For someone who talks about psychedelics as much as he does I’m surprised Rogan had as much trouble digesting the point as he does here. For something like spicy curry there certainly is a relationship between the chemical makeup of the curry and the perceived spicy flavor experienced when eating it, but the spiciness isn’t an innate property of its chemistry, but is instead an experience that emerges from it. In simpler terms, if you eat a hallucinogenic drug and see a giant red dragon, the dragon and the properties that belong to it are experiences in your consciousness and they were brought about by the psychoactive drug, but these aren’t innate physical properties of the drug itself. Spicy curry similarly induces a specific experience as a consequence of the way it interacts with our anatomy and how that interacts with our consciousness, but the properties perceived in our consciousness aren’t material properties of the curry.
Underrated comment 👏 This was a frustrating podcast, mainly because of Joe's blatant lack of understanding and his dunning krueger like dismissal of what Goff was explaining. But to be fair, also Goffs inability to better articulate his point, on probably the largest platform he's had and also his highly irritating defensive attitude. This had a lot of potential, but ultimately it was a letdown. In my opinion.
@@agent-sz2qj Not really. There are many instances of people injuring some part of their brain and turning into a totally different person. We know it's all there, we just are not advanced enough to examine everything properly. Also, we can't do experiment on people ;)
This was one of the most awkward podcasts I've listened to. Maybe not awkward for the both of them, but certainly awkward for me as a listener. It felt as though the conversation went nowhere. It felt as though both of them never really agreed to one another, nor did they fully comprehend each other (Joe definitely didn't comprehend Phil because I feel Phil didn't really explain himself all that well in a 'universal' language). I guess this is what happens when the premise itself (of all things or most things having consciousness) is so abstract. It took them more than an hour to even get to discussing what the word consciousness means and whether the word itself is ambiguous or not. Maybe it would have been easier if they started out by defining consciousness in this context first and then went from there.
True. That surprised me a lot. As a philosopher one would think you have sharpened your thoughts and choice of words. Maybe he writes great essays. So maybe just take a breath before rushing into answering...
I don’t think Phil understands what he’s saying himself. I’ve not heard someone talk so much and say so little in a long time. Joe kept stumping him over and over again.
I heard this the other day: 'If I'm the one I hear talking in the back of my head, who's the one listening?" That's the thing I think he is trying to explain. There are all of these chemical reactions, like the ones that make something spicy cause the reaction in the body, but who is the person experiencing the feeling of spiciness? You can grow in a jar the system of cells and neurons that the chemicals in a pepper react with, just like they do in the body, but it's neither a pleasure nor pain to the contents of the jar. It's mindless reaction. You can take the body if a deceased person and jump start the heart. As long as it's not damaged, the brain/central nervous system can resume the automated process of breathing and digestion. You can stimulate the muscles and cause movement. All systems are a go, but there's no brain activity other than the automated ones. You could feed the body hot peppers and the same chemical reactions would occur, but there is no one in there to experience it. The base if the brain is sending out the automated signals, driving the life support and digestive system. Why then, is there no brain wave activity associated with consciousness? Could it be that the brain isn't receiving the signal that causes it to work? The body works because the brain sends a signal, and without the signal it lies there without motion. So, where is the signal coming from that causes the voluntary portions of the brain to activate and operate the voluntary activities of the body?
Their brain won't start any automated processes, the heart can beat without the brain as long as you have the person on a ventilator. You die when your brain dies, brain-dead people only look alive as long as you have them on a ventilator and their heart can still beat. You can stimulate muscles with electric shock but you are taking the place of the nervous system in that case, not demonstrating that it is still active. You die when your brain dies, not before not after. All you would be doing is causing series of chemical reactions that mimic a person that has ANY brain activity, when in fact they have none. The brain and nervous system no longer send any signals. Now I understand what you were getting at though, and I don't disagree. We are missing a large part of the equation in how we currently explain the complete Human experience. Joe really wasn't understanding here and Goff could've explained it better I think. I don't feel strongly either way, I think it should be attacked from every angle possible until we either discover one wins out or multiple do. My money is on it being all 3 that Goff mentions at the same time, with each perspective being more effective for certain applications.
@@SoloAdvocate I have been a ditch doctor for 10 years. I have gotten ROSC long before the time of brain death and seen pts breathing on their own, without a respirator, which is controlled by the central nervous system, and they never return to consciousness. No brain injuries, no down time without CPR, and yet they are missing the higher brain functions that are voluntary. The central nervous system is intact and functional at the primitive level. Something is missing, as you said. The car is running, but no one Is driving
@@acarpentersson8271 Well I can't profess to be more knowledgeable than you in this area. Thanks for being an EMS for so long, tough job, widely underappreciated and underfunded with not many talking about it. I am all for the allowance of using what has been classified as nothing more than "drugs" (such as LSD, DMT, etc.) in an effort to study consciousness due to the effect they seem to have. We just don't know enough and we consistently avoid trying to understand, maybe it is an instinctive Human condition or possibly forces at work to keep us slaves to materialism. There just seems to be too much evidence that there is 'something more', whatever that may be.
@@MM-eo2oz yeah...he doesn't really know how to explain what he believes in... I'd like to have another podcast on this topic with someone else. It's a very interesting topic for me.
I don't think that's true. He grasped the significance of the direction of explanation (panpsychism->brain-mind-physics Vs the opposite direction) and he asked the right question about why Phil thought panpsychism explained the brain-mind. I think Joe's materialist intuition is a much more standard physicalism - like that of Keith Frankish or the average physicist. Phil is a materialist/physicalist AND a panpsychist, which is unusual (although a lot of Buddhists have a position something like this, I think). It's one of the most difficult debates in analytic philosophy and cognitive science, and everyone has trouble with it. The early part of their discussion is more or less about Frank Jackson's Mary though experiment. It's well known among philosophers that Jackson changed his mind about it a few years after he published it (which philosophers, like scientists, are apt to do.)
Good post, Joe, & Happy Thanksgiving. As a widower, living alone with cancer, a sweet Christian woman will bring me a thanksgiving dinner tomorrow. She doesn't know me or of my troubles. She just instinctively gestured the gift. Churches all across America will feed tens of thousands of homeless & others tomorrow. The charity at this time of year shines bright, brother. And I pray the LORD look after you too.
@@adamjones9201 really I thought he grasped the ideas just fine and would question Philip explanations as “come on now” in a respectful way. I was bored by how unprepared he was to answer Joes questions.
@@beergood83 The point he wasn’t getting, and that the other guy wasn’t doing a very good job at expressing is the basic idea that you can’t translate qualia, the internal sense of experience itself. You can break down the bare bone physical components, chemical and molecular reactions of processing wave lengths of light by the human eye … but, science simply can’t capture the experience of what it’s LIKE to actually experience the red-NESS.
there's a short, one-page note somewhere in the CIA online library made by an agent at some Science Summit in the 80s, and it said something like, "in the near future, western science will all but cease to progress because it's too tightly fused with western philosophy. in order to continue progress, western science will likely have to separate itself from western philosophy", and i feel like this clip perfectly demonstrates what that note meant i wish i could find that again, because i haven't stopped thinking about it ever since the first (and only) time i saw it
That's really interesting, and appropriate here. I've been having the same thought recently, and have actually started working on a book where that is one of the themes
@@Squashmalio u written that book yet? If not crack on what you playing at? There's always time in a day to write a sentence here n there it all adds up. 2 press ups a day is easier then 50 one day a week.
He should have just said "I dont know if your red experience is the same as my red experience." We have all attached meaning and emotion to that experience differently, depending on how we first perceived it in childhood, how we integrated it in our worldview. Yes, most of us can differentiate it as being the same 'colour' but that doesn't mean the subjective experience is identical. Experiments have been made on people whose native languave didn't differentiate between green and blue - they had the same word for both. When shown swatches of different colours, they actually had trouble distinguishing between blue and green - implying that somehow the part of the brain responsible for language affected their subjective experience of colour perception. This example is only one of the possible ways our "common" experiences can actually differ from one another. There are so many factors at play that it's improbable my red is the same as your red, and even if it was, there's no way to actually convey that to one another - short of visual telepathy.
Or perhaps the difference between the two colors never evolved the same way in those particular groups, so there was nothing to differentiate in language. Ah well. I'm happy to be just little ol' me and not know either way lol.
Yeah, an earlier part of their conversation was better - just that idea that theres more kinds of experience going on than you can possibly imagine. It doesnt have the bounds we think it does. It will witness reds and blues, and even mediate them through languages, and.. almost any process or pattern or conjoining of processes and patterns, it seems, is attended to by a self-witnessing, or being, which you don't get to be. Unless you happen to be just that.
@Brayan.a Yes, " the People, are the Body of the Church" ... But It's Leaders - the Popes of the era were tied to "Divine Right" Rulers ... NOT just "kings" ... but the "Princes of the Church" . Didn't the Archbishop of Saltzburg, control His territory to include MOZART, for years ???
@@RoaroftheTiger But who says the church, any church, any religions church, synagogue, temple, priests, rabbis, imams, gurus etc., EQUAL a true spirituality or spirit or ACTUAL rule of any god or otherworldly dimension of existence? There is zero evidence for any of them being true, factual, real in their doctrine's claims. So then why would they have any carte blanche...any say at all in the matter of consciousness and specifically consciousness vs. science?
Ik it’s popular to hate religion in church but more people were killed under non religious sectors and I mean way more and war I’m not gonna even start TLDR can’t blame religion for extremism
@@philosopher0076 what’s your evidence that science is real all it does is focus on the material thing and never talks about why just describes what we already see science is perfect.You probably worship Richard Dawkins huh.
@@shawntalks2414- Do You recall ever hearing of "the Hundred Years War " ? Speaking from Personal Experience; All War is Evil (Have You ever been ?) Regardless if It Over Religious Reasons, or the procurement of Petroleum or Bauxite. The Real underlying Reason in either case is POWER ... It's NOTHING, that "the Christ" would have approved of.
It's kinda funny how they're talking in math 😂 I can fully imagine 2 scientists discussing this by writing algebraic equations on a whiteboard in silence
Very frustrating to have someone be right (at least IMO ) and continuously fail to articulate his point. Joe’s questions were actually remarkably good and have obvious answers if Goff wasn’t too nervous
@@aerosnail I recommend you to read Sam Harris' double essay "The mystery of consciousness". Sam explains it waaay better. If you wanna go deeper into this, you could read Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like To Be a Bat?". David Chalmers and John Searle have some talks about it too. The gist of the issue is: There is an explanatory gap between the physical correlates of experience, and the "what does it _FEEL_ like" of experience itself.
Okay so to my understanding he’s trying to say this: i enjoy this activity because it triggers dopamine in my brain. So what he’s trying to say is we can interpret that as we’re trying to figure out whether we enjoy that activity because of the dopamine triggered or the dopamine triggering make me enjoy the activity.
Joe really needs to Have Duncan Trussell back on to get high and contemplate these kind of ideas. Duncan has a way of stripping Joe's defenses and allow him to see things from a different perspective, even if only as a thought experiment.
@らてちゃん That's just silly... The pain isn't going to be the same just due to the strength of the punch... the nerve receptors on the receiver are working or not? The receiver is a fighter or never been punched before? What diferences are there in bone density? Also were you hit in precisely the same area of the face, 'cause you know, chin and forehead are very different! Aside from that, many scientific truths are not intuitive, so you cannot just know them from when you were children. You are the one with the guard up, because Joe's questions clash with your bias. What happen in that exchange is that Philip Goff stated his position but had no bases for it or couldn't present them. He just thinks that is so because he dislikes the ideia that consciousness is brain chemistry... He didn't back it up, just kept repeating, and I'm paraphrasing, "Yes, I agree with all you've said, but I choose the other position". Probably because he has a book to sell on choosing the other position... When he started speaking I was interested, it seemed a curious new approach, but because he couldn't really fend off any of Joe's pretty straight forward and simple questions, by the end I couldn't care less... It reminded me of when Deepak Chopra decided to state, in a debate, that Quantum Physics says that the Moon stops existing when we don't see it... No, it doesn't, things continue to exist even if you are not conscious of them.
@@aerosnail I literally left the spotify podcast and switched to this clip on youtube to read comments like this. I agree that if Goff knew exactly what he was talking about, he would be able to portray it better for us to understand. But the problem is, I don't think he understands what he is talking about perfectly in his mind. I remember specifically when he mentioned that his professor marked him poorly on an assignment that didn't align with the professor's views, which that can be ofcourse subjective, but Joe said 'Right because the professor couldn't take that you are questioning things and are different', AND is that Goff's mission, to disprove the reality we can accurately prove with the mathematical tools we have? He has invested so much time into his theory, I think he is in denial and won't turn back now, or he is into something but is bad at presenting it. Is it based on an Ego, the mentality some get from when they Graduate a University... I think a question that I would ask him, if we are conscious when we are alive, what happens to our consciousness when we die? .. For others to understand joe's position, his questions are there to make the audiemce understand what the guest is saying, even if joe gets it, but in this instance Joe doesnt get it and nor does the audience.
Joe-"my dog likes to roll around in fox shit" Philip-"I have a friend who likes to do that as well" Joe-"A human!??" Philip-"I was joking..." Funny how for a comedian, humor goes over Joe's head quite often.
Dog rolls around in fox shit. It is the *norm* to keep dogs _inside_ houses and _all over furniture._ Absolutely disgusting. You weirdos will never be able to intellectually justify that. It’s no mystery why every house that I ever entered that has a dog inside smells like a gas station urinal.
I would say “personal”. The subjective/objective divide is a red herring or a distraction at best, imo. All perception (and reality) is rooted in the seer/the perceiver. This is what Berkeley meant by his famous question, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” This is the hard problem. See Jordan Peterson’s new convo with Pageau, Vervaeke, and Bishop Barron. Or His video of mainly Pageau right before that. It’s really difficult for a philosophical materialist to see this, but the consciousness/the perceiver is necessary for reality to exist.
This discussion never gets off the ground as Joe fails to acknowledge the "hard problem" and the dilemma which the materialist view of consciousness presents. The materialist view supposes that subjective experience of the world seemingly springs from material constructs (likely brains) once matter is arranged in particular ways. This is deeply problematic - how does subjective experience suddenly emerge from matter? And why?... The panpsychists address this problem by reconceptualising consciousness as a fundamental property of matter. Where there is matter there is consciousness in some manifestation. That's not to say that rocks are sitting there having meaningful experiences (or that breaking one in two will create two separate conscious entities) but that all matter may be experiencing some dull form of consciousness - way too simple for us to relate to. Like a gentle hum. Some argue that the quality of conscious experience may be enriched as matter is arranged into more complex forms of information processing. Panpsychism could be wrong but its ideas seem no less bizarre than those of the materialists once the hard problem is given thought. Emergent consciousness is as inexplicable as it is unnecessary for survival and innovation - hence the "philosophical zombie" thought experiment which seemed to go over Joe's head.
I mean you’re asking a lot from a jock. I think where the Panpsychists drop the ball is assuming individual consciousnesses, I am more into Leo Gura’s thinking that it’s all the same consciousness just dreaming the whole universe up.
It’s not that consciousness is a property of matter. It’s that all matter exists within consciousness. There isn’t a way to grasp the embodiment of the nature of this reality without Non-dualism, that’s where panpsychists get caught up sometimes. The Vedas explained all of this perfectly 8000 years ago. You’re right, it never got off the ground, and it was a little frustrating that he couldn’t frame everything in a way that was accessible to Joe. It really would not be difficult to completely blow Joe’s mind and augment his perception in an hour.
Very well said, it's a shame they couldn't agree to disagree and explore the conversation. Moust of the time Joe gets it, but damn yes, consciousness could be a fundamental property of the matter, which manifests with the right stimuli and in a very perticular environment. You broke my mind with this man, Thank you.
His three options at 9:30 are good. Really. 1) Consciousness is explained in terms of matter (the brain). (Materialism) 2) Matter is explained in terms of consciousness. (Panpsychism). The brain is explained in terms of consiousness 3) They are two separate things (Cartesian dualism). Or All reality is relational. And ontology precedes epistemology. But of the three, #2 is by far the most rational. Sorry, materialists. To explain being, you need dynamism. Base ontology has three options: Hard Monism, Hard dualism, or a third which is a more dynamic and fluid (relational) version of the first two.
