Coleman, you consistently have the most fascinating interviews.

Hi Coleman. Recently discovered your body of work online and thought I would spend a couple minutes to thank you for sharing it with the world. Besides the clear talent you have in expressing and arguing your views, the intelectual honesty you clearly aim to maintain in every conversation is something the world desperately needs more of. So thanks again 🙏

Another good guest for this topic is John Vervaeke. Please get him on your show. He has made good progress with defining modern terminology that makes intelligible many ancient intuitions regarding consciousness, spirituality, and metaphysics.

I had an interesting experience recently. My wife had what the EMT called a complex focal seizure. Anyone who didn’t know her might not have noticed a problem at all. She walked back into the food line after we had already checked out. I couldn’t tell what was happening till she came through and looked right through me. I grabbed her shoulders and asked her what she was doing. She couldn’t respond. That’s when I recognized that she was on what I would describe as “autopilot”. Most of her brain was functioning. Plenty enough to move around and react instinctively. But she wasn’t conscious for any of it. Wherever consciousness lives, it was in that part of her brain that was glitching. She came around after about 10 minutes and started repeating words as though her conscious mind was slowly coming back online. That’s how she described it too. Like emerging from darkness. It only solidified my belief that consciousness is a brain phenomenon.

@jordane5150

8 ай бұрын

I guess the only thing I'd say is, if a TV glitched and the screen became distorted or staticky, you wouldn't assume there was an absence of a signal, you'd assume there was a problem with the receiver. Can't say I have strong opinions one way or another because it seems ultimately you can draw two completely different conclusions from the same body of evidence and there's no proving either.

@terrymcgee7361

8 ай бұрын

@@jordane5150 I completely agree that it isn’t evidence of either assumption. There is only a “hard problem” if you assume that there is more happening than is observable. Or that the observable is insufficient to explain consciousness. I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Ignorance is the more likely explanation. What we don’t understand is always vastly more than what we do understand. Any assumptions we interject amount to the spiritualists version of a “god of the gaps” argument. We can’t explain it…so there must be something other than the brain creating consciousness. I think it’s shortsighted speculation. Or wishful thinking. But I’m willing to have my mind changed by verifiable evidence. Maybe some day we will have some.

@jordane5150

8 ай бұрын

​@@terrymcgee7361 "Or that the observable is insufficient to explain consciousness. I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Ignorance is the more likely explanation." Well, as the good philosopher argues, there is nothing in what we have observed that explains the fundamentals of consciousness itself. Chemical reactions don't explain the simulation of a self. Your claim of ignorance is entirely faith-based - it rests on the assumption that, while science has yet to explain consciousness (specifically, in material terms), one day, magically, it will. This is no different from a supernaturalist explanation of consciousness. "Any assumptions we interject amount to the spiritualists version of a “god of the gaps” argument. We can’t explain it…so there must be something other than the brain creating consciousness." But your argument is just "science of the gaps". We can't explain it... but that's just because science is insufficiently advanced! One day, science WILL explain it, because consciousness is a purely material phenomenon!" If the soul WAS a spiritual phenomenon, there's no burden of proof which you would accept. You would always assume an underlying materialist explanation for whatever manifestations of the spirit you happened to see. You could in fact extrapolate from every manifestation of spirit - even down to a bonafide miracle - a materialist explanation, encompassing mass hysteria/ hallucination/ psychosis etc. The assumption from which you proceed is always that consciousness is a material phenomenon, that there is no supernatural, and because consciousness can only be meat computing, one day we'll invent something that allows us to prove it. But the point is, there's nothing to prove that we're just meatputers now. Yes, we can see the effect of thoughts and emotions on the brain, but that fails to explain the actual manifestation of consciousness. " We can’t explain it…so there must be something other than the brain creating consciousness." I don't think that's the only argument. Other arguments would be "in the absence of an explanation backed by materialist evidence, the possibility exists that consciousness is a transcendent phenomenon."

