Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast. 0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions: - InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex and use code Lex25 to get 25% off - Grammarly: grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium - Indeed: indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit - Magic Spoon: magicspoon.com/lex and use code LEX to get $5 off - BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off 1:14 - Conscious matter 34:40 - Death, mystical experiences and collective consciousness 45:04 - The authority of expertise 1:06:00 - Panpsychism and physics 1:34:45 - Suffering, zombies and illusion 2:07:31 - JRE podcast recap 2:19:07 - Free will 2:36:46 - Are we living in a simulation? 2:40:37 - Meaning of life
@Lex Fridman - How about getting Leo Gura on the podcast? He is of Russian stock but was raised in the US. I think you would push him down pathways he needs to go down. It is fine to make videos in isolation but when in front of somebody who is pressing us, we are taken into new territory. Just a thought ;)
These discussions have saved so many sleepless nights for me. And taught me alot🙂 I just put it on and drift away. The next day, I use the timestamps to find where I fell asleep and listen to the rest. Some episodes I've heard many times. Like the one with David Fravor, Joshua Bach, Michael Malice, Andrew Hubert and more. Thank you Lex for putting these videos up for free, without ads or long sponsor-reads. I haven't tried patreon yet, but you will be the one I sign up for first! Much love from Sweden!❤❤
LEX PLEASE GET BERNARDO KASTRUP ON! If you’re willing to speak with Goff on these topics then Kastrup’s analytic idealism really should be explored on the podcast.
Haha, came to comment to say the same thing. This would be such a great conversation, because Brandon is one of the most "agenda-free" thinkers I've ever seen. He lays out his views, but doesn't seem like he is religious about it or like he needs to convince the other person to them.
This one is way better than Rogan's episode with Goff. Joe couldn't get past the incredulous stare whereas Lex was able to go deeper and ask really illuminating questions. Goff is a very good philosopher of mind and such an interesting cat!
"Love always ends in tragedy... Someone dies or..." That is beyond Shakespeare and ultimately true to the human experience. I have never heard any words written or spoken better to explain human love. Kudos to your brilliance, Lex.
Consciousness - is being *aware* of both your internal and external stimuli. Internal stimuli examples - feeling hungry, tired, excited, or passionate. External stimuli examples - sounds, the temperature, petting a pup, watching a beautiful sunset. That’s how I define consciousness.
‘Everything is conscious’: Panpsychism 162 Panpsychism is somewhat similar to property dualism, which asserts that one substance exists (physical substance), but contains two properties (physical and non-physical or subjective conscious properties). Panpsychism asserts that matter contains a form of subjective consciousness. From this perspective, it argues that consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it plays a causal role. Advocates of panpsychism include professors David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Since each component of matter contains consciousness, the brain’s consciousness is just an accumulation of these components of consciousness. One form of panpsychism states that all matter is conscious in the same way humans are. The other form of panpsychism asserts that consciousness contained in matter is in a basic state, also known as protoconsciousness. There are a number of problems with panpsychism. • Firstly, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that matter contains subjective consciousness. Protons, electrons, quarks and atoms do not exhibit any signs of having subjective consciousness.234 • Secondly, this approach fails to provide an adequate metaphysical or physical explanation of how matter contains consciousness. Where did the property of consciousness come from? How does matter contain this subjective conscious property? The panpsychist’s failure to answer these questions undermines any metaphysical and physical explanation. • Thirdly, there are no examples of consciousness existing outside of the subjective experience of a living entity. For instance, what does pain mean without a self or an ‘I’? What does being conscious of a thought mean without someone who is thinking? These questions strongly 163 suggest that consciousness only makes sense with a unified conscious being experiencing an array of subjective states. • Finally, how can a unified conscious experience emerge from many pieces of matter that all contain a form of consciousness? How do individual pieces of matter that contain subjective consciousness manage to add up to a meaningful, unified experience? If our conscious experiences were just a result of many conscious elements contained in the physical parts that make up the brain, our experience would be incoherent, or less unified. Professor Edward Feser comments on the unified meaning of a single conscious experience. He explains that our experiences are not just a summation of many different conscious elements; our experiences have a unified feel. He presents his case using the conscious experience of reading a book: “The experience has a coherent significance or meaning, and significance or meaning for a single subject of experience. You are not only aware of the shape, texture, colors, etc. as separate elements, but are aware of them as a book; and it is you who are aware of them, rather than myriad neural events somehow each being ‘aware’ of one particular aspect of the book.” 235 There is a lot of academic discussion around the approaches I have summarised above. However, the main intention was to briefly introduce these approaches and bring to light some criticisms which undermine their ability to explain subjective consciousness as sufficiently as theism does.
@@dahirhussein1839 There are some good criticisms here, but mostly easy to respond to: I think the private subjectivity of human consciousness can be conceived of in terms of self-enclosing and self-organizing systems, along with the workings of memory, which is crucial to much of what we can say about consciousness as we experience it... there may be no evidence of "consciousness"* outside our own - but this argument points only to our limited access. *Apparently defined ad hoc as something human-like, in these arguments. There's also no evidence of anything substantially different from qualitative experience, so shouldn't we propose, by parsimony, that the substantial nature of things we cannot access is of a kind with the things we can? Now, the combination problem is the most difficult to deal with, imo, as we really have no idea of how we might measure conscious properties or build new conscious experiences out of other, unmeasured building blocks that are presumably wholly unlike our own. These criticisms are why I rather prefer "everything is consciousNESS" to "everything is conscious", i.e. I prefer an idealist view that allows for private points of view and intersubjective consistency, like Bernardo Kastrup's or Donald Hoffman's.
I've said this once before, but thank you for the guests you bring on. They mirror many of the thoughts and ideas that I share that I've been screaming for years now, when no one wants to listen to me or thinks I'm crazy. Hearing you and your guests discuss these topics, makes me feel less alone in this world.
Hey, you might like listening to Terence Mckenna talks. There are many here on TH-cam. He is quite outrageous yet funny and insightful. He was a scholar of many areas such as Art, Antiquity, Human Nature and consciousness. He goes deep into psychedelics and the expansion of the mind for a better world through talking about his experiences and encourages others to take the path of self discovery. He tries to remain neutral on all topics of religion and politics, he is evenly critical of them all. He died in 2000, but his ideas remain relevant today. Have a good one ! 👍
I don't see Philip Goff's podcast linked to this discussion. It's called Mind Chat and is also on TH-cam. I just went down a massive rabbit hole there! It's awesome for anyone who enjoys philosophy. He has some great guests (all philosophers) and they enjoy getting in some good guns blazing arguments, but all in good nature. The Sean Carroll episode and David Chalmers episode were two of my favorites!
Those final words gave me goosebumps, thanks for this podcasts Lex, they're truly unique, definitely some of the meaning of your life is to share this incredible conversations with all us mortals.
If you're interested in consciousness you should really talk to Bernardo Kastrup. He's a computer scientist and philosopher of mind who holds a consciousness-only ontology.
Why not simply have on the show someone from the school of Adviata Vendanta ??!!! Someone like Swamisarvapriyanda?? Hindu texts have absolutely provided comprehensive analysis on consciousness and its essence?! The unpinishads have addressed what Western science is now fascinated about over a 1000 years ago. Check it out!!
@@deedhesi8014 but they refer to there being of a god of consciousness and 4 states of consciousness. the only part i would agree is relevant is wakeful and dream consciousness, the deep sleep and beyond deep sleep is just nonsense?
‘Everything is conscious’: Panpsychism 162 Panpsychism is somewhat similar to property dualism, which asserts that one substance exists (physical substance), but contains two properties (physical and non-physical or subjective conscious properties). Panpsychism asserts that matter contains a form of subjective consciousness. From this perspective, it argues that consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it plays a causal role. Advocates of panpsychism include professors David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Since each component of matter contains consciousness, the brain’s consciousness is just an accumulation of these components of consciousness. One form of panpsychism states that all matter is conscious in the same way humans are. The other form of panpsychism asserts that consciousness contained in matter is in a basic state, also known as protoconsciousness. There are a number of problems with panpsychism. • Firstly, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that matter contains subjective consciousness. Protons, electrons, quarks and atoms do not exhibit any signs of having subjective consciousness.234 • Secondly, this approach fails to provide an adequate metaphysical or physical explanation of how matter contains consciousness. Where did the property of consciousness come from? How does matter contain this subjective conscious property? The panpsychist’s failure to answer these questions undermines any metaphysical and physical explanation. • Thirdly, there are no examples of consciousness existing outside of the subjective experience of a living entity. For instance, what does pain mean without a self or an ‘I’? What does being conscious of a thought mean without someone who is thinking? These questions strongly 163 suggest that consciousness only makes sense with a unified conscious being experiencing an array of subjective states. • Finally, how can a unified conscious experience emerge from many pieces of matter that all contain a form of consciousness? How do individual pieces of matter that contain subjective consciousness manage to add up to a meaningful, unified experience? If our conscious experiences were just a result of many conscious elements contained in the physical parts that make up the brain, our experience would be incoherent, or less unified. Professor Edward Feser comments on the unified meaning of a single conscious experience. He explains that our experiences are not just a summation of many different conscious elements; our experiences have a unified feel. He presents his case using the conscious experience of reading a book: “The experience has a coherent significance or meaning, and significance or meaning for a single subject of experience. You are not only aware of the shape, texture, colors, etc. as separate elements, but are aware of them as a book; and it is you who are aware of them, rather than myriad neural events somehow each being ‘aware’ of one particular aspect of the book.” 235 There is a lot of academic discussion around the approaches I have summarised above. However, the main intention was to briefly introduce these approaches and bring to light some criticisms which undermine their ability to explain subjective consciousness as sufficiently as theism does.