I believe your conclusion is true only if you have the (not an insult, but a literal description) self-centered view that existence is an experience of yours alone. Just because you are more able to explain something based on how your individual self understands and experiences something (the example of seeing red) DOES not make it a more accurate description. The materialist definition of "red" and what red is, is actually much more direct and understandable than trying to describe color to a blind person.
@@abbajabba7 It doesn’t have to necessarily be just one person. It could be that we are all interfacing here and we influence reality the way we do the same things we do normally, just explained from a non-materialistic perspective.
Reality is objective and is relatively determined by the consciousness. Perception is not reality, perception of objective reality is an individual's reality. "You hear that?" "No I cant hear it." The thing is actually there making sound. But ones perception of its existence is different from the other. So it doesnt exist. Unless the two can both see it. Then they both have the same data in some way. But if not, one person is perceptive of it while another is not. Take this concept and insert intent of action. My motivations may be based on my perception of objective reality. What my mind makes of what my senses give it. Both of our senses might be getting the same exact objective information about the physical reality surrounding it but our conscious mind then layers on so many things warping it to our own personal realities. No roses are red to a person who can't see red but that's just _their_ reality, even though in reality (maybe?) roses *are* objectively red for everyone. Its the old "how do we know my red is your red" question... You could see what I call purple in red's place but niether of us will ever know because you grab the color that you were taught as red, as do I even though objectively beyond our perceptions they may be different. I find it interesting that humanity has progessed so much that problems ancient philosophers puzzled over were also dwelt upon by high schoolers at a bus stop.
Yes Mr. Thompson you have clearly failed to read/digest the thesis of Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. (Specifically, the part where he explains consciousness.) I might also recommend Paul Churchland's "Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes" to put you on a more a firm footing.
He could have explained it with music a lot easier, you can explain sound waves and music but the fundamental reason we all enjoy it is strange it’s deep down within your soul like if you were on a distant planet alone and a bunch of rocks fell off a cliff onto the ground forming a beat you would smile it’s strange.
Ok and Joe's point would be Shine On You Crazy Diamond puts you in that deep state and Hotel by Pitbull does not, and the qualitative difference in experience can be explained in terms of the quantitative differences in the songs
They're really talking past each other. This guy dodges the question of building his point of view from first principles, and joe doesn't get that this guy believes a scientific language cannot describe the qualitative experience of conciousness, and instead focuses in on the quantitative causes in the experience.
I think also if he would’ve just said like, even tho acid can add to an experience does that experience maintain a certain mathematical experience value in a base level compared to that of yours individually under the influence or not. And are they different and if so is that based on your brain or on consciousness
Kind of remarkable how Joe totally fails to grasp subjectivity. Take "happiness" as a subjective experience. If I say "serotonin" and/or identify brainwave patterns that correlate with happiness do you now say that the emotion can be totally understood through matter? Does identifying the physical correlate completely describe the unique subjective experience? Of course not. It correlates, but it does not adequately describe the felt experience; what it is like to be happy. If I perfectly measure your brain states I still don't know what it is like to be you. I think that is all Goff is getting at.
Well I think he totally understood what they guy was saying but anything subjective isn’t a fact and the guest did horrible at telling him his ideas. I watched the full podcast and i got to respect how joe handled it because I would’ve been less patient
@@dcelo1072 I agree that Goff is not doing a great job at communicating his message here. I also agree that subjective experiences are not "facts", in the objective sense that they can be verified by others, but that's actually the point. I don't know anyone willing to give up their subjective experience of the world no matter how "real" it seems to others or not. Unless you want to forgo the experiences of love and sadness it's worth being able to talk about them as real.
But it IS all about the material world, your subjective experience is just the chemical reactions in your brain. Consciousness doesn't exist without the material, your perception of the world is entirely built on chemical reactions, consciousness doesn't exist without those reactions.
@@vanillajack5925 No one said they exist independently. Of course there are chemicals associated with consciousness, but how does identifying chemicals mean that your experience of consciousness is not real or that it is reducible. Two people with the same chemicals can have radically different experiences. We need a way of discussing this that is separate from the physical....and we have plenty.
I feel like there’s a fourth option, the “Non-dual” view, which is that mind and matter are different aspects of a single substance. Sometimes called “neutral monism.” So dualism is not the only alternative to materialism and panpsychism. Non-dualism seems to be the closest option to what Joe believes.
its philosophy nothing is black n white there is always a bit of wiggle room especially between individuals. even cogito, ergo sum can be debated. whos thoughts and where do they come from how do we know thoughts originate with us and are not beamed in by cosmic radiation, Gods, aliens, demons, or programmed by the simulation
@@pk7056 I like Ibn Rushd's thesis on the individual intellect not existing. Deconstructs the modernist precept before it even happened, think about that Foucault and Derrida lol.
A watermelon farmer once had a watermelon vine grow through the fence and into his neighbors property and produced a big beautiful watermelon. The neighbor claimed the watermelon was his because it was on his land. The farmer claimed it was his because he planted it. The 2 men argue and end up going to court. While I’m court the judge patiently listens to each argument and sides with the neighbor. Ownership should go to the neighbor because it was in his property. My question: If my finger is in someone’s ass, whose finger is it?
I was screaming at my phone while driving, hoping Rogan could understand what this argument was. I think he started to somewhat understand the guests argument, but not well. In his defence, however, philosophy is an insanely difficult topic and this specifically is extremely complex. It took me a while to understand the concept, and I love philosophy.
There's no god. There's no invisible heaven. There's no invisible hell. We are stranded on a big ball in a universe we know nothing of. Wake up baby we are adults act like it.
@@disliked1390 You just said that there's no God, heaven, or hell. You then went on to say we know nothing about the universe and told somebody to act like an adult. You make yourself look like a fool when you contradict yourself and then insult someone in the same breath.
@@Matt-bm6vy What Disliked (shocking name) is is scared which manifests as anger when anyone hints that he may at some point be held accountable for his actions. So he and those like him lash out and attempt to convince you of their superior intellect.
I feel this guy started with a good concept and he isn't use to a non-scientist questioning his hypothesis...This example is why Galileo separated math and consciousness to create more structure and get more results. I also feel Philip Goff is on to something with this he just needs to explain it better and I hope Joe Helped.
To the first reply, there is utility in philosophy insofar as investigating how people ought to live their lives. It works well in the human domain. You shouldn't discount that. But as far as it being a vehicle for understanding the physical world better, it definitely falls flat-- because it's all just words when it comes to the physical domain. You can't really prove anything without doing an experiment, which is doing science by definition
Indeed, his original appearance on Mindscape was a lot more useful than this which is a pity. The guys saying nothing useful comes from philosophy are seduced by materialism but sorry I don't believe in the miracles and unexplainable phenomena needed for it all to hang together. As Einstein said "there is something deeply hidden" that thing is consciousness. Matter is an observable event because it is conscious of an instruction set to make it so and the observer is conscious of it via its own tools of perception.
Joe: please bring Bernardo Kastrup on your show! After many years believing in the materialist paradigm led me down a nihilistic path of personal destruction due to what I thought was a cold universe and a meaningless, random existence, I hit rock bottom. From there I slowly began to awaken to new ways of understanding through my own direct experiences. When I tried to read about what I was experiencing, I too, for a time thought panpsychism was the answer. But as I journeyed on I came to realize the synchronicities could not be explained through panpsychism alone. That is when I discovered non-dualism/idealism (eastern term/western term). Scientifically speaking, this is the only solid ontology there is …and there is an urgency now for the scientific community to expand their paradigm beyond materialism…beyond panpsychism…into the realm of the non-dual so that we can understand our interconnected nature and live in a kinder, gentler world. Not only that, but you’ll get some kickass speakers on your show from this philosophical tradition that cover everything from aliens 👽 to near-death experiences. But start with Bernardo Kastrup. He’ll get you on point!
Sorry, but metaphysical idealism is a dead end as well. Ontologically speaking, "wholistic dualism" best aligns with reality. Genesis 2:7 If you can't deal with the Bible, then listen to Erez Batat. th-cam.com/video/vyf3QDP0Kv0/w-d-xo.html
He's talking about the problem of translation. The experience of redness, when translated into scientific terms doesn't convey redness in the same way as seeing it in the same manner the sounds of the word 'chair' in english doesn't mean 'Silla' to a spanish speaking person. You can say that seeing redness is special or cool the same way that you can say english is better than spanish but it's nonesense in objective terms. If both seeing redness (experience) and measuring wavelength of photons amount to the same information. The issue here isn't 'this is a more genuine way to get information', it's about translation and how chair isn't Silla even though they both mean the same thing.
The assumption is that consciousness or collective consciousness has no effect on reality, but according to the Princeton consciousness project, consciousness can and does affect the quantum level of our reality.
@@konan8353 im a physicist, and please disregard the appeal to authority but i would say you’re exactly correct. Consciousness clearly flows from the arbitrarily large complexity of the brain... people trying to overcomplicate it with quantum woo woo isn’t at all helpful
@@FPSIreland2 what do you think about the double slit experiment and other perceived phenomena like synchronicity , ive had coincidences/synchronicities that are seemingly 1 in a billion chance of occurring , like randomly calling my mom and asking about a long lost uncle from childhood who i hadnt seen in 20 years , then he shows up at my house the next day surprise visiting from another state
If Joe Rogan were to interview someone like Bernardo Kastrup or Donald Hoffman, I bet his mind would would explode (I also bet he’d immensely enjoy those conversations).
??????????? This is a less popular but totally valid view to hold in philosophy of mind. This guy and other panpsychists are still using logical reasoning to get to their conclusions, unlike you it seems.
@Tom H its not an easy problem to explain, but basically the problem of empirically explaining consciousness is that empiricism was created by consciousness itself as a means to understand the physical world outside of the mind, but it doesn't work when turned inwards as consciousness, though an emergent process of material processes, is immaterial in and of itself. This wikipedia article might help: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
I think the question Joe needs to ponder is, how do simply material (unconscious) chemicals and their materialistic reactions with each other in a collection of material (unconscious) neurons miraculously give rise to any kind of conscious experience?
An usual problem with these interactions is that the proponents of panpsychism or non-materialist physicalism(*) are constantly on the defense. It would be fit to take a break and ask the materialist or functionalist or illusionist to explain how could such a thing as "🔴" pop out of adding non-🔴 things, or worse, out of abstract maths (in the case of functionalism). *which is similar but instead of saying that "physical equations describe extrinsic behavior but omit the intrinsic qualitative nature of things" is goes straight to saying that "physical equations describe experiential fields, pure fields of qualia".
You just articulated what Weinstein was supposed to/ needed to say. He was so inarticulate and wiggly abstract that he was failing to communicate. I really don't put anything on Joe here. How was it that he couldn't just express his ideas in simpler terms and with concrete examples? He used to be an educator? And he's about communication?
@@giovannisantostasi9615 well, yea. Though I suppose we haven't painted outselves into a corner in pondering it. It's an open question, whereas our assumptions on the unconscious nature of matter prohibit a materistic answer to the mystery of consciousness.
I think the philosopher would have made his point understood if instead of focusing on the experience of "something," he explained it in terms of the experience of nothingness. For example, we go through 3 states of awareness: Waking, Dreaming, & Deep Sleep. In our waking state, we go through life and experience the external world. In our dream state, we experience an internal world (where materialists will argue is generated by our brains; correct). But in between these series of dreams, we go through periods of blankness (nothingness), which is deep sleep. In deep sleep, the materialists will argue that the brain is unconscious, therefore we do not perceive or experience anything. However, the nondualist will argue that in deep sleep, there is nothing but Consciousness. Because when you wake up, most ppl will say "I was dreaming, and in between dreams there were periods of nothingness." Well, who or what is experiencing this "nothingness," this blankness? There must be a witness, an observer, to experience this blankness (nothingness). That observer is pure Consciousness. Consciousness is the foundation of all experiences.
Why does there have to be an observer to the pause in consciousness? If person A is awake while person B is in this state of unconsciousness and time passes normally to A while watching B, but B have a time gap, could that not just be explained by B being unconscious?
@@sunte91 how do you know of the time gap? If consciousness simply ceased, then started again, it would seem like an instantaneous transition between the end of one period of consciousness and the beginning of another. I think anyways
It would be a mistake to conclude that panpsychism cannot sufficiently defend against the objections/questions that Joe posed merely because this philosopher failed to effectively articulate a defense.
@@KK-lg8uz yeah. He should’ve said that it’s about the observer that experiences the sensations which makes it real. But it’s only real if the observer is there. The science and mathematics are true regardless of an observer (or consciousness) present.
Isnt the job of a philosopher to be able to explain his philosophical ideas to others? Or is it normal to have zero ideas on how to convey thier theories to anyone?
God this was so much easier to explain. “Spicy” is a subjective construct. Not all beings experience cayenne pepper as “spicy” for example. The whole concept of “spicy” is made up by humans to describe a relatively stable shared/common experience. That doesn’t mean cayenne pepper “is spicy.” That descriptor is inherent to the construct, and therefore non-objective, but a subjective quality. As Dan Dennet said in his great TED talk-there’s nothing inherently “sweet” about honey, it’s our brain that interprets it as “sweet.” If you really grok the meaning of this, you recognize that all sense and perception are a story created by the sensory mechanisms of the body. The point is that you cannot trust your senses as a fundamental representation of truth. They are only “relatively true,” but not absolutely.
thats just called an analomy. the majority of people experience it all the same and the point of chemicals providing that same taste could mean those that dont experience the same taste have a differnt chemical make up whether its biological from nerves operating less or more sensitive than the norm. stop trying to overthink this lol
You are talking about a different thing. He's not talking about the sensation of spiciness being subjective and therefore it not being inherit property of a matter. That's not the point. He is trying to explain how in order to experience something through the senses you need more than just the materialistic interaction in your brain. You need something that interpretes that materialistic brain activity. That interpreter he calls conciousness.
+ Seth Blaustein. I think the point Groff wanted to made in this podcast is different. Galileo was the one who said there's no spiciness inside the hot pepper and that that experience is purely in the human. Groff says something else, I think. He's a panpsychist, which means he'd argue that every particle is consciousness, it's made of the same stuff as our experience. Which means that physical properties only come into being AFTER consciousness. They are real, so if we want to describe the world, we can use physics. But they arise from mental things, and those can be described too, but not by physics. Groff wants to give a philosophical foundation for being able to say those experiences ARE inherent in the things too, for example the spiciness in spicy food. That way we can not only coherently describe their physical properties, but also how it is to experience them subjectively.
For people like Joe, who couldn’t understand, I hope I do a better job explaining it than Goff… What Goff was trying to convey by “redness / experience of red” or “the actual spiciness of a curry” is an epiphenomenal concept known as QUALIA (google it for a better definition). Here is the *actual* thought experiment, by Frank Jackson, that attempts to convey qualia: Imagine a scientist who knows literally everything about colour… that is to say she knows every single physical and mathematical property of the entire spectrum of visible light. (Note: Although this is unlikely to ever happen, knowing so much would take a life time of studying, it is both physically and logically possible). Anyway… this scientist - call her Mary, is colourblind. Her colourblindness does not impact her complete knowledge of colour since the scientific concept of colour itself can be entirely explained in mathematical terms (or so Galileo suggests, I.e. that the entire universe can be explained in physical terms using mathematics as its language - after all, we know all about ultra violet and infrared light even though it is impossible to experience them wih the human eye). Ok, so far we have a colour blind scientist that knows everything about colour. However, one day she wakes up and for some reason she can see the colour red for the first time. She already knew everything there was to know about red, and all the other colours for that matter, and yet she has had a new experience. Crucially, that is to say despite having full mathematical perspicaciousness of colour, experiencing it for the first time adds to her knowledge and *therefore* there must be an aspect to colour, to red, that is non-physical… that cannot be explained using mathematics. Goff would argue from here that it is because this experience of red cannot be found anywhere in the physical universe. It instead exists only within our conscious experience. Even by scanning her brain & seeing her neurological changes during the exact moment Mary saw red for the first time, this wouldn’t translate to us the same feeling / experience we get when we see the colour red ourselves - after all how do we even know, even when looking at the same object, that we perceive it in the same colour… we can’t. And this is simply because I can’t hop inside of your mind and experience your conscious experience of that same object then hop back into mine to compare. Ultimately this is what Goff was getting at, that Gal has taken a picnic blanket and wrapped up all of our experiences that occur through the 5 senses during every millisecond of our lives, and then with that blanket stuck it in a basket called “consciousness” and said ‘everything in the universe can be explained in physical / mathematical terms… just whatever you do, don’t look in that basket’. 🎉
the question is: Would you know how DMT felt, if you are an absolute brain expert, and know how every Neuron gets stimulated by it, BUT you'll never tried it?
