Thanks for featuring Goff. We can't have superman-like logical leaps on our Copernicus understanding of consciousness.imho, it's harmful and ultimately regressive to push forward the notion of self above nature.
Ten Years! Congratulations. Monumental commitment. I have no doubt that there is a modest and unassuming man behind all of it. What a breathing legacy you have built online. whoa... Congrats once more. _The cosmic roar of life_ btw. I pinched your line about; "boiling in my soup." I gave you full credit. The context was real. Cheers West, Cheers! Thank you very much.
As I recall, Jung had the idea that human beings were the universe's evolutionary course of consciousness understanding itself. To me, the implications are that we are the king of the jungle in terms of consciousness, but we're embedded within the jungle just as much as the lion is.
While I don't lean far one way or the other on the truth of panpsychism, I am critical of the idea mentioned here that it explains consciousness. It seems to me panpsychism takes consciousness (of a sort) to be a fundamental property. And I don't think fundamental properties like that get explained, they just get taken for granted.
I absolutely love listening to this podcast! My favorite episodes are the ones on the meaning of creation btw… anyways you’ve opened the horizons of my perspective immensely and I am so grateful! I heard that you mentioned towards the end of the optimism podcast that not too many people had asked you questions for topics and I was wondering where I could do so. I’d really appreciate being able to hear what you think about a few things even if you don’t make an episode on them. I value your opinions and judgment and I admire your respect for the unknown and your willingness to share you thoughts with everyone. Keep doing what you do pleaseee! You are absolutely amazing at what you do!!
You’ve been doing all this for more than 10 years, that is beyond impressive, great episode by the way, speaking and thinking about conciseness always tickles my brain.
Hi Stephen, Gary Cottingham here! You and I have chatted before, on Twitter I think. I got off of that cesspool btw and am on Threads big time! Anyway, this was a great episode! Panpsychism is my new jam!
If consciousness is an illusion, who what is having the illusion? Consciosness as illusion is Dan Dennett throwing his arms in the air and surrenderung. Because that is all a materialist really can do.
My grantparents while chopping off the branches of tree always took prior permision from the tree. Even while cutting the whole tree they did the same! Or when they had to pluck it's fruit they asked for the permission. They sort of believed that everything that is seen around is part of that consciousness we Hindus call "Brahmam". What it did in essense was it neccessitated a constant diologue between Man and Nature. (I do not claim such beliefs and practices are limited to India and Hindus though. But we were certainly the ones who made a philosophy out of it)
I like how the episode started with: panpsychism is not "trees are looking at you". And then, later on, we are talking about burning forest as a burning of conscious beings.
There is a recent episode of the podcast "The Joy of Why" - Quanta Magazine, Simon Fundation - addressing the topics you covered here from a scientific perspective. The title of their episode is "What is the Nature of Consciousness?", and was published on the 31st of May. I'd love to know your take on it. Thanks for what you do!
Retrograde step. I dunno, I want to write a novel. A coherent apparatus is needed, haha. The reading list around here is phenomenal. No way I can keep up but I have been palming tree trunks all over the city. I credit years of a friend's work in that area for my introduction. I did horrible in science, haha. Goff and West chat. Seriously, a rereading of _Birth of Tragedy_ is what I am fighting to getting back to. New literature to me is Umberto Eco and Nałkowska. It doesn't end. I will order Goff's book and audible file for sure. 10 YEARS, jeezsus! June 4th. Wow, super humbling. Mad Respect. jeezsus. Congratulations. One of the strongest writers anywhere online. Congrats West. It is a big deal. You impress lives, West. Mad Respect.
On the "implications of accepting panpsychism" (20:01), I am afraid the political implications are what it's really about, since it conveniently subordinates humanity to nature.
Hello, I love your shows, thank you. Consciousness is one of my favourite subjects. I read a paper recently which really impacted how I considered subjectivity. It was called 'temporal relativism and the objective present' and it actually solved the question of whether there is an objective reality. Answer: yes, it is temporally separated from perception due to the necessary organic processes required for perception, which are time-dependent. I'd love to hear what you think of this new philosophy.