I'll just echo other comments here. PLEASE interview Bernardo Kastrup, Lex. I can't believe that Goff didn't even mention Idealism. Bernardo is leading the charge for modern Idealism and has impressive credentials (a PhD in computing/AI and a PhD in philosophy) and a very formidable mind. I find his arguments far more coherent and persuasive. His ideas are very much in line with Donald Hoffman's work. Don is someone else I'd very much recommend interviewing on this subject.
You can talk about mind/consciousness for hours, feel that it’s very important and interesting. But later understand that you’ve come to no firm conclusions and can’t remember anything concrete from the conversation.
Isn't that any coversation about our existence all our explanations are depended on more explanations we can go on forever and never actually know anything other then that reality exists for as long as we experience it.
It's an interesting theory to defend, but I find it hard to reconcile physics and consciousness without mechanistic language, and I'm not sure he was very compelling, personally.
@@strangeair3917 Nothing deep, only that a minority of us are capable of having such conversations. I read a paper of Chalmers a few years ago and realized that I do not have the ability to build upon the reasoning found therein, to play the philosopher's game. Philosophy of mind is a linguistic tightrope where by nature most men cannot last more than a few steps.
‘Everything is conscious’: Panpsychism 162 Panpsychism is somewhat similar to property dualism, which asserts that one substance exists (physical substance), but contains two properties (physical and non-physical or subjective conscious properties). Panpsychism asserts that matter contains a form of subjective consciousness. From this perspective, it argues that consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it plays a causal role. Advocates of panpsychism include professors David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Since each component of matter contains consciousness, the brain’s consciousness is just an accumulation of these components of consciousness. One form of panpsychism states that all matter is conscious in the same way humans are. The other form of panpsychism asserts that consciousness contained in matter is in a basic state, also known as protoconsciousness. There are a number of problems with panpsychism. • Firstly, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that matter contains subjective consciousness. Protons, electrons, quarks and atoms do not exhibit any signs of having subjective consciousness.234 • Secondly, this approach fails to provide an adequate metaphysical or physical explanation of how matter contains consciousness. Where did the property of consciousness come from? How does matter contain this subjective conscious property? The panpsychist’s failure to answer these questions undermines any metaphysical and physical explanation. • Thirdly, there are no examples of consciousness existing outside of the subjective experience of a living entity. For instance, what does pain mean without a self or an ‘I’? What does being conscious of a thought mean without someone who is thinking? These questions strongly 163 suggest that consciousness only makes sense with a unified conscious being experiencing an array of subjective states. • Finally, how can a unified conscious experience emerge from many pieces of matter that all contain a form of consciousness? How do individual pieces of matter that contain subjective consciousness manage to add up to a meaningful, unified experience? If our conscious experiences were just a result of many conscious elements contained in the physical parts that make up the brain, our experience would be incoherent, or less unified. Professor Edward Feser comments on the unified meaning of a single conscious experience. He explains that our experiences are not just a summation of many different conscious elements; our experiences have a unified feel. He presents his case using the conscious experience of reading a book: “The experience has a coherent significance or meaning, and significance or meaning for a single subject of experience. You are not only aware of the shape, texture, colors, etc. as separate elements, but are aware of them as a book; and it is you who are aware of them, rather than myriad neural events somehow each being ‘aware’ of one particular aspect of the book.” 235 There is a lot of academic discussion around the approaches I have summarised above. However, the main intention was to briefly introduce these approaches and bring to light some criticisms which undermine their ability to explain subjective consciousness as sufficiently as theism does.
Lex, idk how to express my thoughts very well. My brain gets muddled by all the deep thoughts and the routes my thoughts take me. This might sound strange not being able to explain, but listening to this particular podcast about consciousness made me think what an excellent parent you would be.
Alex, I have found out about you through being a fan of Joe Rogan. These days I think I like you even more - your questions are so deeply sincere and human, Alex.
Constructive criticism for the professor: this guy needs to take a year away from academia and talk to regular people about these ideas. Students are forced to care and take notes because of their grades, and just the context of being in class. But this man has a very, very serious problem motivating you to care about these ideas, or seeing their relevance at all. He had the same problem on Joe Rogan's podcast. He needs to come out and say, "This is my theory of the world. And this is how your perception of things would change if you saw the world through my eyes." The best philosophers are very striking in their ability to do this. If you read Plato, you feel very differently about people and things and the world, and what your goals should be. If you read Schopenhauer, same thing. It's not fair to compare this dude to those titans, of course. But he really, REALLY needs to hammer down why any of this is relevant. Because it seems like none of it is really relevant at all. Basically, you go about your life as usual. You just replace what you would colloquially call "life" or whatever, "consciousness." But you could easily also call it, "blahblah-ness."
1) Piaget theory of intelligence 2) Vgtosky mind of society 3) Nietzche- anti-education, thus spoke Zarathustra & beyond good & evil 4) Pragmatism William James 5) Thomas Kuhn- structure of scientific 6) Russell History of Western philosophy 7) Galton 1869 heridatary genius
The more Philip talks, the more he illustrates that he knows just enough to talk about, but not enough to actually understand any of the fields he's talking about
Another corn fried poet if you ask me. Still haven't heard of a consistent definition of consciousness. My cat is aware of it's location, threats, prey, etc... I am aware of having a name, a history, contemplation, etc... We are complicated animals. Once we start assuming some mystical qualities to ourselves, we are very susceptible to all kinds of psychological mistakes and interpretations. Many of which are thoroughly studied and understood. The accusations towards science is one of them that seems irresistible to every guru under the sun. They know it appeals to the public.
@@bryandraughn9830yeah seriously these guys are all bozos who are just making a living because we have an uneducated public And people are desperate for new age religion that gives them a special feeling and makes everything seem magical It's just another drug or high. Or probably partly fed by the fact that so many people are stoned out of their mind The fact is we can clearly see that brain injuries and disease and changes in the brain change a person's complete personality and behavior and sense of self. It is obvious that we are just complex chemistry and that when that chemistry changes our whole sense of self also changes . Further we can see that through science and medicine we can actually cure diseases and return people to the way they were before they had a brain cancer or some other disease This is all obvious evidence that we are biological happenings built on chemistry. We are processes, much more complicated versions of fire. Anyway all these dudes are just charlatan's who are living off the gullible and people's need for entertainment
Whew! What a banquet of ideas! Like looking into a crystal - watching colored lights dancing in the most unexpected ways. Lex, I (with my PhD black belt in tow) found your treatise on being an expert tempts the holder to inflate the ego and lessen further curiosity. As I’ve heard it said, ‘the road to success is constantly under construction’. With deep gratitude for all you do to mine the mind, Cliff Rodman.
My issue with Goff's view is that consciousness is never defined. What is consciousness? If it is a form of experience, how can it be possible without a processing structure (like a brain). What does it mean for an electron to be conscious? Is there a way to verify that it is? I know it's technically impossible to know whether anyone or anything is conscious, but it seems to me like this panpsychism view ends up being completely irrelevant if it can't be demonstrated. It's like "we can't know whether anything is conscious so everything is".
@@thewiseturtle He is cutting edge in consciousness research. Consciousness is one of the deepest subjects there is to get into - one of the most enigmatic. He's really coming with fresh open-minded approaches, and there's a ton to learn about the history of philosophy and science in his work. I've read his book _Galileo's Error_ though, so I'm familiar with his thought....one of my favorite books in the last 10 years. Gives a really great overview of what consciousness researchers are thinking on the cutting edge, and really distills some of the more abstract arguments among philosophers. I found it made me think about the wonder of human conscious experience in entirely new ways. Highly recommend...
Strange. This is probably the most muddled and disappointing discussion of consciousness I’ve heard on this podcast. They seem to talk past each other the whole time and never really drill down to the implications of any of the ideas discussed. Just felt like a miss to me. Maybe his books are better than his conversations.
@@corbinhunter650 I think there's a lot of specialized language in philosophy of mind that it helps to be familiar with, and its hard to discuss the concepts without it (qualia, phenomenology, intentionality, etc.), at least as a philosopher, but I still found a lot of value in this talk. _Galileo's Error_ definitely bridges that gap as its geared for a popular audience, but this dude is definitely used to talking with other philosophers.
@@thewiseturtle I agree that a popular talk like this wouldn't be anything new to someone in the field, but you wouldnt say that Goffs work in phil. of mind is cutting edge? His stuff on constitutive theories, combination problem, phenomenal sharing, etc.? I think just the theory of panpsychism in itself is very new to the wider non-specialist culture for sure. What are you working on? What is your preferred view of consciousness?
@@thewiseturtle firstly, having a preferred view has nothing at all to do with religiosity. One can prefer something due to rational considerations, as well as emotional, spiritual, etc. You also completely ignored my initial response and then just repeated yourself. I actually agree with you in the context of the video and for a specialist audience, and then I point to his publications. Have you read any of Goffs published work? And besides TH-cam, are you actually publishing anything on consciousness, or also just dipping your toe in?
Love the conversations on this podcast Lex, would you ever consider sitting down with Darryl Anka as himself for the first half and then Bashar on the 2nd half of the conversation?
I'm probably not particularly qualified to weigh in on debates about the nature of consciousness, but panpsychism is a bit confusing to me because all components of conscious experience seemingly stem from the brain and nervous system. In my mind, conscious experience consists of things like sensory inputs (sight, smell, etc), emotions, thoughts, and memories. All these things happen in the brain. Brain damage can remove your ability to sense things (e.g. blindness), feel emotions, remember past events, and even have thoughts. Simple anaesthetic drugs can completely eliminate conscious experience without damaging the fundamental matter that composes your body. So it seems that everything that I consciously experience stems from my nervous system. If my brain and nervous system were destroyed, thus removing my ability to sense, feel, think, and remember things, what would be left to experience? There would no subjective experience left, and therefore no consciousness. How, then, are things that lack a nervous system (or something analagous to one) conscious? I also don't totally buy Philip's argument around 1:08:00 that purely quantitative descriptions cannot capture the rich qualities we experience. There are plenty of examples of incredibly rich, complex systems that seem, at first glance, impossible to describe quantitatively, but ultimately turn out to be the emergent results of simple quantitative components. I'm open to other perspectives on this stuff though. Cool interview.