@@916entartainment unless you drink coffee you can never understand what the experience would be like for yourself. Even if someone reads a book about being heartbroken and the book explains all of the associated science AND experiences, they will not understand unless the experience it for themselves. Some things cannot be explained and need to be experienced to be understood
This is like comparing a human to a jellyfish. Humans have intention and a will to power over the hierarchies in front of them. A jellyfish will never intend to do something but still manages to survive due to it's biochemical reactions to it's environment. The point Philip Goff is trying to make is why couldn't you have a more advanced biomechanical system that can complete all the tasks a human can and survive just as well without the human experience. Or maybe the point at which a jellyfish like organism would be able to reach this level of complexity it would give rise to what we label consciousness, which has been labelled by us but is actually an illusion and just a more advanced version of the biochemical survival reaction a jellyfish has. Basically the jellyfish became so advanced that it questioned why it was trying to survive in the first place.
Maybe its not that the jellyfish got 'advanced' to question why it got so advanced, but rather being a particular jellyfish. Particulates are what makes the jellyfish and all that it does and is and will be, but being a particular jellyfish might be more fundamentally real.? You feel/interpret/chemically react to pain, but you can only observe it through these particular synapses, location, time. Idk. 2 am.
@Redwan Ahmad Biology is physics and chemistry. Consciousness and biology are not the same thing. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the thesis.
i love that he points out the idea of "philosophical zombies" he doesn't go in depth of them, but they are people who have no "consciousness" all they can do is mimic other people.
Made me wonder about someone in a vegetative state being kept alive by machines. Their eyes are intact and can be sending signals of what they see to the brain, but the person doesn't perceive anything, the consciousness is missing
The best book on this topic is Owen Barfield’s “Saving the Appearances”, but…that book is HEAVY. He talks about the nature of perception and how it works and how phenomenon appear to us and then how we *think* about the phenomenon.
This is called the hard problem of consciousness, and it is a legitimate philosophical debate, not just nonsense like Joe is making it seem. There is no reason that the atoms that make up brains should produce subjective experience - the fact that they do is the great mystery.
@@DanielAnderssson it is a 'mystery' insofar as you insist on appealing to scientific principles, because scientific principles are limited to general and lawlike explanations. general and lawlike explanations are precisely NOT descriptive of the subjective, first-person point of view. even psychology as a field of scientific knowledge consists of general theories about how people work, not descriptions of the subjective experience of any given individual.
@@Dystisis Why would something that is descriptive of the subjective (whatever that means) or from a first-person point of view (another term for anecdotal) give any definitive explanation of consciousness? It is precisely because science has detached itself from such things that it has given us the world that it has. In fact, is consciousness a problem we need to address? Do we need to interpret a tornado?
@@DanielAnderssson Science cannot even say anything about the subjective experience of seeing red, let alone solve the mystery of why it exists. And that is not likely to change. Same thing with morality - science only predicts things, it can't tell us what ought to be. Science and philosophy are different categories, but the current paradigm is so dominated by science that many forget that. It won't last forever, though...
It’s just like Terminator 2 John: Do you feel pain? Arnie: I have sensors that notify me of injury. The data could be called pain. You can scientifically explain everything behind spicy food while at the same time not “experience” it. …or I’m full of it :)
Perfect. No, you nailed it. Joe’s lack of understanding here is almost disappointing, they could be having a really good conversation here if Joe could grasp what Goff is saying. Mathematics and chemical/physical science can only explain why something happens in terms of how it occurs, these sciences can never truly explain/communicate what a thing is or how it truly feels. ‘What’ requires consciousness to experience a thing to know it. It’s amazing how complicated our language becomes surrounding something so fundamental to existence, it feels odd.
Firas Zahabi explained this subject so much better in the « scientific debate » with Joe, it took an hour but it’s still my favorite podcast moment ever
What the Greeks, as well as the philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists of the 17th Century European Enlightenment, got correct, is that science, art, and philosophy are really one discipline in purest form. The position which Newton (and Hawking) held at Cambridge was Don of Philosophy. The Greek word "τέχνη" (tekni) literally means "art". Yet, that very word gave us the English word, "technology", which isn't typically associated with art at all in the minds of most people.
I think a better explanation is Galileo was saying each individual person experiences things in their mind differently but 2 + 2 is always 4 no matter the individual. Spiciness of a dish is totally up to the individual. They may tolerate spicier foods better. They may have eaten spicy foods all their life and find something bland while someone who doesn’t eat spicy foods would find a relatively small spiciness too much to handle.
If you watch the whole podcast and take a shot every time Joe says "innovation," you will be unconscious by the end. (Consciousness itself will remain)
Listening on Spotify and this poor guy just can’t get Joe out of the humanistic view of consciousness. “ red is red because it is man, I took Psychedelics so it’s chemical. Painful to hear this guy explain the hard problem of consciousness to Joe.
@@hellowell3743 you can tell everyone in the comments have read one book on or by a philosopher signalling hard they understand Goff even though he's articulating it terribly the type of guys to wax lyrical about Rick and Morty because they get some of the references to existentialism
Joe is arguing that the orange is orange and round while the other point is that it’s sweet and tart. Different aspects of the same thing although Joe thinks sweet and tart means orange and round Hes a dumb guy
That's probably. Because nothing,nobody ever can explain consciousness because to explain it ..U WOULD FIRST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT ..even then there is no vocabulary in the human evolution to explain it the way ur experiencing it ...human don't know shit ,they just think they do ,it's a joke to even try to understand all that we are and every thing is ...JUST SIT BACK SND INJOY THE RIDE ..
These individual conscious experiences cannot be explained by science but the physical reason to which we experience them can be explained by science. Color by wavelength, and spiciness by chemical reaction.
4:08, Hard to understand Joe Rogan's narrative about it, because Galileo introduced frame of reference or also known as the inertial frame, and then later Einstein corrected it in his theory of special relativity regarding space and time causality. From what I understand Galileo did exclude consciousness in the qualities described of physics of motion brought into objective and inertial frames quantized in mathematics which are important for computers today. And of course he quantized it using mathematics to describe these motions. Galileo was right. If today, we look at sensors of accelerometers or gyroscopes, we see the predicted moments of inertia in the sensor data. And we apply algorithms or system models that filter a lot of these small moments of inertia etc. And also we try to remove the gravity vector, because gravity is affecting all accelerometers as long as there is gravity. And it is always pointing towards the normal of the perpendicular surface of the earth. Then, later Isaac Newton expanded much more in his Force laws, Universal law for gravity, Calculus, and theories in optics. Without the advanced tools today that we have, Galileo and Newton strongly predicted how all these things mentioned independent of experience or consciousness. As in, even if you are high as a kite, the laws of motions still apply.
This guy isn’t great at elucidating panpsychism at the lay-level. He’s doing his best but Chalmers might have been a better choice. These ideas don’t make much sense to people who don’t spend their lives contemplating consciousness and it’s relationship to the world. It’s really hard to bridge the gap.
Or in this case, questions that show he completely missed the point, and has his guest searching around for examples they could use with small children.
if you try to explain what red is to somebody who's never seen colour it's impossible sure things can be done to help them see red through science and medicine but it still can't be explained in language or mathematics
He wasn't backpedaling at all, he was trying to find a way to help joe understand what he was even talking about. I'm actually disappointed in Joe here, seems he came into this with little to no preparation.
This is a very interesting topic. Agree with most that Goff doesn't explain his ideas very well which is disappointing given he's supposedly an influential philosopher. I think a better way to understand the "spiciness" example is with the following. Would a scientist who has no sense of taste ever be able to "explain" spiciness with a physical theory if no experiencer-of-taste were to ever offer an explanation of their experiences? The scientist would never be able to find the sensation in the physical properties alone and wouldn't be able to detect the correlation between physical properties XYZ and the experience of "spiciness"; such a connection can only be made by conscience experiencers reporting on their experience of "spiciness" and the scientist being able to then explore the physical properties that are present when this experience occurs. The point of this is say that a system of explanation that's purely physical would be unable to give an account of the full spectrum of reality which includes conscious experience; physical theories about conscience experience require insights from consciousness to get off the ground.
Yeah, you and him are explaining qualia. Philosophy talks about it all the time with the arguments over consciousness. Plus people who are physicalist don’t really have a hard answer to that question yet. But yeah that was kinda of frustrating that he didn’t really explain it to joe that well.
Man I'm a romanticist just like the rest of yall but this guy is just off. Maybe he's not explaining it well but I understand what he's saying 100 percent, I just disagree with him and agree with Joe. Consciousness does in fact exist outside of science but everything he's mentioning was written 500 years ago. Now we have technologies that allow us to observe the experiences and what causes them. I.e spiciness being a reaction of compounds and color being a wave length. What you perceive is your brains reaction to the natural world and what is actually happening, all very quantifiable things. He's claiming that you can't actually quantify it because of people's feelings, that is just not true. Facts are facts regardless of how you feel about them. Also Galileo was known for astronomy, not philosophy, for a reason! Lmao P.s. I bet I know who this guy voted for 🤣🤣🤘
This insight helps us realize that from a purely physicalist’s (or Hebbian) point of view, we won't have a roadmap towards which we can distinguish WHEN the properties we have enumerated will serve to be the foundational mechanism that we were looking for. Now a problem with the non-physicalist point of view when it comes to physicalism: You may present a bowl of curry with 3 times more spice. The conscious taster may be able to comparatively say “Yes, this is more spicy.. In fact it is twice as spicy” missing that it was actually “three times more spicy.”
A question that clarifies this philosophical question is “Is the brain a transmitter/creator of consciousness , or the receiver of it? Or can both be true at the same time? “ Materialists say the physical creates consciousness, Panpsychis says Consciousness creates a physical brain, and dualists say consciousness and the brain are independent of each other.
Not really. He didn't describe panpsychism properly. What he described is Idealism. In panpsychism, the brain isn't created by consciousness. In panpsychism, everything material behaves as materialism predicts, but the irreducibly qualitative aspect of experience (qualia) is always there in some raw way. In other words. The brain evolved just like every other biological thing and the processes that make possible to perceive stuff are physically evolved, but the _sense of feeling_ itself is not a product of the brain.
@@AlanGarciaC.1093 thanks. we may be parsing words but that’s what I meant by the brain being the receiver. The brain evolves along the lines of materialism but “receives” consciousness (rather than transmits it) from something “transmitted” from outside the brain itself. Material things like a brain then are the quantitative and the experience derived through it is the qualitative. My question for all groups would be to kindly explain why humans have a highly evolved organ (the brain) that only uses 10% of its capacity on average? That runs counter to almost every evolutionary theory going. I’m not suggesting any religious or spiritual explanation but there is no known material answer for the occurrence. Traditionally what is not used, goes away or at least gets smaller over time. I’m still leaning toward a Simulation Theory that we are living in a Simulation and that somehow our unused brain mass is connected to it somehow.
@@eletricavenue first of all. The "10% of the brain" thing is a myth. We all use most of it most of the time. And I don't think that consciousness is "transmited" from outside the brain [although something like that may be necessary to explain intentionality, if you're interested in philosophy of mind I recommend you to read about intentionality, it's as puzzling and mysterious as qualia]. I think that the brain *aggregates information* in such a way that makes higher types of experience possible.
@@AlanGarciaC.1093 lol “first of all” rachet down the arrogance and sanctimony when you address me please. Philosophy isn’t a football game. I tend to agree with Einstein that all of creation is one thing that can’t be explained by separating it into component parts. (Especially given the limited bandwidth of our 5 senses.) “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind,” Einstein said. Generally speaking, pantheism identifies God with the universe or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. The worship is founded on the belief that everything is one and, in essence, admits and tolerates all gods. Pantheism suggests that just like the cells in our bodies, working together as a whole, everything is part of one infinite being. This eternal, single existence is The Living Universe. My favorite Einstein quote about how little we know or can know about creation, “We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” Albert Einstein
Just try to imagine what's like to be a cat. We don't know for sure what it feels like to be one (how does fish taste to a cat?), but we do have a good grasp of all the causal mechanisms that cause them to have those experiences. There is a difference between a qualitative experience (the feeling of being warmed by the sun, for example) and an explanation that describes why you get to have that feeling or experience in the first place.
that is a problem of description, not a problem for the claim that conscience is a byproduct of the workings of our material brains. to me, the ultimate proof that our consciences are built atop our material brains is the fact that old age, or even traumas or diseases that affect and kill off our neurons, make us dumber, reduce our awareness, change our personalities. basically showing us that our conscience, our subjective experiencing of the world, happens because we have a nervous system that underlie all of that and allow it.
@@030992amagadi Well let's take Alzheimer's for example. The full consciousness is still in there, it's just trapped. The breakdown of the brain from the disease is a malfunction of the machine that does not allow optimum consciousness to be accessible, but it's still in there somewhere. It's like a machine constantly misfiring but every now and then it runs smooth for a short duration and in Alzheimer's patients we call these moments of clarity...where just for a small moment it's as if they don't even have the disease at all. I believe if we could reverse Alzheimer's, that the individual would regain full, optimal consciousness. Think about coma patients that has total loss of consciousness due to trauma and injury to the brain. When some of this folks heal, they wake up as if nothing ever happened.
@@ly5504 that is a romantization of the condition. First, these "moments of clarity" usually are limited in scope, and are less and less common as the disease ravages the brain further, second, even if they werent, that doesnt mean there is some ethereal conscience "trapped". say your car has a spent battery - you try and try to turn it on, and then finally it does. Does that mean that the running motor is some higher, immaterial state that just happened to be "trapped" by the bad battery, but is there regardless? No, right? I'm pretty sure you wouldnt argue that. All it means is your car, which is a material sum of mechanical and chemical components, is broken, but not completely. An alzheimer's patient, or any other senile person, might not be broken down to the point of not functioning completely, and so show the moments of clarity you mentioned. But still, their physical being is broken and that translates to poorly functioning conscience, because the starting point is just that - your physical composition.
Quantum mechanics and mathematics would give you no insight into what he’s talking about. This is philosophy of mind, particularly the hard problem of consciousness.
9:39 The option that Goff presents, in which matter is explained in terms of consciousness, is actually idealism not panpsychism. Panpsychism only states that consciousness is ubiquitous, it doesn't tell us what matter or consciousness is. If we're going to avoid either materialism or dualism then the real alternative is going to be idealism.
Mr. Goffs point would be more clear if you would have moved from talking about colors, to how people create subjective meaning spontanously out of every day situations- thus creating the sense of a self that is moving through life. this experience cannot be explained Mathematically or materialistic.
@@liamjones9115 first off, intelligibility is a relative concept. so when you say he fails to articulate his thesis in an intelligible fashion, the question immediately arises, intelligible to whom? to you, a layperson in the field of philosophy and in particular metaphysics? why should that be frustrating? do you get equally frustrated when a physicist isn't able to explain some theory in a manner that is immediately intelligible to every layperson? no. because you understand that the physicist is dealing with a complex and technical subject matter, portions of which are hard to understand without the necessary background. well, the subject matter of metaphysics also involves complexity and technicality and often can't be understood without background.