I've encountered this idea for decades in my readings on spirituality and eastern philosophy and even in some mystical writings and poetry (like William Blake). The in-depth reading I've done makes sense to me on a spiritual level... ...but I don't envy anyone trying to discuss this on a scientific level.

Also, panpsychism makes more sense by framing matter as a _derivative_ of consciousness, rather than necessarily conscious itself.

@nenirouvelliv

9 ай бұрын

Yes, one can easily imagine matter as a feature of consciousness rather than trying to find consciousness within the chemical interactions of molecules and atoms. Of course, if there was a mathematical model of consciousness and bringing that together with a mathematical model of physics, we could have a synthesis there. But I'm skeptical that consciousness could be reduced to mathematics even. It's somehow even more basal.

@Kimani_White

9 ай бұрын

@@nenirouvelliv I agree that, just like anything else in reality, consciousness cannot be _reduced to_ mathematics. However, it seems reasonable to assume that some features of consciousness may be mathematically _described._

Hi Coleman! Would love for you to get Bernardo Kastrup on the show! He is an analytic idealist which I think you would find fascinating!

@rodblues6832

9 ай бұрын

Yes, or Donald Hoffman.

@jps0117

9 ай бұрын

@@rodblues6832 That would certainly be quite a trio.

@therainman7777

9 ай бұрын

Even though I know he’s not nearly as good a fit for this show, it would be pretty amazing to see Coleman and Rupert Spira having a conversation.

“The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us; it penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.”

Coleman, I am 60 seconds in, and this is already brilliant!

I love Phillip Goff's work. I'd like to have his ear to discuss some of my own discoveries on conscious mechanics. For example, the nature of consciousness is fundamentally connective, balanced, and neutral and exists in varied degrees of awareness/unawareness. The dualistic/dyad (two) nature of consciousness is what emerges out of its monad (one). This dyad has features of negative receiving (first) and positive acting energy (second). For duality to materialise into form, it must obey the universal rule that negative receiving energy ALWAYS precedes positive acting energy. I've found these rules to be true, and they seem to be a solid framework for integrating materialism with greater consciousness theories like panpsychism.

I would love to hear you interview Rupert Sheldrake. Great episode so far.

Stoked you get to use your channel to explore topics you're much more interested in.

A small correction: Descartes died in Stockholm. It was drottning Kristina ( Queen Christina) who made him go so early :).

‘Why’ does it feel like something to be this body? ‘Why’ is there something rather than nothing? Because. Human consciousness is self-obsessed. It has motive and projects intent and purpose onto everything. The ultimate ‘why’ question is a categorical error, imposing a quality of human consciousness onto phenomena without intent or purpose.

Pain, etc, make it real. Happiness, joy, and sadness give us an inner experience that allows for the words of having a soul life. All together is brings the extra postilation os a spirit life. Computers don't have any of this yet.

great episode!

Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS

At about minute 14:14 of the video Mr. Goff asserts that Galileo appreciated that “you can’t capture the qualities we encounter in our experience in the purely qualitative language of mathematics…in an equation”. Mr. Goff obviously appreciates that this is the case. And if it is in fact the case, then regardless of to what degree humanity enables Artificial Intelligence with the “purely qualitative language of mathematics”, AI will never be conscious.

30:10 If anybody looked up "David Chamas" or "David Shamas" like I did, I think he's actually saying "David Chalmers." I'd include a link to the David Chalmers interview with Coleman, but youtube (for some odd reason) doesn't let me post websites. Does anybody know WHY youtube doesn't let us include websites in its comments/replies anymore? It seems like a bed business decision to not let people post youtube's OWN websites.

Panpsychism assumes that consciousness is a fundamental property of the Universe. This rises a question: are these elementary building blocks of consciousness obeying even more fundamental laws of the Universe, or they are forming the laws?

@Coleman, love, you've a typo in your "Click link" footer.

I'm skeptical of Panpsychism, but I like Phillip Goff. Also I just got Anil Seth's book. Coleman did a great job with this episode.