I don't buy it either. I mean, the basis of psychology and cognitive science is literally mechanistic chemistry. It's very well understood that brain structure loss ha precise cognitive effects. That's direct evidence for materialism as he calls it. It's a certain kind of intellectual playtime that's fine and all, but it isn't a scientific approach in any real way.
The brain affects consciousness just like the rest of our external world does, just in a more immediate way. But it is not our awareness. The -awareness- of the senses, brain, memories etc is the phenomenon we haven't begun to figure out. Don't be so quick to trust quantitative components, those components are not objective facts, they are narrative patterns. Keep digging, Goff is great when you get deeper into his consciousness philosophy. but I would also highly recommend Bernardo kastrup, iain mcgilchrist, john vervaeke, and jonathan pageau.
@@zackwhitehead4018 its not direct evidence for materialism. Cognitive effects don't equal consciousness. Brain structure loss effects consciousness but doesnt explain it. But i can say that about many things. The weather also effects consciousness but doesnt explain it. Putting the foundation of consciousness at the level of brain activity is just an arbitrary level of categorisation. Keep digging, there is a wealth of study to be had for free online by many great philosophers of consciousness right now
Just imagine! You are about one heroic dose of LSD, DMT or deep meditation away of knowing what it is like to subjectlivy have the experience of consciousness that does not stem from the central nervous system! Rather it is the sensation of your being is an avatar, rendering, harmonic 5th and focal point of a galactic awareness where the past effects your future just as your futer effects the actions of your past. Maranate on that paradox for 4-6 hours, then another when you remember this all happened due to known chemical compositions produced from your amigdala. DAMN THIS WEED GOOD
@@thewiseturtle Not sure I agree with calling a respected philosopher an average guy in a pub, but that aside I agree his explanation here isn't his best. I watched him say points similar to these before and thought it was ridiculous, but then I watched him be more precise with what he means / his justifications on Sean Carrols podcast. There, even though I don't agree with him, I saw how a rational person could conclude what he thinks. [personal understanding of his point below] - We could describe experience completely empirically, but that description would not convey what it FEELS like to live through that experience. - Our subjective experience is real and not illusory. - Humans aren't special in the universe and we don't have souls. Thus, if we have a real experience that is not captured by science then experience can only exist as the most fundamental part (explaining its immeasurability), and thus everything has some form of experience.
@@thewiseturtle If a community of better informed individuals respects someone generally I will generally ascribe more weight to their opinion than a random with no credibility.
@@thewiseturtle what do you mean by spirituality here? I think he made it clear that the panpsychist view doesn't necessitate any kind of mystical or supernatural thinking.
On a basic level. I think we started as one. Then decided to be individual. To be an individual there needs to be more than one. I really enjoyed this podcast! Always gets me thinking of trips ive had as a youngin. Keep killin it!
Going somewhat beyond the Psychedelic space and into more of a Taoist or a Buddhist one, you may have found as well that there was never a separation in the first place, but rather, we all just took up more space after the expansion of The Big Bang. We are still The Big Bang. Nothing separated from each other. The space in between stars is not 'Nothing-ness'; it's all a part of the same thing!
You'd likely be interested in the Orthodox Christian doctrine of Theosis. Oneness had to become multiplicity in order to express its unifying force. (Love) That is- the universe is the expression of Gods love. Theosis is that Oneness became multiplicity so that multiplicity could again become one. God became man so that man could become God.
It feels like the modern scientific world is discussing consciousness much like the scientific world discussed magnetism before Faraday and Maxwell redefined the topic's basic concepts. Consciousness seems to be merely a property of a system with input(s) and output(s). In engineering school, they teach us that systems have characteristics of (1) continuity, (2) memory, (3) causality, (4) linearity, (5) time variance, (6) stability, and (7) feedback. It seems that a conscious system must at least have (7) feedback. But a conscious system can likely also have other attributes, such as (2) memory and (5) time variance.
@@thewiseturtle exactly. Do you know of a good definition for consciousness? One used by engineers or computer scientists? I can always make up my own, but i'd rather not.
1.Causality: Cause & Effect 2.Interactionalism: Action & Reaction 3.Information: Input & Output 4.Learning: Stimulus & Response All the above are equivalent, inanimate objects can have "experiences", in terms of them
Excellent! You made this a commanding interview, Lex. Very nice. My knee-jerk to "conscious universe" is negative, but Goff is incredibly interesting and his arguments form a provocative pathway.
simple me and me mind thinks: When we end the line of questioning is how and when we define the answers. ? The answers to questions are defined by the questions.? Choose a question from an ocean of human experience and define a limited continuum of answers.? The theoretical basis of most medicine for example supports an entire world of hard bussiness, livelihoods and billion dollar enterprises. So how useful the answers are gives popular success of any idea..... Good, bad, true, false, etc.... ? Lex is an exception to the following comment about so many youthful minds and what is driving the search for understanding of consciousness. He is so beautiful and amazing! I'm feeling tired, old and defeated by the perky muscle of youthful minds and their IN- experience being cyclical and looking redundant from an OLD point of view. Ultimately, sounding old or just stupid, I say it is only LOVE that truly matters at all. This much I know as UN- arguably REAL, timeless and TRUE. Lex Fridman, Thank you always! Wishing Love be with you always! simple me and me mind
One of the most misunderstood philosophers alive, and it is extremely entertaining that he causes so much hostility and misinterpretation due to epistemic limitations from many unable to even comprehend the argument, like Joe Rogan. Even though, Goff explained it so simply, yet the comments were filled with criticisms Goff was convoluting panpsychism, leaving me wondering were they listening and trying to understand? My training in sociology and anthropology can only be charitable and consider cultural beliefs from both the sciences and religion towards consciousness are so embedded that comprehending the radical differences between Dualism, Idealism and Panpsychism are hard to comprehend.
So, panpsychism means "consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality..." "consciousness is the ultimate nature of matter", but wait... then Goff says: conscious doesn't mean conscious. (08:25 "It doesn't literally mean that everything is conscious, ..." despite the meaning of panpsychism. Basically Philip Goff is only saying: "There is something that is the ultimate nature of matter." He calls it consciousness, but he doesn't mean "consciousness" by it. Is this just a witty sales-strategy to sell his books and to publish more articles? What the hell is going on here: I'm a pan-psychist, consciousness is fundamental. but I don't mean consciousness when I say consciousness. Very "rigorous" thinking there, wow. More like a very unscientific play with words and definitions.
The idea is all parts (i.e. fundamental particles) are conscious but not necessarily all wholes (what philosophers call ‘mereological sums’), like tables, trees etc.
Exactly yeah. Why if you want to explain that "stuff" come into existence when there is some interaction or change within or among them, you have to bring the very unfitting word "consciousness" for it. When you can just say what I said, that it's interaction/change of "stuff" that we ultimately don't understand, maybe never fully will. Panpsychism wouldn't even be good in a science fiction novel, because it wouldn't even be consistent within that fictional world - because there is literally no logic to be found in it.
@@iamBlackGambit That may be it! We shouldn't talk too much about animals as we don't know them so well... 🙂 But here's also a key to the big confusion in these discussions/books/theories: There is the mind and it is called consciousness. But being conscious is another thing and probably can't reduced to the functions of the mind. The mind has these contents, Goff and Fridman mention "feelings and experiences" many times, but not so often "thoughts". But thoughts and experiences are contents of the mind and a content is not conscious of another content (feelings are more states of the mind). There is probably another aspect that can really be called "Consciousness" and that is conscious of the contents of the mind.
How do people have time to listen to this? How long is it taking for people to listen to the entire thing? Have you read the main books referenced? Hard to consume 2.5 hrs let alone stop and think about the various points. I guess I need to read the books before jumping in to this.
The strange behaviour of sub atomic particles, the double slit experiment and the connection between “entangled” particles has always seemed to me to be a clue or possible explanation for the intuitive or telepathic connections that so many of us have experienced from time to time with distant loved ones. These particles/ probability waves could easily be experiencing proto conciousness. I find it hard to imagine the dawn of life without a pre existing consciousness. One minute there’s a particular set of ingredients and conditions - the next minute an unconscious living cell has formed which nevertheless can feed itself and do whatever it takes to survive and reproduce, without any motivation other than the coincidental influence of those very particular conditions. Again, where’s the motivation to continue? When conditions change? Life is a battle for a microbe. Without consciousness why adapt? why bother to move?, to recoil from an unpleasant stimulus. Why not return immediately to mud? There is simply no way to explain the behaviour of primal life forms in terms of mere chemical reactions in the primeval soup. Every cell in my body applauds me when I conclude that those first living cells must have been fully stoked to find themselves at last with some real agency and able to focus awareness on the new and intense sensations of being “some of the mud that could now sit up and look around” ( Kurt Vonnegut) Over the mind boggling reaches of time that thread of conscious life has continued an unbroken roller coaster progression. Ever diversifying to fill every niche. Sacrificing the immortality model of simple cell division reproduction for the sex and death model of the more complex creatures. This whole history is known to us at a cellular level. We are the spearhead of the glorious adventure of life on earth, forging the future as we go. So it behoves us to remember that thread that binds all that live and breathe and grow, to the common ancestor and it’s exultant proto conscious driver. For consciousness is eternal and unchanging, and thus drawn to life as the thirsty are to water. This is such a beautiful dance. Thanks Lex and Phil for provoking these thoughts and providing a space to share them..
That was beautifully written. As a layman - none the less passionate about these topics - my intuition of consciousness is as you have so eloquently explained; the way I’ve thought of it is that all matter is energy. Energy IS consciousness at it’s most basic level. Therefore everything is “connected” at a subatomic level. Antimatter is a sort of conduit which communicates with other particles at the subatomic level. We humans influence particles just by observing them and antimatter is the antennae which passes the information; another way to think of this is that we humans don’t just observe reality through sight, sound, taste and touch but also influence it. Why wouldn’t some people be more in tune to this than others? The hair stands up on the back of your neck as you get a feeling of dread when you come in contact with certain people, places or things. You get a feeling or intuition about a situation. 🤔 I know I have. And although the sciences themselves would vehemently oppose my opinion, it seems some scientists are hinting to this phenomenon.