Goff does a pretty good job of explaining the problem (contrary to what some comments below suggest). But Dave Chalmers, the philosopher who really drew attention to this problem, was extremely good at explaining it. Also, Joe does a truly admirable job of challenging Goff. Some comments below suggest Joe's simply not getting it, and there's some truth to that, but the fact is that he's not getting it because Goff isn't doing the best job of explaining the problem. (Again, I think Chalmers could've clarified things.) To those of you who think Joe's being obtuse, I doubt you fully understand where he's coming from; his questions are deceptively intelligent. My guess is that Goff simply wasn't well enough prepared for the kinds of questions Joe raised.
Yeah this clip is really where they started to get in the muck. Talking past eachother just barely, in a hard way to explain. The idea consciousness is more primary is one thing, but Goff kept pushing on that it 'explains' science/math. I'd just say that it hosts or witnesses or redeems science and math by letting them "occur TO something". It doesn't provide new law or structure. It provides a home. It isnt a thing, or a doer, so it slips away from attempts to say it "explains" or "causes" any bloody thing.
When we describe things in language or mathematics, those are not the REAL THINGS being described. The word 'ant' is not the crawly six legged thing outside. Likewise when we look at a brain scanner and see areas light up that are associated with a sensation, the picture of the brain on the scanner is not the MIND of the person experiencing that sensation - it's only a representation of it. Of course you can explain things mathematically, or with language, or by graphing them, by building scientific models that conform to what we see, but when they work so well we start to mistake the map for the territory being mapped. It might be a very acurate map, but its still not the actual thing. Panpsychism is a cure for the disease of replacing the territory for the map, but its only one that you will appreciate if you currently have the disease of reductionism or materialism. Science is true (or gets closer and closer to it at its best), but in a way that misses out on everything that actually matters. Joe doesn't 'get it' because he has common sense, and hasn't yet become afflicted with philosophy.
you merely came to realize that Daniel dennetts 160iq and joes 70iq produce the same argument. that's what arguing incoherently from assumption does to your brain.
We don't even know what consciousness is yet, but it's tied to your brain which is biological that is part of science so yes, it's tied to science so that science can figure it out. philosophizing it and not trying to figure it out with science is a terrible idea, this is how we are here typing on a computer all over the world because we stopped philosophizing and started doing science
Galileo’s philosophy observed that, as Goff points out, “The qualities aren’t really out there in the physical world, they’re in the consciousness of the observer.” Right, but 1500 years before Galileo, Buddhism described Skandhas, or Aggregates of clinging (to supposed “reality”). These Aggregates are the formations, senses, perceptions, that our mind, our consciousness, uses to construct/define/interpret “reality.” Much of Western scientific and philosophical “fundamentals” were observed long before Western civilization emerged. Just a reminder.
Is it possible that he knew he wasn’t capable of understanding it (especially enough to convey it) that he was more focused on conveying the subjects that he was able to talk about it.
He’s making the assumption that consciousness isn’t a physical process. The fact that physics describes physical world and is separate from our subjective experience of reality doesn’t mean we can’t model the process which gives us that subjective reality. This is a logical fallacy. It’s egotistical of humans to think like this.
Great show. Galileo, being a practical, experimenting physicist, was cautious about consciousness because we knew so little about the mechanics of consciousness. We live in a great time when we compete with entities called computers and we can ask questions about what would make that machine conscious.
We don’t know any more about consciousness and the serious questions regarding it. All philosophers have learned how to do is retreat more tactfully e.g. eliminativism.
We are all masters of physics at a young age we just don’t know how to put it on paper. Our consciousness allows us to have faith and determination in things we don’t know for certain.
If you think we are masters of physics at a young age, it’s quite evident you don’t know much physics. Just because you can see something happen doesn’t mean you understand it. A master of physics is somebody like Newton, Einstein, Plank, Schrödinger, Maxwell, Dirac, Heisenberg, etc. You were NOT a master of physics. You were a dumb kid who saw something and thought it looked cool, as we all were.
Joe is into DMT but doesn’t know what qualia (consciousness) is? Get Bernardo Kastrup on here ASAP! Love Philip. Psychedelics reduce brain activity but increase qualitative experiences.
Joe Rogan is stuck in a weird scientism and always seem to fail at seeing the limits of it. Science is quantitative and empirical, but consciousness is qualitative and subjective, there is a gap that cannot be filled with the current paradigm.
The faith/religious/magical paradigm fills it. If you study the teachings of Buddha or Jesus they say it’s the subjective belief that determines the objective and science has been flirting with this for a long time now with the placebo and nocebo effects
This is kind of frustrating to watch cuz Joe doesn't seem to really understand/appreciate the harndess of the hard problem of consciousness and the other philosophical issues surrounding consciousness.
Language in general is limited in describing reality. Remember that a picture of a tree is not a tree and the equator doesn't die the earth in a knot. Science is the process of slicing reality into pieces and translating it into mathematical and linguistic descriptions, but these models are not the same as the thing itself. Science and mathematics is great and produces amazing technologies, but it doesn't explain experience.
@@umchinagirard1800 We don’t know if it cannot be tied down to quantifiable phenomena. It’s extremely complex. Our brains are physical systems, therefore, hypothesizing it could be modeled by physics (it would be very complex) cannot be ignored.
Could it be possible, that you are describing 2 ways to view the world. 1. The mathmatical view, so that you see the world with experiences you have gathered, through the educational system embarked by Galileo. For example you look at a hammer, you know that with that hammer, you can get nails to stick to the wall, because you have gathered the mathmatical experience, to know the formula of force is responsible. 2. The existential view, which is the way you talk, about the information, that you have gathered from Galileo's system and the information, of what the resolving body sensation would be. For example you would teach your daughter, how to use a hammer and you say 'don't hit your finger with it or else it will hurt really bad.' she will still not know the body sensation of 'really hurt' through mathmatical information, if you however tap her on the hand lightly and then gradually harder. You can get her to understand the rising alarming sensations in her body resulting in her receiving the information she needs to watch out not to hit her hand, by sharing the existential knowledge. To add from myself I believe that this distinct difference is also the reason children and people on drugs see the world differently. They go through the house scream and draw on the walls, because it was fun and exciting, they feel ecstatic. A lot of parents would shout at them, which leads to a feeling of guilt and unhappiness. With the information of existing in that exact moment feeling those emotion effected by all the different factors of perception she now knows it makes up a memory, that if she draws on the walls and runs screaming through the house. She will get scold and then in her mind goes over to valuing, which sensation is stronger over all waying her options and judge, based on the both kinds of information she now has. As of right now we can not transfer this existential information, but as you have said, we have come very far by mostly figuring out the mathmatical side of science, so you can trust your better judgment. Not to eat a Carolina reaper or else you could faint, since that's the warnings we have made based on chemical reaction(mathmatical) the memory of your bodies sensation of heat (existential). thank you for reading Joe , wish you all the wisdom and joy you can imagine, since that's what I received from you. Also thank you Philip for the great wisdom.
I sometimes think out limitations are also due to our understanding of science. We've made a wrong assumption in our fundamentals of science and now we are so far down the rabbit hole it's hard to go back and think differently.
I've always seen consciousness and experience as the result of all our material senses working in concert. Like an orchestra, each instrument can be singled out and heard individually, producing OK music, but the whole orchestra working together produces complex layers of sound and an extraordinary sensory experience that would be hard to explain if orchestral music were the only exposure to music and you could not see the musicians and instruments producing it.
But there is no reason for you to be there to experience that concert. Imagine robots playing the tunes all according to the preprogrammed instructions. They have sensors to detect sounds, and they all play their part when the time is right. But non of them will be experiencing the music. If you are only a material thing like these robots, why do you even have an experience of the music. Why are you here? In materialist picture, consciousness seems unnecessary. From a materialist and deterministic point of view, we don't have free will. If we aren't doing anything, why are we aware then? We could be just like sleep-walkers, zombies or robots moving around according to self-replicating and self-altering algorithms in our brains. Why are you here in your body, reading this comment. You could be a robot who took this input, made some calculations and output a response, just like any other machine, without having any experience. Why are you here experiencing this then?
@@senerzen is there a point you're trying to make? I'm not here to debate, just sharing my perspective and I dont think my perspective steps on the toes of any others
Philip Goff did a terrible job explaining himself here. I'm actually more on board with his position than with pure materialism, but this was frustrating to listen to because he came across as someone who actually had no idea what he was really talking about. When he was pressed on a point, he usually just repeated himself without giving further explanation.
@@mikeloryh Yeah, I don't think Joe was making a big effort to understand, but still, Goff, as a philosopher who explains complex ideas for a living, should have made it much clearer. He really came across as someone intentionally avoiding questions. I found his conduct very cringe, especially as someone who actually agrees with him strongly.
Would've been cool to see Galileo debate Eddie Bravo.
😂🤣
lol Galileo would probably challenge Eddie Bravo to a Duel at dawn to get rid of him after that.
DUDE...WTF...AWESOME✌😝✌
Hahaha.. Brilliant!!!
10-8 Eddie bravo after he brings up TH-cam guy he watches
For someone who talks about psychedelics as much as he does I’m surprised Rogan had as much trouble digesting the point as he does here. For something like spicy curry there certainly is a relationship between the chemical makeup of the curry and the perceived spicy flavor experienced when eating it, but the spiciness isn’t an innate property of its chemistry, but is instead an experience that emerges from it. In simpler terms, if you eat a hallucinogenic drug and see a giant red dragon, the dragon and the properties that belong to it are experiences in your consciousness and they were brought about by the psychoactive drug, but these aren’t innate physical properties of the drug itself. Spicy curry similarly induces a specific experience as a consequence of the way it interacts with our anatomy and how that interacts with our consciousness, but the properties perceived in our consciousness aren’t material properties of the curry.
Underrated comment 👏
This was a frustrating podcast, mainly because of Joe's blatant lack of understanding and his dunning krueger like dismissal of what Goff was explaining. But to be fair, also Goffs inability to better articulate his point, on probably the largest platform he's had and also his highly irritating defensive attitude.
This had a lot of potential, but ultimately it was a letdown. In my opinion.
Triggers his "religion" defensiveness
Very good comment It’s what I was hoping Joe’s guest what’ve expressed to Joe
Went to the comment section looking for a comment like this.
Well said.
sucks that joe will never see this comment. and understand the idea
This man is doing a terrible job at explaining his points, though i agree with him. I totally understand why Joe doesn't seem convinced.
It's because Joe has debunked his loony theory ;)
@@antikokalis science is loony too when it comes to explaining feelings
So color blind people are not conscience...got it
@@agent-sz2qj Not really. There are many instances of people injuring some part of their brain and turning into a totally different person. We know it's all there, we just are not advanced enough to examine everything properly. Also, we can't do experiment on people ;)
@@woodrowu Good one ;)
This was one of the most awkward podcasts I've listened to. Maybe not awkward for the both of them, but certainly awkward for me as a listener. It felt as though the conversation went nowhere. It felt as though both of them never really agreed to one another, nor did they fully comprehend each other (Joe definitely didn't comprehend Phil because I feel Phil didn't really explain himself all that well in a 'universal' language). I guess this is what happens when the premise itself (of all things or most things having consciousness) is so abstract. It took them more than an hour to even get to discussing what the word consciousness means and whether the word itself is ambiguous or not. Maybe it would have been easier if they started out by defining consciousness in this context first and then went from there.
I agree; such an amazing concept got lost in translation.
True.
That surprised me a lot. As a philosopher one would think you have sharpened your thoughts and choice of words.
Maybe he writes great essays. So maybe just take a breath before rushing into answering...
Agreed. I think I could have explained Philip's position better than he did, which was frustrating.
The redness of a red experience...what don’t ya get about that brahh🤣
I don’t think Phil understands what he’s saying himself. I’ve not heard someone talk so much and say so little in a long time. Joe kept stumping him over and over again.
This guy is talking about something called ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ if anyone wanted to learn more about this subject.
You won't learn it by listening to the first half of the podcast (I don't know about the second half, because I turned it off)
I think this guy is the one who should read it one more time ;)
shit not if its going to have me sounding like this buddy
David Chalmers called...he wants his hard problem back
sounds self syllogistic
I heard this the other day: 'If I'm the one I hear talking in the back of my head, who's the one listening?"
That's the thing I think he is trying to explain. There are all of these chemical reactions, like the ones that make something spicy cause the reaction in the body, but who is the person experiencing the feeling of spiciness? You can grow in a jar the system of cells and neurons that the chemicals in a pepper react with, just like they do in the body, but it's neither a pleasure nor pain to the contents of the jar. It's mindless reaction. You can take the body if a deceased person and jump start the heart. As long as it's not damaged, the brain/central nervous system can resume the automated process of breathing and digestion. You can stimulate the muscles and cause movement. All systems are a go, but there's no brain activity other than the automated ones. You could feed the body hot peppers and the same chemical reactions would occur, but there is no one in there to experience it. The base if the brain is sending out the automated signals, driving the life support and digestive system. Why then, is there no brain wave activity associated with consciousness? Could it be that the brain isn't receiving the signal that causes it to work? The body works because the brain sends a signal, and without the signal it lies there without motion. So, where is the signal coming from that causes the voluntary portions of the brain to activate and operate the voluntary activities of the body?
Search for Atma Bodha from Swami tadatmananda. It's brilliant
Checkout
“Elon Musk meets Post Malone”
😆 👽
Their brain won't start any automated processes, the heart can beat without the brain as long as you have the person on a ventilator. You die when your brain dies, brain-dead people only look alive as long as you have them on a ventilator and their heart can still beat. You can stimulate muscles with electric shock but you are taking the place of the nervous system in that case, not demonstrating that it is still active. You die when your brain dies, not before not after. All you would be doing is causing series of chemical reactions that mimic a person that has ANY brain activity, when in fact they have none. The brain and nervous system no longer send any signals.
Now I understand what you were getting at though, and I don't disagree. We are missing a large part of the equation in how we currently explain the complete Human experience. Joe really wasn't understanding here and Goff could've explained it better I think. I don't feel strongly either way, I think it should be attacked from every angle possible until we either discover one wins out or multiple do. My money is on it being all 3 that Goff mentions at the same time, with each perspective being more effective for certain applications.
@@SoloAdvocate
I have been a ditch doctor for 10 years. I have gotten ROSC long before the time of brain death and seen pts breathing on their own, without a respirator, which is controlled by the central nervous system, and they never return to consciousness. No brain injuries, no down time without CPR, and yet they are missing the higher brain functions that are voluntary. The central nervous system is intact and functional at the primitive level. Something is missing, as you said. The car is running, but no one Is driving
@@acarpentersson8271 Well I can't profess to be more knowledgeable than you in this area. Thanks for being an EMS for so long, tough job, widely underappreciated and underfunded with not many talking about it.
I am all for the allowance of using what has been classified as nothing more than "drugs" (such as LSD, DMT, etc.) in an effort to study consciousness due to the effect they seem to have. We just don't know enough and we consistently avoid trying to understand, maybe it is an instinctive Human condition or possibly forces at work to keep us slaves to materialism. There just seems to be too much evidence that there is 'something more', whatever that may be.
I was just waiting the whole time for Joe to include psychedelics in this conversation... He didn't disappoint :D
Have you seen
“Elon Musk meets Post Malone”
It’s hilarious!!
🌍 😆
@@jackswanson1725 thanks for the tip .. I'm gonna check it out! 😂
@@MM-eo2oz yeah...he doesn't really know how to explain what he believes in... I'd like to have another podcast on this topic with someone else. It's a very interesting topic for me.
Anybody else high watching this
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This conversation went entirely over Joe's head.
He wasn’t getting it at all
Ya he was one step away from talking about how crazy chimps are
I don't think that's true. He grasped the significance of the direction of explanation (panpsychism->brain-mind-physics Vs the opposite direction) and he asked the right question about why Phil thought panpsychism explained the brain-mind. I think Joe's materialist intuition is a much more standard physicalism - like that of Keith Frankish or the average physicist. Phil is a materialist/physicalist AND a panpsychist, which is unusual (although a lot of Buddhists have a position something like this, I think). It's one of the most difficult debates in analytic philosophy and cognitive science, and everyone has trouble with it. The early part of their discussion is more or less about Frank Jackson's Mary though experiment. It's well known among philosophers that Jackson changed his mind about it a few years after he published it (which philosophers, like scientists, are apt to do.)