We are a product of nature and community that like a radio have all these channels going through us be osmosis from direct and by the zeitgeist that permutates within us. Just like a radio, it can get damaged and there by more static on our reception as well as cut us off of many available channels

At about minute 1:07:50 Mr. Goff mentions that all we really know about matter is what it does, that if has mass and that it has a charge, and therefore that matter does certain things. I waited for him to equate mass with physicalism and charge with consciousness, but he never did.

I’m a bit stunned that Philip didn’t use the word “energy” in his explanation of panpsychism and why it’s preferable to materialism and dualism. Doesn’t physics reveal that matter consists of various formations of energy, each interrelated unit of which conveys information in the form of mathematical equations, all of which suggests consciousness?

Did you know he has a new book…

The pansychism approach to doing a shot of whiskey? "Most people permit the drink to drink them: They allow their conscious minds to be overcome by all the little yeast cells crushed after the fermentation process is completed. Yeast cells undergo such agony during the crushing operations that a great current of Tamas is created by their unvoiced screams in the resultant alcohol. When I want to drink I always allow a drop of the drink to fall on the ground before I begin, as an offering to Mother Earth. I am asking Her to redeem all the wretched little yeast cells. When She does, each cell becomes filled with the transcendental wisdom and blessing of the Mother, and by my consuming them, I do too!" Aghora, At The Left Hand of God

Consciousness is like beauty, pain, happiness, fear, kindness, evil, anger, envy, greed, sloth. It's in the eye of the beholder and all are free unless they are imposed on your by others. There are brains without consciousness, and no consciousness without a brain.

That intro music and grey filter. Is Phillip Goff a sith?

It sounds to me that's this is a rebranding of Animism.

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

How so?

@1DangerMouse1

9 ай бұрын

Yeah, in some ways. He seems to overextend the term consciousness.

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

@@1DangerMouse1 How does he do that? I mean, "overextend" the term 'consciousness'?

@1DangerMouse1

9 ай бұрын

​@@Corteumhe brings in things like meaning and cognition with consciousness. If consciousness is basically what it is like to be something, then that doesn't necessarily have to involve cognition or meaning. He himself even says this about fundamental conscious particles. I just think he seems to change what consciousness means at different times.

@therainman7777

9 ай бұрын

It’s not

His Liverpudlian accent is fun for this discussion.

We don't even have the same range of senses. For example, some fish have many more color detectors in their eyes, and we do let alone sound and smell that many animals have over us.

What about the entire history of art (in the broader sense). Isn't that a body of physical evidence for scientific enquiry?

Should I worry that I am bullying my chair and my table right now by sitting on conscious entities with such lack of care *drops mic*

I think sometimes that the quantum field is the conscious computer.

yes , an interesting man

The first step to deeper understanding of consciousness is to stop calling it consciousness. It's not only because it's an overused word that has become meaningless, but also because it divides two worlds. Are you conscious in your dreams? No, but you feel like you are. In fact, you feel so much like you are that you could argue that you are. But since we have defined sleep as unconsciousness, consciousness literally can't tell you what we're talking about here. Jung already went through all of this. He already explained how dreams are half of reality, and here we are taking great pains to ignore it by defining consciousness as awareness of the external. Stop using it to talk about subjectivity.

@justasimpleguy7211

6 ай бұрын

It's more like understanding what is called consciousness is really mind. There's something else that "knows" waking reality, dream reality, internal reality, external reality. There's something that "knows" mind and *It* also "knows" no-mind. Mandukya and Keena Upanishads do a good job of pointing at *It* and that's all that can be done. Perhaps the most significant roadblock is trying to "understanding" *It* as a thing. *It* is not a thing, nor is *It* nothing. *It* is No Thing.

Physicalist theories of consciousness have been around for decades, if not centuries, and yet it has absolultely nothing to show for it.... No actual theoretical framework that might hint at how to derive conscious subjects from any arrangement of unconscious matter.... No testable predictions (or at least none that have ben teested).... It doesn't even have a definition for consciousness that couches it in purely physical/objective terms while recognizing its subjective qualities / i.e. "what it's like to be x"... It's just a lot of faith and hand-wavy gestures coming from physicalism. lol

@candaniel

9 ай бұрын

Spot on. Materialism / Physicalism, as we know it, is a joke, and has utterly failed at accounting for subjectivity and consciousness. It can only talk about consciousness in ways of correlates, but never account for how unconscious matter, even in principle, could create conscious experience. At this point, proponents of materialism are dogmatically committed to an ideology that is breaking apart. I am wondering what your thoughts are on the best alternative frameworks. Are you a panpsychist yourself, or an idealist?

