We have consciousness yet it does not register on any brain scans. Do they not realise this?
You’re never gonna find consciousness through neuroscience!
Someone needs to study the differences between different types of brains to see if the ones who seem to have the most consciousness are different from those that seem to have the least.
Philip Goff’s views are similar to Robert Lanza’s Biocentrism. Very fascinating
Suppose we had empirical proof that panpsychism were true, that the universe is in fact fundamentally an experiencing thing, how would we square that with our basic ideas about the meaning of existence? At least part of what is at stake in these philosophical debates is the aesthetic foundation for our general philosophy of the meaning of life. I think the question of spiritual health is very interesting, Goff implies that panpsychism would be better for our spiritual health, but I’d like to see this debated properly. I always feel like this is debated secretly behind physicalist vs panpsychist debates, and often seems implicit, or within the biases of the philosophers arguing it, and is also what makes the issue heated, and emotional. L Physicalism, I think, remains very successful because it already squares with our more secular cosmological aesthetic preferences, that the universe is basically meaningless, or that meaning is a human production.
Atheistic Autism intensifies
Consciousness alone is fundamental to reality, not the universe alongside consciousness with parts prior to the whole. The whole is prior to its parts and thus a single mind subsumes the universe with metaphysical explanation dangling downward from this one mind.