Because the guest was just talking pure nonsense..
Idk I’m kind of with joe on this one. The argument doesn’t make much sense to me
Good post, Joe, & Happy Thanksgiving. As a widower, living alone with cancer, a sweet Christian woman will bring me a thanksgiving dinner tomorrow. She doesn't know me or of my troubles. She just instinctively gestured the gift. Churches all across America will feed tens of thousands of homeless & others tomorrow. The charity at this time of year shines bright, brother. And I pray the LORD look after you too.
Many of us are alone! God bless and enjoy your meal!🙏🙏🙂☺️
God bless you brother
God bless 🙏🏽
But... but... religion is bad and nothing ever good came out of it reeeeee
Glad to see this kind of philosophical discussion on such a popular podcast!
These philosophical discussions have occurred hundreds of times. More so in the earlier days of JRE
It's a shame that Joe couldn't grasp the fundamentals though
@@adamjones9201 really I thought he grasped the ideas just fine and would question Philip explanations as “come on now” in a respectful way. I was bored by how unprepared he was to answer Joes questions.
@@beergood83 The point he wasn’t getting, and that the other guy wasn’t doing a very good job at expressing is the basic idea that you can’t translate qualia, the internal sense of experience itself.
You can break down the bare bone physical components, chemical and molecular reactions of processing wave lengths of light by the human eye … but, science simply can’t capture the experience of what it’s LIKE to actually experience the red-NESS.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp whoa
there's a short, one-page note somewhere in the CIA online library made by an agent at some Science Summit in the 80s, and it said something like, "in the near future, western science will all but cease to progress because it's too tightly fused with western philosophy. in order to continue progress, western science will likely have to separate itself from western philosophy", and i feel like this clip perfectly demonstrates what that note meant
i wish i could find that again, because i haven't stopped thinking about it ever since the first (and only) time i saw it
That's really interesting, and appropriate here. I've been having the same thought recently, and have actually started working on a book where that is one of the themes
@@Squashmalio u written that book yet? If not crack on what you playing at? There's always time in a day to write a sentence here n there it all adds up. 2 press ups a day is easier then 50 one day a week.
Wooaaa!
I appreciate Joe pushing the issue and asking the hard questions but I feel like he made this conversation a little harder than what it needed to be.
I totally agree
Nah, this dude just doesn’t understand what he’s saying enough to explain it well.
wow snowflake, that man gives no time to really assess what joe is saying
@@SnailHatan I think it’s partly both.
@@alexpataco2626 imagine using "snowflake" in this context
He should have just said "I dont know if your red experience is the same as my red experience."
We have all attached meaning and emotion to that experience differently, depending on how we first perceived it in childhood, how we integrated it in our worldview. Yes, most of us can differentiate it as being the same 'colour' but that doesn't mean the subjective experience is identical.
Experiments have been made on people whose native languave didn't differentiate between green and blue - they had the same word for both. When shown swatches of different colours, they actually had trouble distinguishing between blue and green - implying that somehow the part of the brain responsible for language affected their subjective experience of colour perception.
This example is only one of the possible ways our "common" experiences can actually differ from one another. There are so many factors at play that it's improbable my red is the same as your red, and even if it was, there's no way to actually convey that to one another - short of visual telepathy.
Very well put, thanks!
Or perhaps the difference between the two colors never evolved the same way in those particular groups, so there was nothing to differentiate in language.
Ah well. I'm happy to be just little ol' me and not know either way lol.
Yeah, an earlier part of their conversation was better - just that idea that theres more kinds of experience going on than you can possibly imagine. It doesnt have the bounds we think it does. It will witness reds and blues, and even mediate them through languages, and.. almost any process or pattern or conjoining of processes and patterns, it seems, is attended to by a self-witnessing, or being, which you don't get to be. Unless you happen to be just that.
Close. "I can't know if your [take-your-pick] experience is the same as mine."
BS post the study
If I was Galileo, I'd stick to science too, since the church put him under house arrest until the end of his life.
@Brayan.a Yes, " the People, are the Body of the Church" ... But It's Leaders - the Popes of the era were tied to "Divine Right" Rulers ... NOT just "kings" ... but the "Princes of the Church" . Didn't the Archbishop of Saltzburg, control His territory to include MOZART, for years ???
@@RoaroftheTiger But who says the church, any church, any religions church, synagogue, temple, priests, rabbis, imams, gurus etc., EQUAL a true spirituality or spirit or ACTUAL rule of any god or otherworldly dimension of existence? There is zero evidence for any of them being true, factual, real in their doctrine's claims. So then why would they have any carte blanche...any say at all in the matter of consciousness and specifically consciousness vs. science?
Ik it’s popular to hate religion in church but more people were killed under non religious sectors and I mean way more and war I’m not gonna even start
TLDR can’t blame religion for extremism
@@philosopher0076 what’s your evidence that science is real all it does is focus on the material thing and never talks about why just describes what we already see science is perfect.You probably worship Richard Dawkins huh.
@@shawntalks2414- Do You recall ever hearing of "the Hundred Years War " ? Speaking from Personal Experience; All War is Evil (Have You ever been ?) Regardless if It Over Religious Reasons, or the procurement of Petroleum or Bauxite. The Real underlying Reason in either case is POWER ... It's NOTHING, that "the Christ" would have approved of.
It's kinda funny how they're talking in math 😂 I can fully imagine 2 scientists discussing this by writing algebraic equations on a whiteboard in silence
You the 🐐
They both go back and forth writing for a bit; One of the scientists throws his marker and angrily stomps off, all in dead silence 😂
Yo baleedat
PLEASE have Bernardo Kastrup on!!!!
Very frustrating to have someone be right (at least IMO ) and continuously fail to articulate his point. Joe’s questions were actually remarkably good and have obvious answers if Goff wasn’t too nervous
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly asking in curiosity. Could you please answer Joe's questions, one by one. Thanks a bunch.
Elon Musk meets Miley Cyrus⬇️
th-cam.com/video/Ub2ObstDY1M/w-d-xo.html
It’s hilarious!! 😂 😆
@@aerosnail I recommend you to read Sam Harris' double essay "The mystery of consciousness".
Sam explains it waaay better.
If you wanna go deeper into this, you could read Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like To Be a Bat?". David Chalmers and John Searle have some talks about it too.
The gist of the issue is: There is an explanatory gap between the physical correlates of experience, and the "what does it _FEEL_ like" of experience itself.
y’all really coming for him like you know anything you’re talking about
Okay so to my understanding he’s trying to say this: i enjoy this activity because it triggers dopamine in my brain. So what he’s trying to say is we can interpret that as we’re trying to figure out whether we enjoy that activity because of the dopamine triggered or the dopamine triggering make me enjoy the activity.
Joe really needs to Have Duncan Trussell back on to get high and contemplate these kind of ideas. Duncan has a way of stripping Joe's defenses and allow him to see things from a different perspective, even if only as a thought experiment.
@らてちゃん agreed
@らてちゃん That's just silly... The pain isn't going to be the same just due to the strength of the punch... the nerve receptors on the receiver are working or not? The receiver is a fighter or never been punched before? What diferences are there in bone density? Also were you hit in precisely the same area of the face, 'cause you know, chin and forehead are very different!
Aside from that, many scientific truths are not intuitive, so you cannot just know them from when you were children.
You are the one with the guard up, because Joe's questions clash with your bias.
What happen in that exchange is that Philip Goff stated his position but had no bases for it or couldn't present them. He just thinks that is so because he dislikes the ideia that consciousness is brain chemistry... He didn't back it up, just kept repeating, and I'm paraphrasing, "Yes, I agree with all you've said, but I choose the other position". Probably because he has a book to sell on choosing the other position...
When he started speaking I was interested, it seemed a curious new approach, but because he couldn't really fend off any of Joe's pretty straight forward and simple questions, by the end I couldn't care less...
It reminded me of when Deepak Chopra decided to state, in a debate, that Quantum Physics says that the Moon stops existing when we don't see it... No, it doesn't, things continue to exist even if you are not conscious of them.
@@aerosnail I literally left the spotify podcast and switched to this clip on youtube to read comments like this. I agree that if Goff knew exactly what he was talking about, he would be able to portray it better for us to understand. But the problem is, I don't think he understands what he is talking about perfectly in his mind. I remember specifically when he mentioned that his professor marked him poorly on an assignment that didn't align with the professor's views, which that can be ofcourse subjective, but Joe said 'Right because the professor couldn't take that you are questioning things and are different', AND is that Goff's mission, to disprove the reality we can accurately prove with the mathematical tools we have? He has invested so much time into his theory, I think he is in denial and won't turn back now, or he is into something but is bad at presenting it. Is it based on an Ego, the mentality some get from when they Graduate a University...
I think a question that I would ask him, if we are conscious when we are alive, what happens to our consciousness when we die? ..
For others to understand joe's position, his questions are there to make the audiemce understand what the guest is saying, even if joe gets it, but in this instance Joe doesnt get it and nor does the audience.
Joe-"my dog likes to roll around in fox shit"
Philip-"I have a friend who likes to do that as well"
Joe-"A human!??"
Philip-"I was joking..."
Funny how for a comedian, humor goes over Joe's head quite often.
I think Joe just takes takes his academic guests more literally than others.
I felt the same way on that
Joe always misses jokes. He's not a great comedian anyway, great podcaster though.
Dog rolls around in fox shit.
It is the *norm* to keep dogs _inside_ houses and _all over furniture._
Absolutely disgusting. You weirdos will never be able to intellectually justify that. It’s no mystery why every house that I ever entered that has a dog inside smells like a gas station urinal.
@@CGJUGO80 Perhaps a dog bath would fix that problem…not that hard to justify 😃
Dogs are amazing creatures. You are most certainly not.
When he says “qualitative” he means subjective. That would clarify the confusion Joe is having with his claim
Yep!
Let's face it. It's easy to confuse Joe.
I would say “personal”. The subjective/objective divide is a red herring or a distraction at best, imo. All perception (and reality) is rooted in the seer/the perceiver. This is what Berkeley meant by his famous question, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” This is the hard problem. See Jordan Peterson’s new convo with Pageau, Vervaeke, and Bishop Barron. Or His video of mainly Pageau right before that.
It’s really difficult for a philosophical materialist to see this, but the consciousness/the perceiver is necessary for reality to exist.
I think he means qualitative in the sense that the world is made of qualities
Joe isn't confused, he's politely disagreeing and proving his guest is full of shit. I guess some of you would be better watching easier material.
We need Bernardo Kastrup on the podcast!
This discussion never gets off the ground as Joe fails to acknowledge the "hard problem" and the dilemma which the materialist view of consciousness presents. The materialist view supposes that subjective experience of the world seemingly springs from material constructs (likely brains) once matter is arranged in particular ways. This is deeply problematic - how does subjective experience suddenly emerge from matter? And why?...
The panpsychists address this problem by reconceptualising consciousness as a fundamental property of matter. Where there is matter there is consciousness in some manifestation. That's not to say that rocks are sitting there having meaningful experiences (or that breaking one in two will create two separate conscious entities) but that all matter may be experiencing some dull form of consciousness - way too simple for us to relate to. Like a gentle hum. Some argue that the quality of conscious experience may be enriched as matter is arranged into more complex forms of information processing.
Panpsychism could be wrong but its ideas seem no less bizarre than those of the materialists once the hard problem is given thought. Emergent consciousness is as inexplicable as it is unnecessary for survival and innovation - hence the "philosophical zombie" thought experiment which seemed to go over Joe's head.
I mean you’re asking a lot from a jock. I think where the Panpsychists drop the ball is assuming individual consciousnesses, I am more into Leo Gura’s thinking that it’s all the same consciousness just dreaming the whole universe up.
Panpsychism has the problem of combination. What truly wins out is an absolute idealism like
Tim Sprigge or Objective Idealism like Owen Barfield.
It’s not that consciousness is a property of matter. It’s that all matter exists within consciousness. There isn’t a way to grasp the embodiment of the nature of this reality without Non-dualism, that’s where panpsychists get caught up sometimes. The Vedas explained all of this perfectly 8000 years ago.
You’re right, it never got off the ground, and it was a little frustrating that he couldn’t frame everything in a way that was accessible to Joe. It really would not be difficult to completely blow Joe’s mind and augment his perception in an hour.
Very well said, it's a shame they couldn't agree to disagree and explore the conversation. Moust of the time Joe gets it, but damn yes, consciousness could be a fundamental property of the matter, which manifests with the right stimuli and in a very perticular environment. You broke my mind with this man, Thank you.
@@Evanderj true, I couldn't grasp anything about this topic and in person I wouldn't say sh** but here...
Who’s here after the trusell pod today, Christmas 2024?. Glad your finally seeing it Joe
His three options at 9:30 are good. Really.
1) Consciousness is explained in terms of matter (the brain). (Materialism)
2) Matter is explained in terms of consciousness. (Panpsychism). The brain is explained in terms of consiousness
3) They are two separate things (Cartesian dualism).
Or All reality is relational. And ontology precedes epistemology. But of the three, #2 is by far the most rational. Sorry, materialists. To explain being, you need dynamism.
Base ontology has three options: Hard Monism, Hard dualism, or a third which is a more dynamic and fluid (relational) version of the first two.
I believe your conclusion is true only if you have the (not an insult, but a literal description) self-centered view that existence is an experience of yours alone. Just because you are more able to explain something based on how your individual self understands and experiences something (the example of seeing red) DOES not make it a more accurate description. The materialist definition of "red" and what red is, is actually much more direct and understandable than trying to describe color to a blind person.
@@abbajabba7
It doesn’t have to necessarily be just one person.
It could be that we are all interfacing here and we influence reality the way we do the same things we do normally, just explained from a non-materialistic perspective.
Reality is objective and is relatively determined by the consciousness.
Perception is not reality, perception of objective reality is an individual's reality.
"You hear that?"
"No I cant hear it."
The thing is actually there making sound. But ones perception of its existence is different from the other. So it doesnt exist. Unless the two can both see it. Then they both have the same data in some way. But if not, one person is perceptive of it while another is not.
Take this concept and insert intent of action. My motivations may be based on my perception of objective reality. What my mind makes of what my senses give it. Both of our senses might be getting the same exact objective information about the physical reality surrounding it but our conscious mind then layers on so many things warping it to our own personal realities.
No roses are red to a person who can't see red but that's just _their_ reality, even though in reality (maybe?) roses *are* objectively red for everyone.
Its the old "how do we know my red is your red" question... You could see what I call purple in red's place but niether of us will ever know because you grab the color that you were taught as red, as do I even though objectively beyond our perceptions they may be different.
I find it interesting that humanity has progessed so much that problems ancient philosophers puzzled over were also dwelt upon by high schoolers at a bus stop.
Yes Mr. Thompson you have clearly failed to read/digest the thesis of Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. (Specifically, the part where he explains consciousness.) I might also recommend Paul Churchland's "Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes" to put you on a more a firm footing.
@@iamtheancientofdays people are going to think you’re serious.
He could have explained it with music a lot easier, you can explain sound waves and music but the fundamental reason we all enjoy it is strange it’s deep down within your soul like if you were on a distant planet alone and a bunch of rocks fell off a cliff onto the ground forming a beat you would smile it’s strange.
Great way of putting it. Music is the universal language. We recognize it without trying.
Ok and Joe's point would be Shine On You Crazy Diamond puts you in that deep state and Hotel by Pitbull does not, and the qualitative difference in experience can be explained in terms of the quantitative differences in the songs
They're really talking past each other. This guy dodges the question of building his point of view from first principles, and joe doesn't get that this guy believes a scientific language cannot describe the qualitative experience of conciousness, and instead focuses in on the quantitative causes in the experience.
you lost me the second you started talking about souls... whats with people speaking on science with dogmatic points?
I think also if he would’ve just said like, even tho acid can add to an experience does that experience maintain a certain mathematical experience value in a base level compared to that of yours individually under the influence or not. And are they different and if so is that based on your brain or on consciousness
Goofy is the only main Disney character to canonically have had intercourse, as he has a son in those Goofy movies
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
It was probably the stork who gave goofy a son.