I'm still not convinced by the argument that 'there is clearly something qualitative in the human experience which is unexplained by the quantitative approach'. Does this not fall victim to the 'magic spark of human experience' fallacy once again? Why is 'redness' so impossible to capture with mathematics? Remembering that our only tangible experience of the 'redness' qualia is based on our own internal experience plus hearing language from others (Descartes - I can only experience my own consciousness) which does not constitute a huge body of evidence for difference. I've heard of the Mary's Room thought experiment but similarly unconvinced. How do we know for sure that qualia are such a significantly different concept so as to require a questioning of the entire basis of current thought (logic, mathematics, etc)? If we're assuming a new strata separate from physicalism/materialism then it would seem to call into question corollaries of physicalism like 'there is no free will' which re-opens all kinds of gnarly debates. Please enlighten me, somebody :)
Notes for this video, pretty brief: What if everything is consciousness? Panpsychism and Philip Goff: Goff wrote a book called Galileo’s Error. When Galileo was attempting to represent the world through equations, he ran into the problem of being unable to represent the redness of an apple and how spicy curry tastes to an individual because these are qualitative experiences. These are qualities not inside the objects but instead in the minds of the observer. Panpsychism believes physical science doesn't reveal everything about physical reality because it's based on a theoretical method that's purely quantitative. Particles and Fields that we study are constituted of consciousness; they are forms of consciousness. They bind together and form more complex consciousness like the inner subjective experiences we have. If this sounds ridiculous, consider that most scientific theories that are accepted today are counter intuitive, like quantum mechanics and relativity. Consider just how much we don’t know about the intrinsic natures of objects, like the subjective experiences we have in our brain. It is important that we don’t project our human type consciousness onto other objects, i.e. plants. If you have been around plants enough, you’d observe their growth isn’t algorithmic and they are competitive. They too could have some less dynamic version of consciousness. This has implications to morality. If a forest fire is essentially burning conscious organisms, what will we think? How would we think of ourselves? Probably just some temporary concentrations of conscious complexity that after we die, those consciousness goes on to combine into other living organisms. It raises the problem that people can combine into a larger consciousness entity on a societal level. Is consciousness only bred biologically, if so, then is AI only going to be intelligent instead of conscious. Theoretical model in science explains most of what the object behaves and how it behaves, ie volcano you study its gas emissions and seismic activities, but scientists don’t study the nature of volcano itself.
Panpyschism is like neo-animism but it replaces the ritual baggage of spirit with a more qualitative concern for consciousness. It reminds me of other new age incorporeals like the world soul (anima mundi) and the interbeing in zen teaching.
Hi, I have enjoyed your podcast for a while now, and I like very much how you communicate and summarise complex theories for just a few minutes. However, this last episode left me feeling quite uneasy. As @Chrisine Martin and @Człowiek pierwotny point out, the main principles of these ideas originated and were practised by Indigenous peoples in America (the continent) hundreds of years ago, then tried to be erased by colonisation. It does not sit well with me that they are being claimed without any reference whatsoever to these cultures as "new", especially by a British white person, who should be much more aware of their positionality. A great book that speaks of the indigenous origins of this thinking is 'Braiding Sweetgrass' by Robin Wall Kimmerer. It would be very good to bring it into the conversation about this topic.
These ideas are not knew. More so being re established. The spectrum of materialism, dualism, idealism has been around for thousands of years all over the world. It would be nice to hear more about the similarities/differences through cultures tho. Getting rid of the idea that these humans throughout spacetime were somehow primitive is a horrible ignorance that is sticking with us at the moment
I thought the difference between idealism and panpsychism was that the former is the monistic view that says everything _is_ consciousness, while the latter is the dualistic view that says everything _has_ consciousness? Is that incorrect?
Yes and that if you configured it correctly you would create a conscious creature like us. But the interaction problem seems just as much of a problem as “the hard problem of consciousness”
I mean... I don't think finding out that plants have some rudimentary consciousness would change much. We already know animals are conscious yet we eat them. Did this Philp Goff guy forget that we are aware that animals are conscious? That said, I personally enjoyed the format of splicing in some interview segments.
Appreciate the response. I want to make sure I'm not implying that Philip Goff is confused about all the questions presented on this episode. I think I presented his work fairly. He agreed. But a LOT of these questions are my own musings in relation to this larger series about the philosophy of mind. If plants being conscious is an insignificant point then that's on ME for being boring. I am not a panpsychist. I'm trying my best to steelman in the metamodernist tradition of the show. Thanks for listening! :)
@@philosophizethispodcast Hey no worries, I definitely did not find it boring or insignificant, I just found that particular prediction about our change in behavior somewhat unlikely. The idea about conscious plants did, however, remind me of Peter Wohlleben's book The Secret Life of Trees, in which he argues that the trees in a forest can be seen as one conscious complex, and they communicate with smells and signals through root systems, and so on. I unfortunately haven't read it yet, only read about it so I don't know how well thought-out it is, but at least this reminded me that I want to read it. Also I think the most staggering thought related to pan-psychism might be how it would change our perspective on death. It would seem like it would mean that death would no longer be the infinite darkness that a materialist envisions it as today but rather something like the Hindu concept of a return to the world consciousness.