It seems extraordinary that Professor Goff simply equates things like mass, charge, and spin with “consciousness”…and it especially bothers me as someone who studied philosophy and thinks it’s an incredibly important subject to learn (despite instrumentalist types, you can never, ever escape at least some metaphysical and epistemic presuppositions/axioms/primitive notions of whatever your particular worldview is). But it’s also one that MUST take into account feedback from the natural sciences. If you actually do, you realize that early on there is a rapid expansion of space-time, eventually leading to galaxies and stars and planets, one of which ends up producing self-catalyzing molecules that lead to a proto-cell that then leads to all of evolutionary life. Consciousness emerges once sufficiently complex multicellular organisms make an appearance (and this makes PERFECT sense when considered in the context of Darwinian natural selection, those that navigate and understand their own environment better will be more successful). What makes absolutely no sense is then taking the word we have for those complex cognitive processes (which involve memory storage and retrieval, sensory perception, psychological traits like motivation/desire) and shifting its meaning back to basic/fundamental quantifiable properties like mass and charge. That can be considered philosophy, but it’s bad philosophy that flies in the face of the last few centuries of scientific explanation in biology, chemistry, and physics
Yeah, I mean experience and subjectively inhabiting your own mind seem deeply conected to the material that it's made from and its structure. Psychology and medicine depend on a mechanism based in chemistry. I mean, what could a photon outside of time possibly experience? It's all so poorly defined it reeks of woo without even cursory understanding of his theory, and he fails to predict or explain anything at all over a the accepted science. It's all very lofty nonsense hung in a thought experiment.
I understand the gripe, and I know this was 2 years ago, but I just wanted to say that I feel like you and anyone with this objection really just missed the point, and probably haven’t delved too deep into the philosophy of consciousness. You’re approaching it purely from a behavioral perspective. Conscious awareness isn’t actually necessary per your perspective. We could and really SHOULD all be philosophical zombies who just mechanistically react to their environment in increasingly complex ways. Any notion of forethought could simply be boiled down to a contrived reaction off of current patterns. Any and all consciousness or awareness shouldn’t actually exist, and things should just… do their thing. The math should run its course. But I won’t even say that because time itself per the standard model is really not necessary to flow. The universe should just exist as a still, timeless geometry. So why is there consciousness? Why should anything actually be experienced? If contemplating that question does not boggle your mind, you’re still not getting it. But this in essence is the problem. And Goff outlines in the video, he views panpsychicism as the only reasonable explanation that is compatible with our observations. And I’m willing to place money down and say you cannot offer me a better explanation, without pretending there is no issue.
*As the economy crisis keep rising, one needs to have different streams of income, a well detailed diversified investment portfolio in the financial markets is needed to survive, as well as secure a profitable investment future! Wondering if viewers here are familiar with Kimberly's trading strategies*
*You are right, despite the fluctuation trading in Forex and crypto is still profiting if you are using really an expert that will handle and help you trade*
Expert Kimberly has an intellectual strategy that cuts down losses, I have the best investing with the aid of expert Kimberly's trading service, she is very friendly and so easy to get along with in terms of profitable ending
After listening to this I'm headed to bed. Meet me in the dream world. Wear whatever you want. Be whoever you want. Anything is possible and everything is encouraged ;)
I think a necessary part of the conscious experience is agency. So, while it may be inferred that a thermometer experiences cold, because it shrinks in cold weather, it may not be inferred that this thermometer has consciousness, as it had no agency over the matter. It's hard for me to think of a reason for all these conscious experiences such as pain, hunger, thirst, except to motivate me to exercise my agency over the matter. This relates to my view of panpsychism. I agree that consciousness is not simply confined to the brain. I think it's obvious from personal experience that parts of the conscious experience are necessarily contained in one's environment. For example, people read books to expand their consciousness. However, I am hesitant to ascribe consciousness to the entire universe. I'd rather confine it to the part of the universe I personally interact with. I think it makes much more sense to define consciousness as a relationship between an agent and its environment. So, while the guest presents a panpsychism in which a conscious universe produces hyperconscious agents, I think I prefer the panpsychism that is centered around a conscious agent, engaging with an unconscious universe (and other conscious agents, however difficult they may be to recognize empirically).
Falsity: something appearing in the locus of its own absence. The World appearing in consciousness in its own absence. The snake appearing in the locus (rope) of its own absence. A dream appears in the mind but upon walking up you have proof of you in a 4 dimensional world which was unreal!! I the consciousness. I am the universe. I am everything, I am nothing. There is nothing but counciousness. ' not two'. No other. Unbelievable but true. What magnificence. If you inspect it with conviction the error will pop up and reality stand revealed.
Show me the agent? There is only awareness/ consciousness. The clay the teapot made of clay. Give me the teapot without clay? Give me clay without the teapot? Give me anything without consciousness. It all appears in and is made of consciousness
great episode, @lexfridman. In the topics you addressed with Philip, I wonder if it would be worth to have as guest psyquiatrist @DrIainMcGilchrist... what a fascinating subject is the🧠
Study some physics, listen to Sam’s podcast clearly demonstrating the lack of free will (about an hour long here on this platform), and read Behave by Sapolsky (preferably whilst watching his freely available lectures from Stanford) and good luck believing in free will. Until you’ve done those three things, I don’t believe you can argue effectively for free will. You’re still under the illusion. If, however, you take the time to do these three things, it’ll revolutionise your world view in the same way a round earth that wasn’t the centre of the universe once did to our species. You’ll be at the forefront of that realisation and shift which is pretty cool.
Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast.
0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions:
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex and use code Lex25 to get 25% off
- Grammarly: grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium
- Indeed: indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit
- Magic Spoon: magicspoon.com/lex and use code LEX to get $5 off
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off
1:14 - Conscious matter
34:40 - Death, mystical experiences and collective consciousness
45:04 - The authority of expertise
1:06:00 - Panpsychism and physics
1:34:45 - Suffering, zombies and illusion
2:07:31 - JRE podcast recap
2:19:07 - Free will
2:36:46 - Are we living in a simulation?
2:40:37 - Meaning of life
everything in it’s right place, mannnnnn
Lex, have you ever thought about Alexander Bard's Syntheism in terms of AI?
It appears there is an imposter version of you reolying to comnents here, using your photo... see examoles in the comments below.
I love your podcast!!! 💪🏼🙌 Thank you MR. FRIDMAN.
@Lex Fridman - How about getting Leo Gura on the podcast? He is of Russian stock but was raised in the US. I think you would push him down pathways he needs to go down. It is fine to make videos in isolation but when in front of somebody who is pressing us, we are taken into new territory. Just a thought ;)
These discussions have saved so many sleepless nights for me. And taught me alot🙂
I just put it on and drift away. The next day, I use the timestamps to find where I fell asleep and listen to the rest.
Some episodes I've heard many times. Like the one with David Fravor, Joshua Bach, Michael Malice, Andrew Hubert and more.
Thank you Lex for putting these videos up for free, without ads or long sponsor-reads. I haven't tried patreon yet, but you will be the one I sign up for first!
Much love from Sweden!❤❤
I totally agree, sir one lecture. I listened to there was a advisory in the beginning. Do you really wanna listen to this?
LEX PLEASE GET BERNARDO KASTRUP ON! If you’re willing to speak with Goff on these topics then Kastrup’s analytic idealism really should be explored on the podcast.
Yes pls
Agree! Bernardo Kastrup must happen at some point!
Haha, came to comment to say the same thing. This would be such a great conversation, because Brandon is one of the most "agenda-free" thinkers I've ever seen. He lays out his views, but doesn't seem like he is religious about it or like he needs to convince the other person to them.
Agreed!
Also - Donald Hoffman.
I can't believe the quality of conversation you are cranking out every time! Thanks Lex!
Philip Goff, one of the heroes helping to transform the current paradigm of science!
This one is way better than Rogan's episode with Goff. Joe couldn't get past the incredulous stare whereas Lex was able to go deeper and ask really illuminating questions. Goff is a very good philosopher of mind and such an interesting cat!
It’s incredible how lucky we are to listen to such great conversations. Thank you lex !
"Love always ends in tragedy... Someone dies or..."
That is beyond Shakespeare and ultimately true to the human experience. I have never heard any words written or spoken better to explain human love. Kudos to your brilliance, Lex.
Consciousness - is being *aware* of both your internal and external stimuli. Internal stimuli examples - feeling hungry, tired, excited, or passionate. External stimuli examples - sounds, the temperature, petting a pup, watching a beautiful sunset.
That’s how I define consciousness.
How did I miss this amazing podcast?! I’m a huge Philip Goff Stan. Great conversation gentlemen.
Thanks!
Loving the evolution of the podcast Lex. Keep experimenting and find your way
You give the talks to everyone who has checked into your personal Hilbert Hotel. 😉
Yeah I like the new intro with highlights of what's to come in the conversation
‘Everything is conscious’: Panpsychism
162
Panpsychism is somewhat similar to property dualism, which asserts
that one substance exists (physical substance), but contains two
properties (physical and non-physical or subjective conscious
properties). Panpsychism asserts that matter contains a form of
subjective consciousness. From this perspective, it argues that
consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it plays a
causal role. Advocates of panpsychism include professors David
Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Since each component of matter
contains consciousness, the brain’s consciousness is just an
accumulation of these components of consciousness. One form of
panpsychism states that all matter is conscious in the same way
humans are. The other form of panpsychism asserts that consciousness
contained in matter is in a basic state, also known as
protoconsciousness.
There are a number of problems with panpsychism.