@@constitutionaldennis there are those that call me...... Tim
What about Anna n Elsa's parents?
Edit: oh, main character. Nvrmnd
Thats assuming that the goofy species reproduces sexually
Kind of remarkable how Joe totally fails to grasp subjectivity. Take "happiness" as a subjective experience. If I say "serotonin" and/or identify brainwave patterns that correlate with happiness do you now say that the emotion can be totally understood through matter? Does identifying the physical correlate completely describe the unique subjective experience? Of course not. It correlates, but it does not adequately describe the felt experience; what it is like to be happy. If I perfectly measure your brain states I still don't know what it is like to be you. I think that is all Goff is getting at.
Well I think he totally understood what they guy was saying but anything subjective isn’t a fact and the guest did horrible at telling him his ideas. I watched the full podcast and i got to respect how joe handled it because I would’ve been less patient
@@dcelo1072 I agree that Goff is not doing a great job at communicating his message here. I also agree that subjective experiences are not "facts", in the objective sense that they can be verified by others, but that's actually the point. I don't know anyone willing to give up their subjective experience of the world no matter how "real" it seems to others or not. Unless you want to forgo the experiences of love and sadness it's worth being able to talk about them as real.
I found it weird how Joe just could not get the point
But it IS all about the material world, your subjective experience is just the chemical reactions in your brain. Consciousness doesn't exist without the material, your perception of the world is entirely built on chemical reactions, consciousness doesn't exist without those reactions.
@@vanillajack5925 No one said they exist independently. Of course there are chemicals associated with consciousness, but how does identifying chemicals mean that your experience of consciousness is not real or that it is reducible. Two people with the same chemicals can have radically different experiences. We need a way of discussing this that is separate from the physical....and we have plenty.
I feel like there’s a fourth option, the “Non-dual” view, which is that mind and matter are different aspects of a single substance. Sometimes called “neutral monism.” So dualism is not the only alternative to materialism and panpsychism.
Non-dualism seems to be the closest option to what Joe believes.
its philosophy nothing is black n white there is always a bit of wiggle room especially between individuals. even cogito, ergo sum can be debated. whos thoughts and where do they come from how do we know thoughts originate with us and are not beamed in by cosmic radiation, Gods, aliens, demons, or programmed by the simulation
@@pk7056 I like Ibn Rushd's thesis on the individual intellect not existing. Deconstructs the modernist precept before it even happened, think about that Foucault and Derrida lol.
@@rhythmsteve Hindi ?
Isnt Panpsychism compatible with neutral monism?
@@Yamikaiba123 That is also my impression. The question is probably if neutral monism necessitates panpsychism?
A watermelon farmer once had a watermelon vine grow through the fence and into his neighbors property and produced a big beautiful watermelon. The neighbor claimed the watermelon was his because it was on his land. The farmer claimed it was his because he planted it. The 2 men argue and end up going to court. While I’m court the judge patiently listens to each argument and sides with the neighbor. Ownership should go to the neighbor because it was in his property.
My question: If my finger is in someone’s ass, whose finger is it?
Thanks for making me laugh
*whose
😂😅 i guess theirs by judicial precedence. Too funny
He sounds like an American doing a bad Beatle impression
It's a trans-Atlantic scouse accent replacement of T sounds for D's.
Layder instead of later
😂😂😂
Holy shit, Joes questions would’ve been easily answered by someone who actually understood perception.
Does anyone understand perception? It all boils down to the “hard problem” who’s namesake doesn’t disappoint.
Joe really exposed how unintelligent he is in this podcast. He didn't get anywhere near as much out of this as he should've
@@CaptJofaz his guest wasn't the brightest candle on the birthday cake either
@@CaptJofaz In all fairness it’s a tough concept to get without putting some good thought into it.
I was screaming at my phone while driving, hoping Rogan could understand what this argument was. I think he started to somewhat understand the guests argument, but not well.
In his defence, however, philosophy is an insanely difficult topic and this specifically is extremely complex. It took me a while to understand the concept, and I love philosophy.
It’s amazing how close people get to God without acknowledging it
@22 Dev i’d recommend getting sunlight, fedora boy
There's no god. There's no invisible heaven. There's no invisible hell. We are stranded on a big ball in a universe we know nothing of. Wake up baby we are adults act like it.
@@disliked1390 You just said that there's no God, heaven, or hell. You then went on to say we know nothing about the universe and told somebody to act like an adult. You make yourself look like a fool when you contradict yourself and then insult someone in the same breath.
@@Matt-bm6vy What Disliked (shocking name) is is scared which manifests as anger when anyone hints that he may at some point be held accountable for his actions. So he and those like him lash out and attempt to convince you of their superior intellect.
There's always someone that brings it up
I feel this guy started with a good concept and he isn't use to a non-scientist questioning his hypothesis...This example is why Galileo separated math and consciousness to create more structure and get more results. I also feel Philip Goff is on to something with this he just needs to explain it better and I hope Joe Helped.
It's just the raving of a philosopher. Nothing good has come from philosophy since its separation from science.
he's not your Jordan Peterson, that's for sure. He may know what he's talking about, just lacks the ability to relate his ideas.
@@Aceface101 He is a poor speaker but the premise of his argument is flawed as well.
To the first reply, there is utility in philosophy insofar as investigating how people ought to live their lives. It works well in the human domain. You shouldn't discount that. But as far as it being a vehicle for understanding the physical world better, it definitely falls flat-- because it's all just words when it comes to the physical domain. You can't really prove anything without doing an experiment, which is doing science by definition
Indeed, his original appearance on Mindscape was a lot more useful than this which is a pity. The guys saying nothing useful comes from philosophy are seduced by materialism but sorry I don't believe in the miracles and unexplainable phenomena needed for it all to hang together. As Einstein said "there is something deeply hidden" that thing is consciousness. Matter is an observable event because it is conscious of an instruction set to make it so and the observer is conscious of it via its own tools of perception.
Joe: please bring Bernardo Kastrup on your show!
After many years believing in the materialist paradigm led me down a nihilistic path of personal destruction due to what I thought was a cold universe and a meaningless, random existence, I hit rock bottom. From there I slowly began to awaken to new ways of understanding through my own direct experiences. When I tried to read about what I was experiencing, I too, for a time thought panpsychism was the answer. But as I journeyed on I came to realize the synchronicities could not be explained through panpsychism alone. That is when I discovered non-dualism/idealism (eastern term/western term).
Scientifically speaking, this is the only solid ontology there is …and there is an urgency now for the scientific community to expand their paradigm beyond materialism…beyond panpsychism…into the realm of the non-dual so that we can understand our interconnected nature and live in a kinder, gentler world.
Not only that, but you’ll get some kickass speakers on your show from this philosophical tradition that cover everything from aliens 👽 to near-death experiences.
But start with Bernardo Kastrup. He’ll get you on point!
He should also have someone like Rachel Goldstein on to explain Spinozism to him.
Kastrup is my #1 guest I’d like to see. He has the spiritual background to bring these conversations back to earth, ironically.
Please do this. Goff didn't even mention idealism. Not only does Kastrup have a better theory, he's also better at explaining his points.
Sorry, but metaphysical idealism is a dead end as well. Ontologically speaking, "wholistic dualism" best aligns with reality. Genesis 2:7 If you can't deal with the Bible, then listen to Erez Batat. th-cam.com/video/vyf3QDP0Kv0/w-d-xo.html
He's talking about the problem of translation. The experience of redness, when translated into scientific terms doesn't convey redness in the same way as seeing it in the same manner the sounds of the word 'chair' in english doesn't mean 'Silla' to a spanish speaking person. You can say that seeing redness is special or cool the same way that you can say english is better than spanish but it's nonesense in objective terms. If both seeing redness (experience) and measuring wavelength of photons amount to the same information.
The issue here isn't 'this is a more genuine way to get information', it's about translation and how chair isn't Silla even though they both mean the same thing.
I agree. I was born without the ability to smell. My wife always is trying to translate for me to describe the smells.
@@ForeverYoungKickboxer how is your ability to taste and does that help her with describing smells for you?
@Đeath Vader except some perceive that specific wavelength as brown in colour.
@Đeath Vader but the qualities of red....whah whah whah. Hahahaha
Yeah, its a communication problem
The assumption is that consciousness or collective consciousness has no effect on reality, but according to the Princeton consciousness project, consciousness can and does affect the quantum level of our reality.
Sounds like nonsense to me chieftain
@@konan8353 im a physicist, and please disregard the appeal to authority but i would say you’re exactly correct. Consciousness clearly flows from the arbitrarily large complexity of the brain... people trying to overcomplicate it with quantum woo woo isn’t at all helpful
@@FPSIreland2 what do you think about the double slit experiment and other perceived phenomena like synchronicity , ive had coincidences/synchronicities that are seemingly 1 in a billion chance of occurring , like randomly calling my mom and asking about a long lost uncle from childhood who i hadnt seen in 20 years , then he shows up at my house the next day surprise visiting from another state
It does affect it, but also can be circumvented hence the monks during the Vietnam protest that sets them selves on fire without a sound
If Joe Rogan were to interview someone like Bernardo Kastrup or Donald Hoffman, I bet his mind would would explode (I also bet he’d immensely enjoy those conversations).
donald hoffman
This is probably the point in the podcast when Rogan realized the guy was just a hippy.
??????????? This is a less popular but totally valid view to hold in philosophy of mind. This guy and other panpsychists are still using logical reasoning to get to their conclusions, unlike you it seems.
The guy doesnt think there is a causation between taking acid and tripping, but thinks its a correlation. What?
@Tom H its not an easy problem to explain, but basically the problem of empirically explaining consciousness is that empiricism was created by consciousness itself as a means to understand the physical world outside of the mind, but it doesn't work when turned inwards as consciousness, though an emergent process of material processes, is immaterial in and of itself.
This wikipedia article might help:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
You have THE best content Joe. We get to learn all subjects right here.
I think the question Joe needs to ponder is, how do simply material (unconscious) chemicals and their materialistic reactions with each other in a collection of material (unconscious) neurons miraculously give rise to any kind of conscious experience?
An usual problem with these interactions is that the proponents of panpsychism or non-materialist physicalism(*) are constantly on the defense. It would be fit to take a break and ask the materialist or functionalist or illusionist to explain how could such a thing as "🔴" pop out of adding non-🔴 things, or worse, out of abstract maths (in the case of functionalism).
*which is similar but instead of saying that "physical equations describe extrinsic behavior but omit the intrinsic qualitative nature of things" is goes straight to saying that "physical equations describe experiential fields, pure fields of qualia".
You just articulated what Weinstein was supposed to/ needed to say. He was so inarticulate and wiggly abstract that he was failing to communicate. I really don't put anything on Joe here. How was it that he couldn't just express his ideas in simpler terms and with concrete examples? He used to be an educator? And he's about communication?
succinctly put.
How does an electron create a repulsive force with another electron? It is not that less mysterious than conscious experiences.
@@giovannisantostasi9615 well, yea. Though I suppose we haven't painted outselves into a corner in pondering it. It's an open question, whereas our assumptions on the unconscious nature of matter prohibit a materistic answer to the mystery of consciousness.
I think the philosopher would have made his point understood if instead of focusing on the experience of "something," he explained it in terms of the experience of nothingness. For example, we go through 3 states of awareness: Waking, Dreaming, & Deep Sleep. In our waking state, we go through life and experience the external world. In our dream state, we experience an internal world (where materialists will argue is generated by our brains; correct). But in between these series of dreams, we go through periods of blankness (nothingness), which is deep sleep. In deep sleep, the materialists will argue that the brain is unconscious, therefore we do not perceive or experience anything. However, the nondualist will argue that in deep sleep, there is nothing but Consciousness. Because when you wake up, most ppl will say "I was dreaming, and in between dreams there were periods of nothingness." Well, who or what is experiencing this "nothingness," this blankness? There must be a witness, an observer, to experience this blankness (nothingness). That observer is pure Consciousness. Consciousness is the foundation of all experiences.
Why does there have to be an observer to the pause in consciousness?
If person A is awake while person B is in this state of unconsciousness and time passes normally to A while watching B, but B have a time gap, could that not just be explained by B being unconscious?
@@sunte91 but by your own admission there is consciousness… “unconscious”. More to your point, there is still an observer in patient B.
I appreciated Joe telling him in his own way that "dude you're full of shit."
@@sunte91 how do you know of the time gap? If consciousness simply ceased, then started again, it would seem like an instantaneous transition between the end of one period of consciousness and the beginning of another. I think anyways
Mandukya Upanishad 101 ;)
It would be a mistake to conclude that panpsychism cannot sufficiently defend against the objections/questions that Joe posed merely because this philosopher failed to effectively articulate a defense.
Maybe part of the problem is that even words are inadequate and unable to describe such a theory....
@@KK-lg8uz yeah. He should’ve said that it’s about the observer that experiences the sensations which makes it real. But it’s only real if the observer is there. The science and mathematics are true regardless of an observer (or consciousness) present.
@@dominickbromante9474 fact
@@KK-lg8uz Roger Penrose "Whatever consciousness, it is not a computation" th-cam.com/video/hXgqik6HXc0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=LexFridman
Isnt the job of a philosopher to be able to explain his philosophical ideas to others? Or is it normal to have zero ideas on how to convey thier theories to anyone?
God this was so much easier to explain. “Spicy” is a subjective construct. Not all beings experience cayenne pepper as “spicy” for example. The whole concept of “spicy” is made up by humans to describe a relatively stable shared/common experience. That doesn’t mean cayenne pepper “is spicy.” That descriptor is inherent to the construct, and therefore non-objective, but a subjective quality. As Dan Dennet said in his great TED talk-there’s nothing inherently “sweet” about honey, it’s our brain that interprets it as “sweet.” If you really grok the meaning of this, you recognize that all sense and perception are a story created by the sensory mechanisms of the body. The point is that you cannot trust your senses as a fundamental representation of truth. They are only “relatively true,” but not absolutely.
thats just called an analomy. the majority of people experience it all the same and the point of chemicals providing that same taste could mean those that dont experience the same taste have a differnt chemical make up whether its biological from nerves operating less or more sensitive than the norm.
stop trying to overthink this lol
You are talking about a different thing. He's not talking about the sensation of spiciness being subjective and therefore it not being inherit property of a matter. That's not the point. He is trying to explain how in order to experience something through the senses you need more than just the materialistic interaction in your brain. You need something that interpretes that materialistic brain activity. That interpreter he calls conciousness.
+ Seth Blaustein. I think the point Groff wanted to made in this podcast is different. Galileo was the one who said there's no spiciness inside the hot pepper and that that experience is purely in the human. Groff says something else, I think.
He's a panpsychist, which means he'd argue that every particle is consciousness, it's made of the same stuff as our experience. Which means that physical properties only come into being AFTER consciousness. They are real, so if we want to describe the world, we can use physics. But they arise from mental things, and those can be described too, but not by physics. Groff wants to give a philosophical foundation for being able to say those experiences ARE inherent in the things too, for example the spiciness in spicy food. That way we can not only coherently describe their physical properties, but also how it is to experience them subjectively.
@@muumipappa2502 Yes, we get that. But Joes point is that the interpreter is called NERVES which at its basis is CHEMICALS
@@DieTryingK Yes. I think everyone understood that one.
For people like Joe, who couldn’t understand, I hope I do a better job explaining it than Goff…
What Goff was trying to convey by “redness / experience of red” or “the actual spiciness of a curry” is an epiphenomenal concept known as QUALIA (google it for a better definition). Here is the *actual* thought experiment, by Frank Jackson, that attempts to convey qualia:
Imagine a scientist who knows literally everything about colour… that is to say she knows every single physical and mathematical property of the entire spectrum of visible light. (Note: Although this is unlikely to ever happen, knowing so much would take a life time of studying, it is both physically and logically possible). Anyway… this scientist - call her Mary, is colourblind. Her colourblindness does not impact her complete knowledge of colour since the scientific concept of colour itself can be entirely explained in mathematical terms (or so Galileo suggests, I.e. that the entire universe can be explained in physical terms using mathematics as its language - after all, we know all about ultra violet and infrared light even though it is impossible to experience them wih the human eye).