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

@@candaniel Yes. I'm open to exploring the different theories like Orch OR, Panpsychism, Dualism, and Kastrups Analytic-Idealism for the objective side. But im also interested to explore the subjective side, too, through things like meditation and moment to moment awareness of awareness, using will to stop thought or intensify it...focus it....and using intent, feeling, emotion, thought, imagination and desire to create outer experiences and shape outcomes to my preference...to observe the relationship between the subject and what we percieve as objective/objects/events/experiences (which i also now include thought and emotion - or basically anything that can be perceived as distinct from the observer consciousness). The latter required a shift in appreciation for these facets of consciousness, because i had come to realize that i had simply taken them for granted for much of my life and never fully recognized them for what they are, or never recognized what i am besides just a body or a mind, that i was also perceiving and had a degree of agency. But yes, i realized that theories like physicalism, functionalism, "integrated information" and "process philosophy" (basically physicalism with very slight differneces) have been failing to produce any results. I think they will inevitably die out like the dinosaur and become extinct. lol On the alternatives or other approaches, I think the combination is the best way to proceed - at least for myself... Undestanding objective approaches like Orch OR, Analytic-Idealism, Panpsychiism, but also exploring, testing, experimenting with consciousness directly in my own moment to moment experience, using atteention, will, feeling, the breath, using props (to concentrate on for example), different kinds of meditations (sitting and moving ones), and trying different things like Douglas Harding's "Headlness way", or Advaita's or Kashmir Shaiviism's non-dualist approaches. There are many ways... But let's keep exploring it - objectively and subjectively - and see what comes of it I hope that helps :-) !

So the same guy who came up with Russell's paradox is the one who came up with the totally valid base assumption of panschism ? Why am I not surprised haha.

Does anybody else find it odd that youtube doesn't let people rewind its ads?

@lawrencefrost9063

9 ай бұрын

adblock bro.

Simplistic notions of materialsm utterly fail and can not account for consciousness. Panpsychism and idealism are the only games in town, as far as I am concerned.

@lawrencefrost9063

9 ай бұрын

You should be more concerned about having a better understanding of reality.

@candaniel

9 ай бұрын

@@lawrencefrost9063 That's what I am striving towards and what those alternative ontologies are all about. Not sure what your point is

@kevinpulliam3661

Ай бұрын

The answer is hylomorphism. Idealism can’t predict the success of science and panpsychism doesn’t really explain intentionality of the mind

We can't even say that humans are conscious. It's folly to imagine we can say anything else is conscious, in any sense. Beware Very Smart People using vague terms to be expert in.

Is he from Liverpool? He sounds like The Beatles

I just finished "Galileo's Error" and was disappointed. Goff delves into the nooks and crannies of panpsychism and argues all aspects of various controversies in an extremely fair and rational way - he takes the arguments of philosophical opponents seriously. My complaint is that the book completely ignores the great philosopher who first convinced me of panpsychism 40 years ago. At several points while reading the book, a comparison or contrast with Spinoza's views seemed needed, but was never forthcoming. I particularly would like to know how Spinoza's views differ from Goff's, because Spinoza expresses most of Goff's main ideas, and earlier and more completely than anyone since.

@kevinpulliam3661

Ай бұрын

Makes sense. Most modern philosophy is just repackaged worse version of what people have thought before.

Remember, quantum computers are suspended of having the potential of becoming conscious. Would consciousness mean having a soul?

Barnardo kastrup has interesting ideas .. analytic idealism

@candaniel

9 ай бұрын

Bernardo is great

Haven't listened yet but I suspect this will be a Gaad Saad example of it taking an academic to make stupid ideas sound so good.