• Firstly, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that
matter contains subjective consciousness. Protons,
electrons, quarks and atoms do not exhibit any signs of
having subjective consciousness.234
• Secondly, this approach fails to provide an adequate
metaphysical or physical explanation of how matter
contains consciousness. Where did the property of
consciousness come from? How does matter contain this
subjective conscious property? The panpsychist’s failure
to answer these questions undermines any metaphysical
and physical explanation.
• Thirdly, there are no examples of consciousness existing
outside of the subjective experience of a living entity. For
instance, what does pain mean without a self or an ‘I’?
What does being conscious of a thought mean without
someone who is thinking? These questions strongly
163
suggest that consciousness only makes sense with a
unified conscious being experiencing an array of
subjective states.
• Finally, how can a unified conscious experience emerge
from many pieces of matter that all contain a form of
consciousness? How do individual pieces of matter that
contain subjective consciousness manage to add up to a
meaningful, unified experience? If our conscious
experiences were just a result of many conscious elements
contained in the physical parts that make up the brain, our
experience would be incoherent, or less unified. Professor
Edward Feser comments on the unified meaning of a
single conscious experience. He explains that our
experiences are not just a summation of many different
conscious elements; our experiences have a unified feel.
He presents his case using the conscious experience of
reading a book:
“The experience has a coherent significance or meaning, and
significance or meaning for a single subject of experience. You
are not only aware of the shape, texture, colors, etc. as separate
elements, but are aware of them as a book; and it is you who
are aware of them, rather than myriad neural events somehow
each being ‘aware’ of one particular aspect of the book.”
235
There is a lot of academic discussion around the approaches I
have summarised above. However, the main intention was to briefly
introduce these approaches and bring to light some criticisms which
undermine their ability to explain subjective consciousness as
sufficiently as theism does.
@@dahirhussein1839 There are some good criticisms here, but mostly easy to respond to: I think the private subjectivity of human consciousness can be conceived of in terms of self-enclosing and self-organizing systems, along with the workings of memory, which is crucial to much of what we can say about consciousness as we experience it... there may be no evidence of "consciousness"* outside our own - but this argument points only to our limited access.
*Apparently defined ad hoc as something human-like, in these arguments.
There's also no evidence of anything substantially different from qualitative experience, so shouldn't we propose, by parsimony, that the substantial nature of things we cannot access is of a kind with the things we can? Now, the combination problem is the most difficult to deal with, imo, as we really have no idea of how we might measure conscious properties or build new conscious experiences out of other, unmeasured building blocks that are presumably wholly unlike our own. These criticisms are why I rather prefer "everything is consciousNESS" to "everything is conscious", i.e. I prefer an idealist view that allows for private points of view and intersubjective consistency, like Bernardo Kastrup's or Donald Hoffman's.
I’m sure your sage advice was deeply appreciated by Lex
Best intro yet!!! Can’t wait to watch this one through!
Totally loved it too!
Man Lex is saying tons of stuff that I really resonate with in this podcast.
I've said this once before, but thank you for the guests you bring on. They mirror many of the thoughts and ideas that I share that I've been screaming for years now, when no one wants to listen to me or thinks I'm crazy. Hearing you and your guests discuss these topics, makes me feel less alone in this world.
Hey, you might like listening to Terence Mckenna talks.
There are many here on TH-cam.
He is quite outrageous yet funny and insightful.
He was a scholar of many areas such as Art, Antiquity, Human Nature and consciousness. He goes deep into psychedelics and the expansion of the mind for a better world through talking about his experiences and encourages others to take the path of self discovery.
He tries to remain neutral on all topics of religion and politics, he is evenly critical of them all.
He died in 2000, but his ideas remain relevant today.
Have a good one ! 👍
I’ve listened to the Donald Hoffman episode 6 times now. Took several listens to grasp 80% of it. It’s an amazing episode.
I don't see Philip Goff's podcast linked to this discussion. It's called Mind Chat and is also on TH-cam. I just went down a massive rabbit hole there! It's awesome for anyone who enjoys philosophy. He has some great guests (all philosophers) and they enjoy getting in some good guns blazing arguments, but all in good nature. The Sean Carroll episode and David Chalmers episode were two of my favorites!
Those final words gave me goosebumps, thanks for this podcasts Lex, they're truly unique, definitely some of the meaning of your life is to share this incredible conversations with all us mortals.
If you're interested in consciousness you should really talk to Bernardo Kastrup. He's a computer scientist and philosopher of mind who holds a consciousness-only ontology.
Why not simply have on the show someone from the school of Adviata Vendanta ??!!! Someone like Swamisarvapriyanda?? Hindu texts have absolutely provided comprehensive analysis on consciousness and its essence?! The unpinishads have addressed what Western science is now fascinated about over a 1000 years ago. Check it out!!
@@deedhesi8014 but they refer to there being of a god of consciousness and 4 states of consciousness. the only part i would agree is relevant is wakeful and dream consciousness, the deep sleep and beyond deep sleep is just nonsense?
!!!!!!
‘Everything is conscious’: Panpsychism
162
Panpsychism is somewhat similar to property dualism, which asserts
that one substance exists (physical substance), but contains two
properties (physical and non-physical or subjective conscious
properties). Panpsychism asserts that matter contains a form of
subjective consciousness. From this perspective, it argues that
consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it plays a
causal role. Advocates of panpsychism include professors David
Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Since each component of matter
contains consciousness, the brain’s consciousness is just an
accumulation of these components of consciousness. One form of
panpsychism states that all matter is conscious in the same way
humans are. The other form of panpsychism asserts that consciousness
contained in matter is in a basic state, also known as
protoconsciousness.
There are a number of problems with panpsychism.
• Firstly, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that
matter contains subjective consciousness. Protons,
electrons, quarks and atoms do not exhibit any signs of
having subjective consciousness.234
• Secondly, this approach fails to provide an adequate
metaphysical or physical explanation of how matter
contains consciousness. Where did the property of
consciousness come from? How does matter contain this
subjective conscious property? The panpsychist’s failure
to answer these questions undermines any metaphysical
and physical explanation.
• Thirdly, there are no examples of consciousness existing
outside of the subjective experience of a living entity. For
instance, what does pain mean without a self or an ‘I’?
What does being conscious of a thought mean without
someone who is thinking? These questions strongly
163
suggest that consciousness only makes sense with a
unified conscious being experiencing an array of
subjective states.
• Finally, how can a unified conscious experience emerge
from many pieces of matter that all contain a form of
consciousness? How do individual pieces of matter that
contain subjective consciousness manage to add up to a
meaningful, unified experience? If our conscious
experiences were just a result of many conscious elements
contained in the physical parts that make up the brain, our
experience would be incoherent, or less unified. Professor
Edward Feser comments on the unified meaning of a
single conscious experience. He explains that our
experiences are not just a summation of many different
conscious elements; our experiences have a unified feel.
He presents his case using the conscious experience of
reading a book:
“The experience has a coherent significance or meaning, and
significance or meaning for a single subject of experience. You
are not only aware of the shape, texture, colors, etc. as separate
elements, but are aware of them as a book; and it is you who
are aware of them, rather than myriad neural events somehow
each being ‘aware’ of one particular aspect of the book.”
235
There is a lot of academic discussion around the approaches I
have summarised above. However, the main intention was to briefly
introduce these approaches and bring to light some criticisms which
undermine their ability to explain subjective consciousness as
sufficiently as theism does.
Could not agree more - get him on!
This is why Lex is great. He’s genuinely open to this stuff. Refreshing.
Lex. Please invite Bernardo Kastrup as a great response to materialism, panpsychism, Goff, etc.
good idea
Digging that intro man! The pink elephant made me chuckle 😆 Keep it up!
“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few.” Shunryu Suzuki
Thank you for introducing me to good people, Lex Fridman. Thanks for keeping it post.
This was absolutely phenomenal!
I'll just echo other comments here. PLEASE interview Bernardo Kastrup, Lex. I can't believe that Goff didn't even mention Idealism. Bernardo is leading the charge for modern Idealism and has impressive credentials (a PhD in computing/AI and a PhD in philosophy) and a very formidable mind. I find his arguments far more coherent and persuasive. His ideas are very much in line with Donald Hoffman's work. Don is someone else I'd very much recommend interviewing on this subject.
Yeah, Bernardo is interesting af. I second this.
Thanks for the beautiful conversation 💗🍃
You can talk about mind/consciousness for hours, feel that it’s very important and interesting. But later understand that you’ve come to no firm conclusions and can’t remember anything concrete from the conversation.
Isn't that any coversation about our existence all our explanations are depended on more explanations we can go on forever and never actually know anything other then that reality exists for as long as we experience it.
Philosophers of mind certainly remember something concrete, perhaps this is what distinguishes them from the rest of us
It's an interesting theory to defend, but I find it hard to reconcile physics and consciousness without mechanistic language, and I'm not sure he was very compelling, personally.
@@Israel2.3.2 what do you mean?
@@strangeair3917 Nothing deep, only that a minority of us are capable of having such conversations. I read a paper of Chalmers a few years ago and realized that I do not have the ability to build upon the reasoning found therein, to play the philosopher's game. Philosophy of mind is a linguistic tightrope where by nature most men cannot last more than a few steps.
That are exactly my fav. Topics, Lex! Love it! I hope you do 10000 more of those great Podcasts! Love from Germany!
Алёшка Фридман, сердечно тебя благодарю за твой подкаст! Ты - один из лучших игроков на этом поле!
Lex was on point with his position on experts.
Great talk. Love your new style with short clips of the interview in the start 👍
‘Everything is conscious’: Panpsychism
162
Panpsychism is somewhat similar to property dualism, which asserts
that one substance exists (physical substance), but contains two
properties (physical and non-physical or subjective conscious
properties). Panpsychism asserts that matter contains a form of
subjective consciousness. From this perspective, it argues that
consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it plays a
causal role. Advocates of panpsychism include professors David
Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Since each component of matter
contains consciousness, the brain’s consciousness is just an
accumulation of these components of consciousness. One form of
panpsychism states that all matter is conscious in the same way
humans are. The other form of panpsychism asserts that consciousness
contained in matter is in a basic state, also known as
protoconsciousness.