Ok, so far we have a colour blind scientist that knows everything about colour. However, one day she wakes up and for some reason she can see the colour red for the first time. She already knew everything there was to know about red, and all the other colours for that matter, and yet she has had a new experience.
Crucially, that is to say despite having full mathematical perspicaciousness of colour, experiencing it for the first time adds to her knowledge and *therefore* there must be an aspect to colour, to red, that is non-physical… that cannot be explained using mathematics.
Goff would argue from here that it is because this experience of red cannot be found anywhere in the physical universe. It instead exists only within our conscious experience. Even by scanning her brain & seeing her neurological changes during the exact moment Mary saw red for the first time, this wouldn’t translate to us the same feeling / experience we get when we see the colour red ourselves - after all how do we even know, even when looking at the same object, that we perceive it in the same colour… we can’t. And this is simply because I can’t hop inside of your mind and experience your conscious experience of that same object then hop back into mine to compare.
Ultimately this is what Goff was getting at, that Gal has taken a picnic blanket and wrapped up all of our experiences that occur through the 5 senses during every millisecond of our lives, and then with that blanket stuck it in a basket called “consciousness” and said ‘everything in the universe can be explained in physical / mathematical terms… just whatever you do, don’t look in that basket’. 🎉
the question is: Would you know how DMT felt, if you are an absolute brain expert, and know how every Neuron gets stimulated by it, BUT you'll never tried it?
simulated experience?
@@adam_s_brookes if you would try to simulate it, would you be sure that you feel the same as the person in DMT?
@@noircc there would be no way of knowing other than experiencing it and comparing.
@@916entartainment how do you know, not knowing the first Person view
@@916entartainment unless you drink coffee you can never understand what the experience would be like for yourself. Even if someone reads a book about being heartbroken and the book explains all of the associated science AND experiences, they will not understand unless the experience it for themselves. Some things cannot be explained and need to be experienced to be understood
This is like comparing a human to a jellyfish. Humans have intention and a will to power over the hierarchies in front of them. A jellyfish will never intend to do something but still manages to survive due to it's biochemical reactions to it's environment. The point Philip Goff is trying to make is why couldn't you have a more advanced biomechanical system that can complete all the tasks a human can and survive just as well without the human experience. Or maybe the point at which a jellyfish like organism would be able to reach this level of complexity it would give rise to what we label consciousness, which has been labelled by us but is actually an illusion and just a more advanced version of the biochemical survival reaction a jellyfish has. Basically the jellyfish became so advanced that it questioned why it was trying to survive in the first place.
its a vapid assumption that jellyfish don't possess meaningful inner worlds
Maybe its not that the jellyfish got 'advanced' to question why it got so advanced, but rather being a particular jellyfish. Particulates are what makes the jellyfish and all that it does and is and will be, but being a particular jellyfish might be more fundamentally real.? You feel/interpret/chemically react to pain, but you can only observe it through these particular synapses, location, time. Idk. 2 am.
@Redwan Ahmad Biology is physics and chemistry. Consciousness and biology are not the same thing. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the thesis.
i love that he points out the idea of "philosophical zombies" he doesn't go in depth of them, but they are people who have no "consciousness" all they can do is mimic other people.
NPCs?
Would a sociopath fall under this?
@@Jzzmus Nope, they lack empathy and remorse.
Made me wonder about someone in a vegetative state being kept alive by machines. Their eyes are intact and can be sending signals of what they see to the brain, but the person doesn't perceive anything, the consciousness is missing
@@noisemagician interesting. How does one distinguish a philosophical zombie?
Joe is out of his league on this subject. He can’t seem to grip the idea. Thanks to you both.
The best book on this topic is Owen Barfield’s “Saving the Appearances”, but…that book is HEAVY. He talks about the nature of perception and how it works and how phenomenon appear to us and then how we *think* about the phenomenon.
Awh man. I can’t read
@@Sedona_FD3S you and me both, brother :/
“Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance” goes into this subject as well but is a fairly relaxed read
Good recommendation. The rainbow example from early in the book is fun. Do rainbows exist on their own, apart from the people looking at them?
This is called the hard problem of consciousness, and it is a legitimate philosophical debate, not just nonsense like Joe is making it seem. There is no reason that the atoms that make up brains should produce subjective experience - the fact that they do is the great mystery.
Is it a great mystery though? Maybe for now but everything was a "great mystery" at some point.
@@DanielAnderssson it is a 'mystery' insofar as you insist on appealing to scientific principles, because scientific principles are limited to general and lawlike explanations. general and lawlike explanations are precisely NOT descriptive of the subjective, first-person point of view. even psychology as a field of scientific knowledge consists of general theories about how people work, not descriptions of the subjective experience of any given individual.
@@Dystisis word salad
@@Dystisis Why would something that is descriptive of the subjective (whatever that means) or from a first-person point of view (another term for anecdotal) give any definitive explanation of consciousness? It is precisely because science has detached itself from such things that it has given us the world that it has.
In fact, is consciousness a problem we need to address? Do we need to interpret a tornado?
@@DanielAnderssson Science cannot even say anything about the subjective experience of seeing red, let alone solve the mystery of why it exists. And that is not likely to change. Same thing with morality - science only predicts things, it can't tell us what ought to be. Science and philosophy are different categories, but the current paradigm is so dominated by science that many forget that. It won't last forever, though...
It’s just like Terminator 2
John: Do you feel pain?
Arnie: I have sensors that notify me of injury. The data could be called pain.
You can scientifically explain everything behind spicy food while at the same time not “experience” it.
…or I’m full of it :)
Nice, that's a solid analogy I reckon. The T2 analogy. Can definitely see myself using that
Perfect. No, you nailed it. Joe’s lack of understanding here is almost disappointing, they could be having a really good conversation here if Joe could grasp what Goff is saying.
Mathematics and chemical/physical science can only explain why something happens in terms of how it occurs, these sciences can never truly explain/communicate what a thing is or how it truly feels. ‘What’ requires consciousness to experience a thing to know it.
It’s amazing how complicated our language becomes surrounding something so fundamental to existence, it feels odd.
@@familychiken My ape brain almost understood for a second.
Spot on Ed! I’m a little shocked Joe had such a hard time wrapping his mind around it
except the binary of sensors isnt pain
Firas Zahabi explained this subject so much better in the « scientific debate » with Joe, it took an hour but it’s still my favorite podcast moment ever
What the Greeks, as well as the philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists of the 17th Century European Enlightenment, got correct, is that science, art, and philosophy are really one discipline in purest form.
The position which Newton (and Hawking) held at Cambridge was Don of Philosophy. The Greek word "τέχνη" (tekni) literally means "art". Yet, that very word gave us the English word, "technology", which isn't typically associated with art at all in the minds of most people.
I think a better explanation is Galileo was saying each individual person experiences things in their mind differently but 2 + 2 is always 4 no matter the individual. Spiciness of a dish is totally up to the individual. They may tolerate spicier foods better. They may have eaten spicy foods all their life and find something bland while someone who doesn’t eat spicy foods would find a relatively small spiciness too much to handle.
That can also be proven too. This guy was just speaking garbage
@@Norde_ I feel like this conversation had so much potential but the choices he used to explain it to Joe didn’t really help his cause.
If you watch the whole podcast and take a shot every time Joe says "innovation," you will be unconscious by the end. (Consciousness itself will remain)
Philosophy, the spice of life 👌
Propositional versus participatory. Time to get John Vervaeke on here Joe.
Hero. I agree. I really like Vervaeke. The last few Jordan Peterson convos were great. Pageau has been killin it lately.
Idk if Joe would survive that interview 🤣 John's on a totally different level
When he kept saying
“THE REDNESS OF A RED EXPERIENCE”
It bothered me deeply
There came a point where I could conceptualise red in mathematical form
Listening on Spotify and this poor guy just can’t get Joe out of the humanistic view of consciousness. “ red is red because it is man, I took Psychedelics so it’s chemical.
Painful to hear this guy explain the hard problem of consciousness to Joe.
Oh boy... _philosopher_ stans...
He is explaining the hard problem of consciousness so poorly
@@hellowell3743 you can tell everyone in the comments have read one book on or by a philosopher signalling hard they understand Goff even though he's articulating it terribly the type of guys to wax lyrical about Rick and Morty because they get some of the references to existentialism
Yur too deep dude😂
Joe is arguing that the orange is orange and round while the other point is that it’s sweet and tart. Different aspects of the same thing although Joe thinks sweet and tart means orange and round Hes a dumb guy
“I want to take a moment and explain consciousness to ABSOLUTELY no one” 😂
That's probably. Because nothing,nobody ever can explain consciousness because to explain it ..U WOULD FIRST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT ..even then there is no vocabulary in the human evolution to explain it the way ur experiencing it ...human don't know shit ,they just think they do ,it's a joke to even try to understand all that we are and every thing is ...JUST SIT BACK SND INJOY THE RIDE ..
These individual conscious experiences cannot be explained by science but the physical reason to which we experience them can be explained by science.
Color by wavelength, and spiciness by chemical reaction.
Yes.
But the next question is "are conscious experiences real?".
If the answer is yes, then materialism is false.
4:08, Hard to understand Joe Rogan's narrative about it, because Galileo introduced frame of reference or also known as the inertial frame, and then later Einstein corrected it in his theory of special relativity regarding space and time causality. From what I understand Galileo did exclude consciousness in the qualities described of physics of motion brought into objective and inertial frames quantized in mathematics which are important for computers today. And of course he quantized it using mathematics to describe these motions. Galileo was right. If today, we look at sensors of accelerometers or gyroscopes, we see the predicted moments of inertia in the sensor data. And we apply algorithms or system models that filter a lot of these small moments of inertia etc. And also we try to remove the gravity vector, because gravity is affecting all accelerometers as long as there is gravity. And it is always pointing towards the normal of the perpendicular surface of the earth.
Then, later Isaac Newton expanded much more in his Force laws, Universal law for gravity, Calculus, and theories in optics. Without the advanced tools today that we have, Galileo and Newton strongly predicted how all these things mentioned independent of experience or consciousness. As in, even if you are high as a kite, the laws of motions still apply.
Well said ~
this goes over the head of 99% of rogan viewers.
This guy isn’t great at elucidating panpsychism at the lay-level. He’s doing his best but Chalmers might have been a better choice. These ideas don’t make much sense to people who don’t spend their lives contemplating consciousness and it’s relationship to the world. It’s really hard to bridge the gap.
Philip Goff explained his ideas surrounding non-duality so badly. Joe needs to get Rupert Spira on the podcast
This was so painful to listen to. Philip was nervous as hell and only brought up ideas that his friends have that he doesn’t even agree with.
Dude, is red even a color, man?
- some stoner probably
I think Joe’s guests are surprised on how smart joe is. He asks thoughtful questions that has his guest back pedaling.
Or in this case, questions that show he completely missed the point, and has his guest searching around for examples they could use with small children.
Is that what you’re calling a sprint in the opposite direction- back peddling?
if you try to explain what red is to somebody who's never seen colour it's impossible sure things can be done to help them see red through science and medicine but it still can't be explained in language or mathematics
He wasn't backpedaling at all, he was trying to find a way to help joe understand what he was even talking about. I'm actually disappointed in Joe here, seems he came into this with little to no preparation.
yeah I think the subject is just somewhat esoteric..
He is struggling with J’s questions - Bernardo Kastrup would give a much more common sense and understandable view IMO - please invite him on
This is a very interesting topic. Agree with most that Goff doesn't explain his ideas very well which is disappointing given he's supposedly an influential philosopher.
I think a better way to understand the "spiciness" example is with the following. Would a scientist who has no sense of taste ever be able to "explain" spiciness with a physical theory if no experiencer-of-taste were to ever offer an explanation of their experiences? The scientist would never be able to find the sensation in the physical properties alone and wouldn't be able to detect the correlation between physical properties XYZ and the experience of "spiciness"; such a connection can only be made by conscience experiencers reporting on their experience of "spiciness" and the scientist being able to then explore the physical properties that are present when this experience occurs.
The point of this is say that a system of explanation that's purely physical would be unable to give an account of the full spectrum of reality which includes conscious experience; physical theories about conscience experience require insights from consciousness to get off the ground.
Yeah, you and him are explaining qualia. Philosophy talks about it all the time with the arguments over consciousness. Plus people who are physicalist don’t really have a hard answer to that question yet.
But yeah that was kinda of frustrating that he didn’t really explain it to joe that well.
Elon Musk meets Miley Cyrus
th-cam.com/video/Ub2ObstDY1M/w-d-xo.html
It’s hilarious!! 😂 😆
Man I'm a romanticist just like the rest of yall but this guy is just off. Maybe he's not explaining it well but I understand what he's saying 100 percent, I just disagree with him and agree with Joe. Consciousness does in fact exist outside of science but everything he's mentioning was written 500 years ago. Now we have technologies that allow us to observe the experiences and what causes them. I.e spiciness being a reaction of compounds and color being a wave length. What you perceive is your brains reaction to the natural world and what is actually happening, all very quantifiable things. He's claiming that you can't actually quantify it because of people's feelings, that is just not true. Facts are facts regardless of how you feel about them. Also Galileo was known for astronomy, not philosophy, for a reason! Lmao
P.s. I bet I know who this guy voted for 🤣🤣🤘
This insight helps us realize that from a purely physicalist’s (or Hebbian) point of view, we won't have a roadmap towards which we can distinguish WHEN the properties we have enumerated will serve to be the foundational mechanism that we were looking for.
Now a problem with the non-physicalist point of view when it comes to physicalism: You may present a bowl of curry with 3 times more spice. The conscious taster may be able to comparatively say “Yes, this is more spicy.. In fact it is twice as spicy” missing that it was actually “three times more spicy.”
The real argument is which point of view will get us to the computational structures we are looking for? It would be one that has a roadmap
A question that clarifies this philosophical question is “Is the brain a transmitter/creator of consciousness , or the receiver of it? Or can both be true at the same time? “ Materialists say the physical creates consciousness, Panpsychis says Consciousness creates a physical brain, and dualists say consciousness and the brain are independent of each other.
Not really. He didn't describe panpsychism properly. What he described is Idealism.
In panpsychism, the brain isn't created by consciousness.
In panpsychism, everything material behaves as materialism predicts, but the irreducibly qualitative aspect of experience (qualia) is always there in some raw way.
In other words. The brain evolved just like every other biological thing and the processes that make possible to perceive stuff are physically evolved, but the _sense of feeling_ itself is not a product of the brain.
@@AlanGarciaC.1093 thanks. we may be parsing words but that’s what I meant by the brain being the receiver. The brain evolves along the lines of materialism but “receives” consciousness (rather than transmits it) from something “transmitted” from outside the brain itself. Material things like a brain then are the quantitative and the experience derived through it is the qualitative.
My question for all groups would be to kindly explain why humans have a highly evolved organ (the brain) that only uses 10% of its capacity on average? That runs counter to almost every evolutionary theory going. I’m not suggesting any religious or spiritual explanation but there is no known material answer for the occurrence. Traditionally what is not used, goes away or at least gets smaller over time.
I’m still leaning toward a Simulation Theory that we are living in a Simulation and that somehow our unused brain mass is connected to it somehow.
@@eletricavenue first of all. The "10% of the brain" thing is a myth. We all use most of it most of the time.
And I don't think that consciousness is "transmited" from outside the brain [although something like that may be necessary to explain intentionality, if you're interested in philosophy of mind I recommend you to read about intentionality, it's as puzzling and mysterious as qualia].
I think that the brain *aggregates information* in such a way that makes higher types of experience possible.
@@AlanGarciaC.1093
lol “first of all” rachet down the arrogance and sanctimony when you address me please. Philosophy isn’t a football game.
I tend to agree with Einstein that all of creation is one thing that can’t be explained by separating it into component parts. (Especially given the limited bandwidth of our 5 senses.)
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind,” Einstein said.
Generally speaking, pantheism identifies God with the universe or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. The worship is founded on the belief that everything is one and, in essence, admits and tolerates all gods.