So... Hinduism?. Also the physical reality is a result of consciousness, at the same time it works in the opposite direction simultaneously. Linear causality is so passé.
I don't agree that most people are materialists in your audience or in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if most people agree with pan-psychism on some level, but they just don't care enough to alter their behavior toward animals or plants-just like they don't care about other people that much.
11.00 That consciousnes may underlie material world does NOT mean each particle is conscious. I note you have defile meaning of consciouness to make this work. There are other more reasonable and logical idealisms. Why did you choose the flunky?
I appreciate your show but in my opinion, Phillip Goff is Spinoza light (minus God)…inspiring to left leaning intellectuals, but not to spirit, like the idea of God becoming Man
Once materialists figure out consciousness you can make such a claim. Until then panpsychism is more likely materialists running away from consciousness being the fundamental truth of experience
Phil Goth on Galileo and exclusion of qualia from science, all good. But please,Goth's panpsychism does not hold up. Better to go to other current idealists with more rational idealist options to look at. Also look at current left right brain hemisphere studies, reinforces the Galileo theory but gives it meat and veges.
I've never understood why Consciousness cant just be sights and sounds triggering thoughts and feelings that turn into actions and memories. I dont understand how if you got a machine to do those and walk and talk and say "I seem to be alive, this is weird" how that wouldnt be consciousness. Hopefully I just cant grasp it and there's more to it than that (I want there to be more to it I swear!)
We already have machines that far exceed our ability of memory, calculations, poetry, art, etc… but no where near understanding how to make consciousness.
Thank you so much to all of you watching this. Could never do this without your help. :)
Thanks for featuring Goff. We can't have superman-like logical leaps on our Copernicus understanding of consciousness.imho, it's harmful and ultimately regressive to push forward the notion of self above nature.
Ten Years! Congratulations. Monumental commitment.
I have no doubt that there is a modest and unassuming man
behind all of it. What a breathing legacy you have built online.
whoa...
Congrats once more. _The cosmic roar of life_
btw. I pinched your line about; "boiling in my soup."
I gave you full credit. The context was real.
Cheers West, Cheers!
Thank you very much.
This is the best philosophy channel on TH-cam I've met so far! It's a shame that you have so few views.
Goff makes an excellent point. Wow, what an honor to have a real life philosopher walk amongst us mortal men.
We DO appreciate what you do :D
As I recall, Jung had the idea that human beings were the universe's evolutionary course of consciousness understanding itself. To me, the implications are that we are the king of the jungle in terms of consciousness, but we're embedded within the jungle just as much as the lion is.
Sounds like Hegel who pre-dated Jung
@@roystonsbailey Broadly speaking, perhaps.
Very interesting, and well done splicing in the quotes! [badge of approval]
😄
Probably the American Indians intuitively knew--and practiced--this philosophy.
Can you explain that further? I'm interested in Native American Philosophy but it's hard to find material on it.
While I don't lean far one way or the other on the truth of panpsychism, I am critical of the idea mentioned here that it explains consciousness. It seems to me panpsychism takes consciousness (of a sort) to be a fundamental property. And I don't think fundamental properties like that get explained, they just get taken for granted.
I absolutely love listening to this podcast! My favorite episodes are the ones on the meaning of creation btw… anyways you’ve opened the horizons of my perspective immensely and I am so grateful! I heard that you mentioned towards the end of the optimism podcast that not too many people had asked you questions for topics and I was wondering where I could do so. I’d really appreciate being able to hear what you think about a few things even if you don’t make an episode on them. I value your opinions and judgment and I admire your respect for the unknown and your willingness to share you thoughts with everyone. Keep doing what you do pleaseee! You are absolutely amazing at what you do!!
You’ve been doing all this for more than 10 years, that is beyond impressive, great episode by the way, speaking and thinking about conciseness always tickles my brain.