There are a number of problems with panpsychism.
• Firstly, there is an absence of evidence for the claim that
matter contains subjective consciousness. Protons,
electrons, quarks and atoms do not exhibit any signs of
having subjective consciousness.234
• Secondly, this approach fails to provide an adequate
metaphysical or physical explanation of how matter
contains consciousness. Where did the property of
consciousness come from? How does matter contain this
subjective conscious property? The panpsychist’s failure
to answer these questions undermines any metaphysical
and physical explanation.
• Thirdly, there are no examples of consciousness existing
outside of the subjective experience of a living entity. For
instance, what does pain mean without a self or an ‘I’?
What does being conscious of a thought mean without
someone who is thinking? These questions strongly
163
suggest that consciousness only makes sense with a
unified conscious being experiencing an array of
subjective states.
• Finally, how can a unified conscious experience emerge
from many pieces of matter that all contain a form of
consciousness? How do individual pieces of matter that
contain subjective consciousness manage to add up to a
meaningful, unified experience? If our conscious
experiences were just a result of many conscious elements
contained in the physical parts that make up the brain, our
experience would be incoherent, or less unified. Professor
Edward Feser comments on the unified meaning of a
single conscious experience. He explains that our
experiences are not just a summation of many different
conscious elements; our experiences have a unified feel.
He presents his case using the conscious experience of
reading a book:
“The experience has a coherent significance or meaning, and
significance or meaning for a single subject of experience. You
are not only aware of the shape, texture, colors, etc. as separate
elements, but are aware of them as a book; and it is you who
are aware of them, rather than myriad neural events somehow
each being ‘aware’ of one particular aspect of the book.”
235
There is a lot of academic discussion around the approaches I
have summarised above. However, the main intention was to briefly
introduce these approaches and bring to light some criticisms which
undermine their ability to explain subjective consciousness as
sufficiently as theism does.
Consciousness is inherent in the fabric of reality ✌️ Love you brothers and sisters. We are all made of the Absolute.
Peace and Love Peace and Love Ringo Starr☮️✌️❤️
I'm not really sold on the idea that a photon can experience anything at all.
Yes Dear...
@@zackwhitehead4018 i'd agree. it's interesting to listen to different views but panpsychist is pseudo science...
The new intro was a very helpful teaser. It pulled me into watching the full conversation. Please keep this format tweak!
Respectfully disagree.
This was the most intense opener I think I've seen yet, so pumped to watch
That intro! More please!
Lex, idk how to express my thoughts very well. My brain gets muddled by all the deep thoughts and the routes my thoughts take me. This might sound strange not being able to explain, but listening to this particular podcast about consciousness made me think what an excellent parent you would be.
Bernardo Kastrup next please!
Loving the new intro. Very slick.
Bernardo Kastrup next, please.
Alex, I have found out about you through being a fan of Joe Rogan. These days I think I like you even more - your questions are so deeply sincere and human, Alex.
You have to have on Bernardo Kastrup and have an episode with him and Goff.. He will come on for sure. Gotta make it happen!!
the editing is just getting better, love it
Constructive criticism for the professor: this guy needs to take a year away from academia and talk to regular people about these ideas. Students are forced to care and take notes because of their grades, and just the context of being in class. But this man has a very, very serious problem motivating you to care about these ideas, or seeing their relevance at all. He had the same problem on Joe Rogan's podcast. He needs to come out and say, "This is my theory of the world. And this is how your perception of things would change if you saw the world through my eyes." The best philosophers are very striking in their ability to do this. If you read Plato, you feel very differently about people and things and the world, and what your goals should be. If you read Schopenhauer, same thing. It's not fair to compare this dude to those titans, of course. But he really, REALLY needs to hammer down why any of this is relevant. Because it seems like none of it is really relevant at all. Basically, you go about your life as usual. You just replace what you would colloquially call "life" or whatever, "consciousness." But you could easily also call it, "blahblah-ness."
Straight up
1) Piaget theory of intelligence
2) Vgtosky mind of society
3) Nietzche- anti-education, thus spoke Zarathustra & beyond good & evil
4) Pragmatism William James
5) Thomas Kuhn- structure of scientific
6) Russell History of Western philosophy
7) Galton 1869 heridatary genius
The guy's metaphors and analogies are terrible holy cow.
You are not having an experience, you are the experience.
This is why Bernardo Kastrup (and eventually Rupert Spira) should be invited to these things!
Great Talk... Thank You All
The more Philip talks, the more he illustrates that he knows just enough to talk about, but not enough to actually understand any of the fields he's talking about
Another corn fried poet if you ask me.
Still haven't heard of a consistent definition of consciousness.
My cat is aware of it's location, threats, prey, etc...
I am aware of having a name, a history, contemplation, etc...
We are complicated animals.
Once we start assuming some mystical qualities to ourselves, we are very susceptible to all kinds of psychological mistakes and interpretations.
Many of which are thoroughly studied and understood.
The accusations towards science is one of them that seems irresistible to every guru under the sun.
They know it appeals to the public.
@@bryandraughn9830yeah seriously these guys are all bozos who are just making a living because we have an uneducated public
And people are desperate for new age religion that gives them a special feeling and makes everything seem magical
It's just another drug or high. Or probably partly fed by the fact that so many people are stoned out of their mind
The fact is we can clearly see that brain injuries and disease and changes in the brain change a person's complete personality and behavior and sense of self. It is obvious that we are just complex chemistry and that when that chemistry changes our whole sense of self also changes .
Further we can see that through science and medicine we can actually cure diseases and return people to the way they were before they had a brain cancer or some other disease
This is all obvious evidence that we are biological happenings built on chemistry. We are processes, much more complicated versions of fire.
Anyway all these dudes are just charlatan's who are living off the gullible and people's need for entertainment
Whew! What a banquet of ideas! Like looking into a crystal - watching colored lights dancing in the most unexpected ways. Lex, I (with my PhD black belt in tow) found your treatise on being an expert tempts the holder to inflate the ego and lessen further curiosity. As I’ve heard it said, ‘the road to success is constantly under construction’. With deep gratitude for all you do to mine the mind, Cliff Rodman.
New comedic intro is amazing!
Yooooo, this intro got me hooked so hard!!! Love you, Lex! Let's get it!
My issue with Goff's view is that consciousness is never defined. What is consciousness? If it is a form of experience, how can it be possible without a processing structure (like a brain). What does it mean for an electron to be conscious? Is there a way to verify that it is? I know it's technically impossible to know whether anyone or anything is conscious, but it seems to me like this panpsychism view ends up being completely irrelevant if it can't be demonstrated. It's like "we can't know whether anything is conscious so everything is".
Consciousness is experience, but experience isn't necessarily consciousness!
Like the new intro Lex. What a treat samples are before the main course.
Love the intro clips! Very professionally done.
@@jonhall2274 seems legit
@@AJ-go7tu I inboxed him right away and now I lost all my dogecoin...
@@leedsdrumacademy I’m sure it will be used for a good cause.
I never thought I'd see somebody from MetaRising on Lex Fridman. It's nice to see a sophisticated conversation about the nature of consciousness
The new intro is great!
Lex is such a bright beautiful ray of light, this is a fantastic, thought provoking episode. God I love this podcast!!
Hey Lex,
just wanted to suggest bringing John Vervaeke on your podcast. That would be an amazing conversation!
Great intro. Why yes this IS an episode I want to watch. But I watch almost all. Good show.
Maybe the best guest you've had on your show, addressing one of the most interesting and mysterious questions of existence.
@@thewiseturtle He is cutting edge in consciousness research. Consciousness is one of the deepest subjects there is to get into - one of the most enigmatic. He's really coming with fresh open-minded approaches, and there's a ton to learn about the history of philosophy and science in his work. I've read his book _Galileo's Error_ though, so I'm familiar with his thought....one of my favorite books in the last 10 years. Gives a really great overview of what consciousness researchers are thinking on the cutting edge, and really distills some of the more abstract arguments among philosophers. I found it made me think about the wonder of human conscious experience in entirely new ways. Highly recommend...
Strange. This is probably the most muddled and disappointing discussion of consciousness I’ve heard on this podcast. They seem to talk past each other the whole time and never really drill down to the implications of any of the ideas discussed. Just felt like a miss to me. Maybe his books are better than his conversations.
@@corbinhunter650 I think there's a lot of specialized language in philosophy of mind that it helps to be familiar with, and its hard to discuss the concepts without it (qualia, phenomenology, intentionality, etc.), at least as a philosopher, but I still found a lot of value in this talk. _Galileo's Error_ definitely bridges that gap as its geared for a popular audience, but this dude is definitely used to talking with other philosophers.
@@thewiseturtle I agree that a popular talk like this wouldn't be anything new to someone in the field, but you wouldnt say that Goffs work in phil. of mind is cutting edge? His stuff on constitutive theories, combination problem, phenomenal sharing, etc.? I think just the theory of panpsychism in itself is very new to the wider non-specialist culture for sure. What are you working on? What is your preferred view of consciousness?
@@thewiseturtle firstly, having a preferred view has nothing at all to do with religiosity. One can prefer something due to rational considerations, as well as emotional, spiritual, etc. You also completely ignored my initial response and then just repeated yourself. I actually agree with you in the context of the video and for a specialist audience, and then I point to his publications. Have you read any of Goffs published work? And besides TH-cam, are you actually publishing anything on consciousness, or also just dipping your toe in?
Love the conversations on this podcast Lex, would you ever consider sitting down with Darryl Anka as himself for the first half and then Bashar on the 2nd half of the conversation?
Love this podcast!! Lex, you are amazing.