@therainman7777

9 ай бұрын

It’s really not stupid. One might say that it’s unimportant, because ultimately whether the universe is material and consciousness arises from it, or whether the universe is consciousness and the material world arises from it, ultimately doesn’t really matter. That’s not my personal view-I think it matters quite a lot. But I could understand someone treating this theory AND the question it’s meant to address as pointless. That said, it’s definitely not “stupid,” in that in experimental and logical terms it’s in exactly equal footing with materialism when it comes to explaining the hard problem of consciousness.

@hooligan9794

9 ай бұрын

​@therainman7777 It's definitely not even close. There certainly is no equal footing with materialism. 100% of all known examples of consciousness all rely on matter to emerge. There is zero examples of consciousness without matter. Loads of example of matter that appears not to concious. Can't do anything about an untestable hypothesis about all matter being concious in some way we can detect. Its not disprovable. All reliable evidence so far points entirely in one direction.

We also say mathematics, not mathematic

Check into morphic fields . The purpose of every thing's creation is for happiness. When a person finds joy in handling a rock, God handles through that person and, the rock, God and the person experience joy in relationship with each other. Attitude is everything along with context. Spiritual consciousness energy body of everything, different orders of relationship.

Can you imagine the horror of being in this guy's classroom?

@EyeOfTheTiger777

9 ай бұрын

Why?

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

What you horrified about? Maybe you're projecting your own self-imagined horrors. I'm not seeing anything horrifying in what he's saying.

Coleman, please interview professor Donald Hoffman. Read a few of his papers, watch a few of his appearances on other podcasts, and then have him on your show. You won’t regret it.

@NDnf84

9 ай бұрын

Extremely overrated weirdo

Closer. We still need Rupert to come on. Rupert Sheldrake takes the ideas of panpschychism much further.

@VaughanMcCue

9 ай бұрын

Silly idea.

@sevenidols607

9 ай бұрын

@@VaughanMcCue why?

@VaughanMcCue

9 ай бұрын

You suggested The Drake's narrative should get more exposure without a reason. It is commendable that C.H. is open to various guests, but crackpot nonsense should be left to obscure KZreads like flat-earthers and religious miracle claimants. If you give two *compelling* arguments that support what he quacks or honks, it could be mind-changing in your own words and not a link to more bluster. It isn't too much to ask because, so far, the ideas proffered appear to be ethereal claptrap supported by exaggerated hand waving and nothing more. Being corrected with evidence is my benchmark if you think I need to be on track to correct my misunderstanding. Thanks for your interest and contribution.

@sevenidols607

9 ай бұрын

@@VaughanMcCue ok. One thing at a time. Why is Rupert a crackpot? On what grounds would Rupert Sheldrake be considered one?

@VaughanMcCue

9 ай бұрын

@@sevenidols607 Thank you for your reply, even though it was another question. One thing at a time sounds great to me. 1. You asked why 2. I gave you my reason. As a mature correspondent, I'd like you to present why you think The Drake should get more exposure, backed up by two bits of evidence; as you will recall, that was my first request. That way, these will evolve as lovely two-way conversations.

To some people, it's anything but God. Yet people say no faith is required for materialism or atheism.

@VaughanMcCue

9 ай бұрын

FSMonster forgives you. You are exempt from the church of materialism if you drive your car and never add gasoline or external energy. I have faith that you are an atheist about Thor or Zeus. Welcome aboard.

I always thought Brits say maths because the root word is mathematicS.

Isn’t the why obvious? It’s easier to self replicate with a bit of consciousness than with none. It’s even easier easier with a lot of consciousness, which clearly we have. We aren’t even fully conscious during our entire natural life span. Even the human brain needs a rest (called sleep... also good for the body hahah.) consciousness is just another weird byproduct of replication. Took hundreds of millions of years of evolution, which is a pretty long time for life. Not so long for physics, but long for life. I have out of body experiences nearly every day where I am astounded to be communicating thinking thoughts nearly as fast as they come. Coleman, eat some shrooms. You won’t be so “amazed” at consciousness anymore, because your perception of time will contract and expand, such that you understand the true powers of the human brain untethered, as they say. Trust I. Conversely, you may emerge even more amazed: in physics.