Pantheism suggests that just like the cells in our bodies, working together as a whole, everything is part of one infinite being. This eternal, single existence is The Living Universe.
My favorite Einstein quote about how little we know or can know about creation,
“We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”
Albert Einstein
@@eletricavenue it wasn't sanctimony nor arrogance. But okay.
Just try to imagine what's like to be a cat. We don't know for sure what it feels like to be one (how does fish taste to a cat?), but we do have a good grasp of all the causal mechanisms that cause them to have those experiences. There is a difference between a qualitative experience (the feeling of being warmed by the sun, for example) and an explanation that describes why you get to have that feeling or experience in the first place.
But we can chemically understand cats liking fish.
that is a problem of description, not a problem for the claim that conscience is a byproduct of the workings of our material brains. to me, the ultimate proof that our consciences are built atop our material brains is the fact that old age, or even traumas or diseases that affect and kill off our neurons, make us dumber, reduce our awareness, change our personalities. basically showing us that our conscience, our subjective experiencing of the world, happens because we have a nervous system that underlie all of that and allow it.
@@030992amagadi Well let's take Alzheimer's for example. The full consciousness is still in there, it's just trapped. The breakdown of the brain from the disease is a malfunction of the machine that does not allow optimum consciousness to be accessible, but it's still in there somewhere. It's like a machine constantly misfiring but every now and then it runs smooth for a short duration and in Alzheimer's patients we call these moments of clarity...where just for a small moment it's as if they don't even have the disease at all. I believe if we could reverse Alzheimer's, that the individual would regain full, optimal consciousness. Think about coma patients that has total loss of consciousness due to trauma and injury to the brain. When some of this folks heal, they wake up as if nothing ever happened.
@@ly5504 that is a romantization of the condition. First, these "moments of clarity" usually are limited in scope, and are less and less common as the disease ravages the brain further, second, even if they werent, that doesnt mean there is some ethereal conscience "trapped".
say your car has a spent battery - you try and try to turn it on, and then finally it does. Does that mean that the running motor is some higher, immaterial state that just happened to be "trapped" by the bad battery, but is there regardless? No, right? I'm pretty sure you wouldnt argue that. All it means is your car, which is a material sum of mechanical and chemical components, is broken, but not completely.
An alzheimer's patient, or any other senile person, might not be broken down to the point of not functioning completely, and so show the moments of clarity you mentioned. But still, their physical being is broken and that translates to poorly functioning conscience, because the starting point is just that - your physical composition.
THIS IS exactly it…
As an undergrad majoring in quantum mechanics and mathematics I can’t make head nor tail of what this guys blathering on about.
Don't worry, he's full of shit.
Quantum mechanics and mathematics would give you no insight into what he’s talking about. This is philosophy of mind, particularly the hard problem of consciousness.
@@Hagop64 facts
9:39 The option that Goff presents, in which matter is explained in terms of consciousness, is actually idealism not panpsychism. Panpsychism only states that consciousness is ubiquitous, it doesn't tell us what matter or consciousness is. If we're going to avoid either materialism or dualism then the real alternative is going to be idealism.
Great of you to have Limmy on the show Joe!
Mr. Goffs point would be more clear if you would have moved from talking about colors, to how people create subjective meaning spontanously out of every day situations- thus creating the sense of a self that is moving through life. this experience cannot be explained Mathematically or materialistic.
Well said. It is frustrating that he wasn't able to articulate his main thesis in an intelligible fashion
I've got a bad head
@@liamjones9115 first off, intelligibility is a relative concept. so when you say he fails to articulate his thesis in an intelligible fashion, the question immediately arises, intelligible to whom? to you, a layperson in the field of philosophy and in particular metaphysics? why should that be frustrating? do you get equally frustrated when a physicist isn't able to explain some theory in a manner that is immediately intelligible to every layperson? no. because you understand that the physicist is dealing with a complex and technical subject matter, portions of which are hard to understand without the necessary background. well, the subject matter of metaphysics also involves complexity and technicality and often can't be understood without background.
@@KhubbaS you sound like an acolyte of Goff using sophistry philosophical nomenclature to explain something incoherently
@@liamjones9115 oh OK. good one. you sound like the typical fool who immediately dismisses out of hand anything he doesn't already understand.
Goff does a pretty good job of explaining the problem (contrary to what some comments below suggest). But Dave Chalmers, the philosopher who really drew attention to this problem, was extremely good at explaining it. Also, Joe does a truly admirable job of challenging Goff. Some comments below suggest Joe's simply not getting it, and there's some truth to that, but the fact is that he's not getting it because Goff isn't doing the best job of explaining the problem. (Again, I think Chalmers could've clarified things.) To those of you who think Joe's being obtuse, I doubt you fully understand where he's coming from; his questions are deceptively intelligent. My guess is that Goff simply wasn't well enough prepared for the kinds of questions Joe raised.
Could you share a Chalmers link please?
Yeah this clip is really where they started to get in the muck. Talking past eachother just barely, in a hard way to explain. The idea consciousness is more primary is one thing, but Goff kept pushing on that it 'explains' science/math. I'd just say that it hosts or witnesses or redeems science and math by letting them "occur TO something". It doesn't provide new law or structure. It provides a home. It isnt a thing, or a doer, so it slips away from attempts to say it "explains" or "causes" any bloody thing.
I love Chalmers
@@ZalexMusic I think this might be helpful: th-cam.com/video/C5DfnIjZPGw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SeriousScience
Apparently having an accent and talking about feelings as "science" can make you an expert in the philosophy field
Yeah people like him made me drop out of college
The amount of people who are being sucked in because he has a trans-Atlantic scouse accent while talking unintelligible mumbo jumbo is concerning
its a liverpool accent to me?
An accent is relative thing - unless you are American
@@barryyoung are you special?
When we describe things in language or mathematics, those are not the REAL THINGS being described. The word 'ant' is not the crawly six legged thing outside. Likewise when we look at a brain scanner and see areas light up that are associated with a sensation, the picture of the brain on the scanner is not the MIND of the person experiencing that sensation - it's only a representation of it. Of course you can explain things mathematically, or with language, or by graphing them, by building scientific models that conform to what we see, but when they work so well we start to mistake the map for the territory being mapped. It might be a very acurate map, but its still not the actual thing.
Panpsychism is a cure for the disease of replacing the territory for the map, but its only one that you will appreciate if you currently have the disease of reductionism or materialism. Science is true (or gets closer and closer to it at its best), but in a way that misses out on everything that actually matters. Joe doesn't 'get it' because he has common sense, and hasn't yet become afflicted with philosophy.
I recommend Heideggers phenomenology in this context
Ladies and gentlemen we've just witnessed the experience of Consciousness being gaslighted
Nah. Think Rogan wants to these experts to be able to explain their ideas more plainly and clearly.
you merely came to realize that Daniel dennetts 160iq and joes 70iq produce the same argument. that's what arguing incoherently from assumption does to your brain.
Is consciousness in the domain of science? Do we have good reason to believe that? Or are we just attached to materialism?
Your comment makes zero sense
Who knows. I guess we will find out when we create AI.
We don't even know what consciousness is yet, but it's tied to your brain which is biological that is part of science so yes, it's tied to science so that science can figure it out. philosophizing it and not trying to figure it out with science is a terrible idea, this is how we are here typing on a computer all over the world because we stopped philosophizing and started doing science
Where is consciousness
Yes, there is some evidence showing that information regarding a phenomenon changes it, like the double slit experiment.
When Rogan owns you with science, it's time to rethink your position
Galileo’s philosophy observed that, as Goff points out, “The qualities aren’t really out there in the physical world, they’re in the consciousness of the observer.” Right, but 1500 years before Galileo, Buddhism described Skandhas, or Aggregates of clinging (to supposed “reality”). These Aggregates are the formations, senses, perceptions, that our mind, our consciousness, uses to construct/define/interpret “reality.” Much of Western scientific and philosophical “fundamentals” were observed long before Western civilization emerged. Just a reminder.
Is it possible that he knew he wasn’t capable of understanding it (especially enough to convey it) that he was more focused on conveying the subjects that he was able to talk about it.
@らてちゃん 100%
He’s making the assumption that consciousness isn’t a physical process. The fact that physics describes physical world and is separate from our subjective experience of reality doesn’t mean we can’t model the process which gives us that subjective reality. This is a logical fallacy. It’s egotistical of humans to think like this.
Great show. Galileo, being a practical, experimenting physicist, was cautious about consciousness because we knew so little about the mechanics of consciousness. We live in a great time when we compete with entities called computers and we can ask questions about what would make that machine conscious.
We don’t know any more about consciousness and the serious questions regarding it. All philosophers have learned how to do is retreat more tactfully e.g. eliminativism.
@@marcushagey4110 that's like asking what happens after death or we can only see 4% of the infinite world. It's better we don't know
I wish philip said what he tweeted a few days ago -- " in the panpsychist view consciousness is the hardware on which the software of physics runs".
We are all masters of physics at a young age we just don’t know how to put it on paper. Our consciousness allows us to have faith and determination in things we don’t know for certain.
No we're not dude. Stop romanticizing random shit.
That's like saying a chair is a perfect follower of stoicism as it does "what it's meant to do"
@@KrishmanyuThakur it is tho
@@denip7037 🙂
Correct this is why they rob us of are childhood development, we are born in a pure state
If you think we are masters of physics at a young age, it’s quite evident you don’t know much physics. Just because you can see something happen doesn’t mean you understand it. A master of physics is somebody like Newton, Einstein, Plank, Schrödinger, Maxwell, Dirac, Heisenberg, etc. You were NOT a master of physics. You were a dumb kid who saw something and thought it looked cool, as we all were.
Joe is into DMT but doesn’t know what qualia (consciousness) is? Get Bernardo Kastrup on here ASAP! Love Philip. Psychedelics reduce brain activity but increase qualitative experiences.
Joe Rogan is stuck in a weird scientism and always seem to fail at seeing the limits of it. Science is quantitative and empirical, but consciousness is qualitative and subjective, there is a gap that cannot be filled with the current paradigm.
Hopefully there will never be a mathematical formula that explains why I have different opinions than you do.
@@thebenc1537 its called the butterfly effect essentially
i mean, this ‘philosopher’ is extraordinarily bad at speaking… not to mention actually getting his point across and conveying a comprehensive message
The faith/religious/magical paradigm fills it. If you study the teachings of Buddha or Jesus they say it’s the subjective belief that determines the objective and science has been flirting with this for a long time now with the placebo and nocebo effects
Mired in chemical delusory... Probably beyond his capacity.
Consciousness is the true image of God we are all made in. Praise the Lord
This is kind of frustrating to watch cuz Joe doesn't seem to really understand/appreciate the harndess of the hard problem of consciousness and the other philosophical issues surrounding consciousness.
Language in general is limited in describing reality. Remember that a picture of a tree is not a tree and the equator doesn't die the earth in a knot. Science is the process of slicing reality into pieces and translating it into mathematical and linguistic descriptions, but these models are not the same as the thing itself. Science and mathematics is great and produces amazing technologies, but it doesn't explain experience.
Well if the picture is on a piece of paper then technically it is/was a tree
@@andrewhogan6533 there was never a tree in the first place..
Exactly!
Describe Beethoven's 5th to someone who has never heard it! The limitation are our words themselves!!!
Joe's pushback was excellent. The guest seems like he lives in a philosophical bubble.
Fair, but there is a good point that consciousness cannot be tied down to quantifiable phenomenon.
He's actually not getting it.
Mathematical literature intelligence has lorded over all others
@@umchinagirard1800 We don’t know if it cannot be tied down to quantifiable phenomena. It’s extremely complex. Our brains are physical systems, therefore, hypothesizing it could be modeled by physics (it would be very complex) cannot be ignored.
Comment retracted to pacify future ai takeover 🤖
Could it be possible, that you are describing 2 ways to view the world.
1. The mathmatical view, so that you see the world with experiences you have gathered, through the educational system embarked by Galileo.
For example you look at a hammer, you know that with that hammer, you can get nails to stick to the wall, because you have gathered the mathmatical experience, to know the formula of force is responsible.
2. The existential view, which is the way you talk, about the information, that you have gathered from Galileo's system and the information, of what the resolving body sensation would be.
For example you would teach your daughter, how to use a hammer and you say 'don't hit your finger with it or else it will hurt really bad.' she will still not know the body sensation of 'really hurt' through mathmatical information, if you however tap her on the hand lightly and then gradually harder. You can get her to understand the rising alarming sensations in her body resulting in her receiving the information she needs to watch out not to hit her hand, by sharing the existential knowledge.
To add from myself I believe that this distinct difference is also the reason children and people on drugs see the world differently. They go through the house scream and draw on the walls, because it was fun and exciting, they feel ecstatic. A lot of parents would shout at them, which leads to a feeling of guilt and unhappiness. With the information of existing in that exact moment feeling those emotion effected by all the different factors of perception she now knows it makes up a memory, that if she draws on the walls and runs screaming through the house. She will get scold and then in her mind goes over to valuing, which sensation is stronger over all waying her options and judge, based on the both kinds of information she now has.
As of right now we can not transfer this existential information, but as you have said, we have come very far by mostly figuring out the mathmatical side of science, so you can trust your better judgment. Not to eat a Carolina reaper or else you could faint, since that's the warnings we have made based on chemical reaction(mathmatical) the memory of your bodies sensation of heat (existential).
thank you for reading Joe , wish you all the wisdom and joy you can imagine, since that's what I received from you. Also thank you Philip for the great wisdom.
Insightful comment , thank you for sharing
“You could build a full-featured sim that covers every sense, but its ultimate look and feel would always depend on the mind.”
Wow I never thought Joe would be the voice of reason when it comes to science
there is zero scientific data indicating mind or an illusion of it is equivalent to brain states or their emergent properties
I sometimes think out limitations are also due to our understanding of science. We've made a wrong assumption in our fundamentals of science and now we are so far down the rabbit hole it's hard to go back and think differently.
Her talks about senses- spiciness. But not feelings. Emotion. Emotion is connected to all experience, all "facts".
I've always seen consciousness and experience as the result of all our material senses working in concert. Like an orchestra, each instrument can be singled out and heard individually, producing OK music, but the whole orchestra working together produces complex layers of sound and an extraordinary sensory experience that would be hard to explain if orchestral music were the only exposure to music and you could not see the musicians and instruments producing it.
But is the music in your consciousness or in the instrument itself
@@andrewhogan6533 Sound is waves of different air pressure. Music is orchestrated sound that we like due to pattern recognition.
That’s close to Dennet’s view
But there is no reason for you to be there to experience that concert. Imagine robots playing the tunes all according to the preprogrammed instructions. They have sensors to detect sounds, and they all play their part when the time is right. But non of them will be experiencing the music. If you are only a material thing like these robots, why do you even have an experience of the music. Why are you here? In materialist picture, consciousness seems unnecessary. From a materialist and deterministic point of view, we don't have free will. If we aren't doing anything, why are we aware then? We could be just like sleep-walkers, zombies or robots moving around according to self-replicating and self-altering algorithms in our brains. Why are you here in your body, reading this comment. You could be a robot who took this input, made some calculations and output a response, just like any other machine, without having any experience. Why are you here experiencing this then?
@@senerzen is there a point you're trying to make? I'm not here to debate, just sharing my perspective and I dont think my perspective steps on the toes of any others
How does Joe not get this concept yet endorses psychedelic drugs to experience the essence of the other.
hes saying it's both materialist and experiential, not either or.
Philip Goff did a terrible job explaining himself here. I'm actually more on board with his position than with pure materialism, but this was frustrating to listen to because he came across as someone who actually had no idea what he was really talking about. When he was pressed on a point, he usually just repeated himself without giving further explanation.
Or it's just Joe not digesting the information
@@mikeloryh Yeah, I don't think Joe was making a big effort to understand, but still, Goff, as a philosopher who explains complex ideas for a living, should have made it much clearer. He really came across as someone intentionally avoiding questions. I found his conduct very cringe, especially as someone who actually agrees with him strongly.
I really hope the book expands beyond the 3 sentences he keeps repeating. It's like he's giving a book report after reading the inside of the jacket.