What a soothing voice
I'm probably not particularly qualified to weigh in on debates about the nature of consciousness, but panpsychism is a bit confusing to me because all components of conscious experience seemingly stem from the brain and nervous system. In my mind, conscious experience consists of things like sensory inputs (sight, smell, etc), emotions, thoughts, and memories. All these things happen in the brain. Brain damage can remove your ability to sense things (e.g. blindness), feel emotions, remember past events, and even have thoughts. Simple anaesthetic drugs can completely eliminate conscious experience without damaging the fundamental matter that composes your body. So it seems that everything that I consciously experience stems from my nervous system. If my brain and nervous system were destroyed, thus removing my ability to sense, feel, think, and remember things, what would be left to experience? There would no subjective experience left, and therefore no consciousness. How, then, are things that lack a nervous system (or something analagous to one) conscious?
I also don't totally buy Philip's argument around 1:08:00 that purely quantitative descriptions cannot capture the rich qualities we experience. There are plenty of examples of incredibly rich, complex systems that seem, at first glance, impossible to describe quantitatively, but ultimately turn out to be the emergent results of simple quantitative components.
I'm open to other perspectives on this stuff though. Cool interview.
From what you wrote, which I enjoyed reading, I'd say you're just as qualified as Philip or Lex or anybody else to talk about consciousness
I don't buy it either. I mean, the basis of psychology and cognitive science is literally mechanistic chemistry. It's very well understood that brain structure loss ha precise cognitive effects. That's direct evidence for materialism as he calls it.
It's a certain kind of intellectual playtime that's fine and all, but it isn't a scientific approach in any real way.
The brain affects consciousness just like the rest of our external world does, just in a more immediate way. But it is not our awareness.
The -awareness- of the senses, brain, memories etc is the phenomenon we haven't begun to figure out.
Don't be so quick to trust quantitative components, those components are not objective facts, they are narrative patterns.
Keep digging, Goff is great when you get deeper into his consciousness philosophy. but I would also highly recommend Bernardo kastrup, iain mcgilchrist, john vervaeke, and jonathan pageau.
@@zackwhitehead4018 its not direct evidence for materialism. Cognitive effects don't equal consciousness.
Brain structure loss effects consciousness but doesnt explain it.
But i can say that about many things. The weather also effects consciousness but doesnt explain it. Putting the foundation of consciousness at the level of brain activity is just an arbitrary level of categorisation.
Keep digging, there is a wealth of study to be had for free online by many great philosophers of consciousness right now
Just imagine! You are about one heroic dose of LSD, DMT or deep meditation away of knowing what it is like to subjectlivy have the experience of consciousness that does not stem from the central nervous system! Rather it is the sensation of your being is an avatar, rendering, harmonic 5th and focal point of a galactic awareness where the past effects your future just as your futer effects the actions of your past. Maranate on that paradox for 4-6 hours, then another when you remember this all happened due to known chemical compositions produced from your amigdala. DAMN THIS WEED GOOD
Nice opening format w/ the montage/ sound bites!
Love this intro!
Loved this episode!
Most entertaining yet informative & thought provoking podcasts on the internet, thank you Lex!!!
Came for the consciousness dialog, stayed for the worthwhile rambling
love phillip lol always nice when he really gets to explain himself
He's a worthy vanguard of the idea, but I don't personally find his explanations satisfactory to really buy into it.
@@zackwhitehead4018 He says alot without really saying anything at all.
@@thewiseturtle Not sure I agree with calling a respected philosopher an average guy in a pub, but that aside I agree his explanation here isn't his best.
I watched him say points similar to these before and thought it was ridiculous, but then I watched him be more precise with what he means / his justifications on Sean Carrols podcast. There, even though I don't agree with him, I saw how a rational person could conclude what he thinks.
[personal understanding of his point below]
- We could describe experience completely empirically, but that description would not convey what it FEELS like to live through that experience.
- Our subjective experience is real and not illusory.
- Humans aren't special in the universe and we don't have souls.
Thus, if we have a real experience that is not captured by science then experience can only exist as the most fundamental part (explaining its immeasurability), and thus everything has some form of experience.
@@thewiseturtle If a community of better informed individuals respects someone generally I will generally ascribe more weight to their opinion than a random with no credibility.
@@thewiseturtle what do you mean by spirituality here? I think he made it clear that the panpsychist view doesn't necessitate any kind of mystical or supernatural thinking.
Zen & The Art of Counting Grass-blades.. Love/God is available in all moments. You got it Lex 😇
On a basic level. I think we started as one. Then decided to be individual. To be an individual there needs to be more than one.
I really enjoyed this podcast! Always gets me thinking of trips ive had as a youngin. Keep killin it!
Going somewhat beyond the Psychedelic space and into more of a Taoist or a Buddhist one, you may have found as well that there was never a separation in the first place, but rather, we all just took up more space after the expansion of The Big Bang. We are still The Big Bang. Nothing separated from each other. The space in between stars is not 'Nothing-ness'; it's all a part of the same thing!
You'd likely be interested in the Orthodox Christian doctrine of Theosis.
Oneness had to become multiplicity in order to express its unifying force. (Love) That is- the universe is the expression of Gods love.
Theosis is that Oneness became multiplicity so that multiplicity could again become one.
God became man so that man could become God.
@@ourblessedtribe9284 i will absoutely look into it!
@@ADPax10 ive actually never heard of "Taoist". I looked it up and its actually super interesting. Thanks for commenting.
This content is revolutionary. I’m tapping into the collective consciousnesses to influence the fridman/ sheldrake podcast. Here goes 🙏
It feels like the modern scientific world is discussing consciousness much like the scientific world discussed magnetism before Faraday and Maxwell redefined the topic's basic concepts.
Consciousness seems to be merely a property of a system with input(s) and output(s).
In engineering school, they teach us that systems have characteristics of (1) continuity, (2) memory, (3) causality, (4) linearity, (5) time variance, (6) stability, and (7) feedback.
It seems that a conscious system must at least have (7) feedback. But a conscious system can likely also have other attributes, such as (2) memory and (5) time variance.
Yes agree..
@@thewiseturtle exactly.
Do you know of a good definition for consciousness? One used by engineers or computer scientists? I can always make up my own, but i'd rather not.
1.Causality: Cause & Effect
2.Interactionalism: Action & Reaction
3.Information: Input & Output
4.Learning: Stimulus & Response
All the above are equivalent, inanimate objects can have "experiences", in terms of them
@@martinwilliams9866 i think you're right. i started a TH-cam channel if you're interested @BexarThought
YES!!! PHILIP!!!
Excellent! You made this a commanding interview, Lex. Very nice. My knee-jerk to "conscious universe" is negative, but Goff is incredibly interesting and his arguments form a provocative pathway.
This guy can sing so well!
I listened to Philip on JRE and found it to be underwhelming but on Lexs podcast it went so much deeper and made it very interesting
@@thewiseturtle shut up.
simple me and me mind thinks:
When we end the line of questioning is how and when we define the answers. ?
The answers to questions are defined by the questions.?
Choose a question from an ocean of human experience and define a limited continuum of answers.?
The theoretical basis of most medicine for example supports an entire world of hard bussiness, livelihoods and billion dollar enterprises. So how useful the answers are gives popular success of any idea..... Good, bad, true, false, etc.... ?
Lex is an exception to the following comment about so many youthful minds and what is driving the search for understanding of consciousness. He is so beautiful and amazing!
I'm feeling tired, old and defeated by the perky muscle of youthful minds and their IN- experience being cyclical and looking redundant from an OLD point of view.
Ultimately, sounding old or just stupid, I say it is only LOVE that truly matters at all. This much I know as UN- arguably REAL, timeless and TRUE.
Lex Fridman, Thank you always!
Wishing Love be with you always!
simple me and me mind
The intro was suspenseful yet exciting! Can't wait to see it.
One of the most misunderstood philosophers alive, and it is extremely entertaining that he causes so much hostility and misinterpretation due to epistemic limitations from many unable to even comprehend the argument, like Joe Rogan. Even though, Goff explained it so simply, yet the comments were filled with criticisms Goff was convoluting panpsychism, leaving me wondering were they listening and trying to understand?
My training in sociology and anthropology can only be charitable and consider cultural beliefs from both the sciences and religion towards consciousness are so embedded that comprehending the radical differences between Dualism, Idealism and Panpsychism are hard to comprehend.
that intro is comedy gold 😂
When anything happens to overlapping systems, even very blurred/disorganised ones, what just literally happened is the experience of it happening.
So, panpsychism means "consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality..." "consciousness is the ultimate nature of matter", but wait... then Goff says: conscious doesn't mean conscious. (08:25 "It doesn't literally mean that everything is conscious, ..." despite the meaning of panpsychism. Basically Philip Goff is only saying: "There is something that is the ultimate nature of matter." He calls it consciousness, but he doesn't mean "consciousness" by it. Is this just a witty sales-strategy to sell his books and to publish more articles?
What the hell is going on here: I'm a pan-psychist, consciousness is fundamental. but I don't mean consciousness when I say consciousness. Very "rigorous" thinking there, wow. More like a very unscientific play with words and definitions.
The idea is all parts (i.e. fundamental particles) are conscious but not necessarily all wholes (what philosophers call ‘mereological sums’), like tables, trees etc.
@@YouAndWhoseTube And my criticism is: why call it conscious if it's not conscious?
Exactly yeah. Why if you want to explain that "stuff" come into existence when there is some interaction or change within or among them, you have to bring the very unfitting word "consciousness" for it. When you can just say what I said, that it's interaction/change of "stuff" that we ultimately don't understand, maybe never fully will.
Panpsychism wouldn't even be good in a science fiction novel, because it wouldn't even be consistent within that fictional world - because there is literally no logic to be found in it.
Panexperientialism doesn't have that problem, especially if consciousness is meta-experience!
@@martinwilliams9866 more blabla
A preview of the episode as an intro?
Nice! 👍👍👍
That's quite the teaser!