Don't forget hammer to toe wins any philosophical argument is it real.

Coleman! Can I take you on a date? Haha

Ah panpsychism, when scientists want to be religious without wanting to be Religious. 😂😂

@kevinpulliam3661

Ай бұрын

Yeah gives off spiritual but not religious vibes

The fact that this guy is getting funds and publishing books is worrying. So electrons are conscious (because we say they are), but a chair made of electrons isn't while a human is (and we can't explain why one is and the other isn't). I mean, seriously? And to round it all up, we can explain physics from consciousness: what does it even mean?

@lawrencefrost9063

9 ай бұрын

Well i'm glad I wasn't the only one in the comments asking these questions. This is bogus stuff. It's beyond idiotic.

Coleman is following the principle of allowing the other side of the argument to be listened to --- perhaps to a fault. In the 1st 30 seconds this guy seemed pretty stupid to me. Oh well, he has a right to his opinion -- but not my respect. 😆

@randygault4564

9 ай бұрын

Maybe your time though. Perhaps he gets better... Nobody can be smart all the time.

AI will either demonstrate that a being with human characteristics need not have consciousness, or that consciousness indeed is a product of neurons arranged and connected in a particular way. It's coming.

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

_"a being with human characteristics need not have consciousness"_ That wouldnt explain why we're having a subjective first person conscious experience or how it arises. _"or that consciousness indeed is a product of neurons arranged and connected in a particular way"_ If consciousness is a product of neurons, then why isn't there a theory for that with testable predictions? why isnt' there a theory on how we might be able to derive subjects from some arrangement of objects? How does subjectivity "emerge" from objects like atoms, molcules, or brains? Is it like how music "emerges" from a speaker? or how sound emerges from a radio set? Or maybe consciousness is fundamental and everywhere, as many meditative traditions around the world have asserted for millenia.

Take one step further into Hindu non-dualism.

Coleman, whatever workshop you attend that advised hand gestures is wrong, stop it.

I stopped at "consciousness is not a publicly observable phenomenon" knowing he said just a few minutes earlier that he knew various brain waves were provably associated with certain aspects of consciousness. You can't have both.

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

There's no contradiction in what he said. Brainwaves, or measurements of brain activity (i.e. via EEG, fMRI, CAT, PET, etc), are not direct observations of consciousness... they are correlates of consciousness.. Just as behavior is not a direct observation of thought, emotion, or intent.... It's a correlate of thought, emotion, or intent.

@therainman7777

9 ай бұрын

I’ve noticed that people who boast of how quickly they stopped listening to another person speak, as you just did, often have a very poor understanding of what is being discussed. I wonder why that could be…🤔 As @Corteum already pointed out, there is zero contradiction in what he said. Therefore, yes, he absolutely can “have both.” You just didn’t correctly understand what was being said.

@LiveWorkWander

9 ай бұрын

@corteum Nailed it.

The essential world is the foundation of substantiation Divine Principle 1954 a revelation received by Rev Moon

Now that I understand this theory, it is clearly absolute nonsense. Consciousness is not a mystery the hard problem is an illusion, there is no mystery there. So many smart people are so confused.

@ShreemanPutin

Ай бұрын

No just you are not thinking about things deeply.

This is the most frustrating conversation I've seen on your show. Your guest didn't even come close to actually explaining panpsychism until the podcast was almost over; even then, his explanation was lame.

Notions like "qualia" and "phenomenal state" don't even mean anything, and the hard problem of consciousness is just a pseudoproblem that emerged out of the bad methods of contemporary analytic philosophy.