I was waiting for this one, since Goff mentioned talking to you on his "Mindchat"
"What is unique about humans?" Humans are conscious of being self conscious, and also reflect on meanings and values.
Right! There's a quote that says animals are aware..but only humans are AWARE that we're Aware lol..which is pretty much what you said!👌🏾
@@iamBlackGambit That may be it! We shouldn't talk too much about animals as we don't know them so well... 🙂
But here's also a key to the big confusion in these discussions/books/theories: There is the mind and it is called consciousness. But being conscious is another thing and probably can't reduced to the functions of the mind. The mind has these contents, Goff and Fridman mention "feelings and experiences" many times, but not so often "thoughts". But thoughts and experiences are contents of the mind and a content is not conscious of another content (feelings are more states of the mind). There is probably another aspect that can really be called "Consciousness" and that is conscious of the contents of the mind.
How do people have time to listen to this? How long is it taking for people to listen to the entire thing? Have you read the main books referenced? Hard to consume 2.5 hrs let alone stop and think about the various points. I guess I need to read the books before jumping in to this.
The strange behaviour of sub atomic particles, the double slit experiment and the connection between “entangled” particles has always seemed to me to be a clue or possible explanation for the intuitive or telepathic connections that so many of us have experienced from time to time with distant loved ones. These particles/ probability waves could easily be experiencing proto conciousness.
I find it hard to imagine the dawn of life without a pre existing consciousness. One minute there’s a particular set of ingredients and conditions - the next minute an unconscious living cell has formed which nevertheless can feed itself and do whatever it takes to survive and reproduce, without any motivation other than the coincidental influence of those very particular conditions. Again, where’s the motivation to continue? When conditions change?
Life is a battle for a microbe. Without consciousness why adapt? why bother to move?, to recoil from an unpleasant stimulus. Why not return immediately to mud?
There is simply no way to explain the behaviour of primal life forms in terms of mere chemical reactions in the primeval soup.
Every cell in my body applauds me when I conclude that those first living cells must have been fully stoked to find themselves at last with some real agency and able to focus awareness on the new and intense sensations of being “some of the mud that could now sit up and look around” ( Kurt Vonnegut)
Over the mind boggling reaches of time that thread of conscious life has continued an unbroken roller coaster progression. Ever diversifying to fill every niche. Sacrificing the immortality model of simple cell division reproduction for the sex and death model of the more complex creatures.
This whole history is known to us at a cellular level. We are the spearhead of the glorious adventure of life on earth, forging the future as we go.
So it behoves us to remember that thread that binds all that live and breathe and grow, to the common ancestor and it’s exultant proto conscious driver.
For consciousness is eternal and unchanging, and thus drawn to life as the thirsty are to water.
This is such a beautiful dance.
Thanks Lex and Phil for provoking these thoughts and providing a space to share them..
fwiw the double slit experiment has been explainable for a while now
That was beautifully written. As a layman - none the less passionate about these topics - my intuition of consciousness is as you have so eloquently explained; the way I’ve thought of it is that all matter is energy. Energy IS consciousness at it’s most basic level. Therefore everything is “connected” at a subatomic level. Antimatter is a sort of conduit which communicates with other particles at the subatomic level. We humans influence particles just by observing them and antimatter is the antennae which passes the information; another way to think of this is that we humans don’t just observe reality through sight, sound, taste and touch but also influence it. Why wouldn’t some people be more in tune to this than others? The hair stands up on the back of your neck as you get a feeling of dread when you come in contact with certain people, places or things. You get a feeling or intuition about a situation. 🤔 I know I have.
And although the sciences themselves would vehemently oppose my opinion, it seems some scientists are hinting to this phenomenon.
Thank you Lex
what a treat!!!!
Lex is Best!
It seems extraordinary that Professor Goff simply equates things like mass, charge, and spin with “consciousness”…and it especially bothers me as someone who studied philosophy and thinks it’s an incredibly important subject to learn (despite instrumentalist types, you can never, ever escape at least some metaphysical and epistemic presuppositions/axioms/primitive notions of whatever your particular worldview is). But it’s also one that MUST take into account feedback from the natural sciences. If you actually do, you realize that early on there is a rapid expansion of space-time, eventually leading to galaxies and stars and planets, one of which ends up producing self-catalyzing molecules that lead to a proto-cell that then leads to all of evolutionary life. Consciousness emerges once sufficiently complex multicellular organisms make an appearance (and this makes PERFECT sense when considered in the context of Darwinian natural selection, those that navigate and understand their own environment better will be more successful). What makes absolutely no sense is then taking the word we have for those complex cognitive processes (which involve memory storage and retrieval, sensory perception, psychological traits like motivation/desire) and shifting its meaning back to basic/fundamental quantifiable properties like mass and charge. That can be considered philosophy, but it’s bad philosophy that flies in the face of the last few centuries of scientific explanation in biology, chemistry, and physics
Yeah, I mean experience and subjectively inhabiting your own mind seem deeply conected to the material that it's made from and its structure. Psychology and medicine depend on a mechanism based in chemistry. I mean, what could a photon outside of time possibly experience? It's all so poorly defined it reeks of woo without even cursory understanding of his theory, and he fails to predict or explain anything at all over a the accepted science. It's all very lofty nonsense hung in a thought experiment.
I understand the gripe, and I know this was 2 years ago, but I just wanted to say that I feel like you and anyone with this objection really just missed the point, and probably haven’t delved too deep into the philosophy of consciousness. You’re approaching it purely from a behavioral perspective.
Conscious awareness isn’t actually necessary per your perspective. We could and really SHOULD all be philosophical zombies who just mechanistically react to their environment in increasingly complex ways. Any notion of forethought could simply be boiled down to a contrived reaction off of current patterns. Any and all consciousness or awareness shouldn’t actually exist, and things should just… do their thing. The math should run its course. But I won’t even say that because time itself per the standard model is really not necessary to flow. The universe should just exist as a still, timeless geometry.
So why is there consciousness? Why should anything actually be experienced? If contemplating that question does not boggle your mind, you’re still not getting it. But this in essence is the problem. And Goff outlines in the video, he views panpsychicism as the only reasonable explanation that is compatible with our observations. And I’m willing to place money down and say you cannot offer me a better explanation, without pretending there is no issue.
Thank you.
*As the economy crisis keep rising, one needs to have different streams of income, a well detailed diversified investment portfolio in the financial markets is needed to survive, as well as secure a profitable investment future! Wondering if viewers here are familiar with Kimberly's trading strategies*
*You are right, despite the fluctuation trading in Forex and crypto is still profiting if you are using really an expert that will handle and help you trade*
It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However most of us tend to pay more
I have never made profit from trading before, but expert Kimberly gave me clear understanding how it works
Expert Kimberly has an intellectual strategy that cuts down losses, I have the best investing with the aid of expert Kimberly's trading service, she is very friendly and so easy to get along with in terms of profitable ending
I have been making a lot profit through crypto trading which has been the main source of my income
After listening to this I'm headed to bed. Meet me in the dream world. Wear whatever you want. Be whoever you want. Anything is possible and everything is encouraged ;)
I think a necessary part of the conscious experience is agency.
So, while it may be inferred that a thermometer experiences cold, because it shrinks in cold weather, it may not be inferred that this thermometer has consciousness, as it had no agency over the matter.
It's hard for me to think of a reason for all these conscious experiences such as pain, hunger, thirst, except to motivate me to exercise my agency over the matter.
This relates to my view of panpsychism. I agree that consciousness is not simply confined to the brain. I think it's obvious from personal experience that parts of the conscious experience are necessarily contained in one's environment. For example, people read books to expand their consciousness.
However, I am hesitant to ascribe consciousness to the entire universe. I'd rather confine it to the part of the universe I personally interact with.
I think it makes much more sense to define consciousness as a relationship between an agent and its environment.
So, while the guest presents a panpsychism in which a conscious universe produces hyperconscious agents, I think I prefer the panpsychism that is centered around a conscious agent, engaging with an unconscious universe (and other conscious agents, however difficult they may be to recognize empirically).
It just seems like a poorly defined dualism to me, not that he doesn't vanguard the idea properly.
Not quite.
Falsity: something appearing in the locus of its own absence.
The World appearing in consciousness in its own absence.
The snake appearing in the locus (rope) of its own absence.
A dream appears in the mind but upon walking up you have proof of you in a 4 dimensional world which was unreal!!
I the consciousness.
I am the universe.
I am everything, I am nothing.
There is nothing but counciousness.
' not two'.
No other.
Unbelievable but true.
What magnificence.
If you inspect it with conviction the error will pop up and reality stand revealed.
The agent is imagined it's only a thought construct.
Show me the agent? There is only awareness/ consciousness. The clay the teapot made of clay. Give me the teapot without clay? Give me clay without the teapot?
Give me anything without consciousness. It all appears in and is made of consciousness
48:04. I would have to agree with the notion can you trust your senses. In regards to a meditative state, a psychodelic or unexplainable things.
I'm glad Lex had this guest on to speak.
After hearing his arguments, I can now say with certainty that I do not believe in panpsychism.
Well what is the world made of, then? Math?
great episode, @lexfridman. In the topics you addressed with Philip, I wonder if it would be worth to have as guest psyquiatrist @DrIainMcGilchrist... what a fascinating subject is the🧠
Study some physics, listen to Sam’s podcast clearly demonstrating the lack of free will (about an hour long here on this platform), and read Behave by Sapolsky (preferably whilst watching his freely available lectures from Stanford) and good luck believing in free will. Until you’ve done those three things, I don’t believe you can argue effectively for free will. You’re still under the illusion. If, however, you take the time to do these three things, it’ll revolutionise your world view in the same way a round earth that wasn’t the centre of the universe once did to our species. You’ll be at the forefront of that realisation and shift which is pretty cool.
Look into compatiblism
Did you freely write this?
@@emmashalliker6862 freedom is not incompatible with determinism. The issue is with the will and the whole false dichotomy of the debate in general
Good subject matters. Important to our times.