@kevinpulliam3661

Ай бұрын

Well panpsychism has been a position people have advocated for for thousands of years so it predates analytic philosophy but I get what you’re saying about the dubiousness of qualia however is a modern idea that only took hold because of the Cartesian version of matter stripped it of all the non-quantitative aspects and located it in the mind. This modern redefinition of matter is what is at issue and what Goff writes about

no, rocks don't have consciousness when they don't have a brain

@GrimrDirge

9 ай бұрын

Neither do any of the elements that form your brain

@GrimrDirge

9 ай бұрын

The problem is that I can neither believe the claims of panpsychism, nor shake them. I cannot prove or dismiss the idea. It's a real headache.

@jackdillon5903

9 ай бұрын

Where is YOUR consciousness? If in your brain then where? Left hemisphere, right hemisphere, both or neither? I ask those questions based off of observations on the split brain phenomenon with people who had their corpus collosum severed and their hemispheres seemed to act independent of one another. Interesting to read.

@tinymutantsquid

9 ай бұрын

@@GrimrDirge I'm struggling to see what you find compelling about your response. Can your brain do nothing because nothing it does can be accomplished alone by any of elements from which it was formed? Or if your argument is that we don't know what or where consciousness is (so just maybe it's in a rock), then how can you claim none of the elements of your brain contain it?

@EyeOfTheTiger777

9 ай бұрын

​@@tinymutantsquidWhy wouldn't rocks have consciousness? Because they don't walk and talk?

I have no idea what Goff is talking about. And by the sound of it I’m pretty sure he doesn’t either. Panpsychism explains absolutely nothing, and there is not a shred of evidence that it’s true. And Goff didn’t supply any means by which it could be tested.

What is this.?It’s a little too Sam Harrisy for my taste.

@michaelreid4719

9 ай бұрын

When Sam brought up Chalmers to Thomas Metzinger, Metzinger replied, "Oh, that's so boring." Kinda the way I feel about this guy -- couldn't endure the whole podcast.

@EyeOfTheTiger777

9 ай бұрын

You're both more boring than the guest.

@crazierthan-u7571

9 ай бұрын

That's an insult to Sam Harris.

@michaelreid4719

9 ай бұрын

@@crazierthan-u7571 Yes!...it is --- and Chalmers, too.

By far the most mediocre philosopher I have heard on the topic. And, at the end of the day, not fully understanding a phenomenon is not an excuse for selecting the stupidest explanation.

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

Maybe you need to listen to Bernnado Kastrup or Stuart Hameroff, then. See if you can dispute their arguments.

@jps0117

9 ай бұрын

Agreed. My favorite is Anil Seth.

@hooligan9794

9 ай бұрын

​@@CorteumDo they make actual positive argument or do they just do what this guy is doing which is to just say "Panpsychism might be true because science can't explain comciousness" Hard to see any good reason to give the notion any more attention.

@Corteum

9 ай бұрын

@@hooligan9794 You got it backwards again. It's not that science can't explain consciousness. It's that physicalism failed to explain consciousness, even given t he amount of time that hypothesis has existed for. You'd have thought by now with that amount of time that physicalism would have come up with something to substantiate its claims about consciousnesss. But 'No'. Instead, it has absolutely nothing to show for --- No definition for consciousness that would couch it in purely physicalist terms (without overlooking or denying its subjective qualities). No theoretical framework that would account for how subjects could possibly be derived from complex arrangements of objects. And no testable predictions, either. And it's because of that that many scientists have turned away from it. Because it's offering nothing. Zero.

@hooligan9794

9 ай бұрын

@Corteum I was unaware there was some kind of clock running. There is tons we still don't understand in physics. I suppose we just have to throw in the towel. Panpsychism explains nothing. It doesn't tell us anything more about subjectivity that materialism. You also seem to be demanding a kind of definition and explanation that doesn't exist for anything. Take energy for example. What is it? The ability to do work. Not much of an explanation. I don't think the kind of definition you want even can exist. You sound like you really want to believe in panpsychism for some reason. Zero, zip, Nada, Bupkis evidence for it but apparently thats OK because science can't explain it and the imaginary time limit is up. Every single scrap of evidence we have suggests that consciousness requires physical brains to exist. That alone puts panpsychism on dodgy ground.

pseudo science jumk