Hi Stephen, Gary Cottingham here! You and I have chatted before, on Twitter I think. I got off of that cesspool btw and am on Threads big time! Anyway, this was a great episode! Panpsychism is my new jam!
If consciousness is an illusion, who what is having the illusion?
Consciosness as illusion is Dan Dennett throwing his arms in the air and surrenderung. Because that is all a materialist really can do.
love that energy! i better see you in the comments for next episode on illusionism! :) thanks for listening and participating!
My grantparents while chopping off the branches of tree always took prior permision from the tree. Even while cutting the whole tree they did the same! Or when they had to pluck it's fruit they asked for the permission. They sort of believed that everything that is seen around is part of that consciousness we Hindus call "Brahmam". What it did in essense was it neccessitated a constant diologue between Man and Nature. (I do not claim such beliefs and practices are limited to India and Hindus though. But we were certainly the ones who made a philosophy out of it)
i cannot get enough of this channel
I like how the episode started with: panpsychism is not "trees are looking at you". And then, later on, we are talking about burning forest as a burning of conscious beings.
im 18 from south america and i love your podcast. you make every morning better and i thank you for that 🫡
Perhaps one day you'll cover Bernardo Kastrup and/or Iian McGilchrist.
❤️
His audience may not be ready. But without the contrast they will run into a lot of problems
Thank YOU for such interesting and engaging podcasts over the years. You have demystified philosophy to me and made it easier to understand.
Thanks for sharing your studies dear brother and your entire efforts enable me to refresh most of my bygone studies
Now THIS I can philosophize!
Thanks for such an exciting expose' of uncommon perception.
Made my day☝🏼
I'd love to hear a podcast on Idealism, the philosophy of Bernardo Kastrup! It appears related to pansychism in a way.
There is a recent episode of the podcast "The Joy of Why" - Quanta Magazine, Simon Fundation - addressing the topics you covered here from a scientific perspective.
The title of their episode is "What is the Nature of Consciousness?", and was published on the 31st of May.
I'd love to know your take on it.
Thanks for what you do!
Great topic, and Phillip Goff sounds just like George Harrison 😮
Retrograde step. I dunno, I want to write a novel. A coherent apparatus is needed, haha.
The reading list around here is phenomenal. No way I can keep up but I have been
palming tree trunks all over the city. I credit years of a friend's work in that area for my
introduction. I did horrible in science, haha.
Goff and West chat.
Seriously, a rereading of _Birth of Tragedy_ is what I am fighting to getting back to.
New literature to me is Umberto Eco and Nałkowska. It doesn't end.
I will order Goff's book and audible file for sure.
10 YEARS, jeezsus!
June 4th. Wow, super humbling.
Mad Respect. jeezsus. Congratulations.
One of the strongest writers anywhere online.
Congrats West. It is a big deal. You impress lives, West.
Mad Respect.
On the "implications of accepting panpsychism" (20:01), I am afraid the political implications are what it's really about, since it conveniently subordinates humanity to nature.
What's wrong with that? Humanity is not superior to nature.
Hello, I love your shows, thank you. Consciousness is one of my favourite subjects. I read a paper recently which really impacted how I considered subjectivity. It was called 'temporal relativism and the objective present' and it actually solved the question of whether there is an objective reality. Answer: yes, it is temporally separated from perception due to the necessary organic processes required for perception, which are time-dependent. I'd love to hear what you think of this new philosophy.
I'm still not convinced by the argument that 'there is clearly something qualitative in the human experience which is unexplained by the quantitative approach'. Does this not fall victim to the 'magic spark of human experience' fallacy once again? Why is 'redness' so impossible to capture with mathematics? Remembering that our only tangible experience of the 'redness' qualia is based on our own internal experience plus hearing language from others (Descartes - I can only experience my own consciousness) which does not constitute a huge body of evidence for difference. I've heard of the Mary's Room thought experiment but similarly unconvinced. How do we know for sure that qualia are such a significantly different concept so as to require a questioning of the entire basis of current thought (logic, mathematics, etc)? If we're assuming a new strata separate from physicalism/materialism then it would seem to call into question corollaries of physicalism like 'there is no free will' which re-opens all kinds of gnarly debates. Please enlighten me, somebody :)
Is there no long form version of your convo with philip? I'd be interested to hear the back and forth.
Notes for this video, pretty brief:
What if everything is consciousness?
Panpsychism and Philip Goff: Goff wrote a book called Galileo’s Error. When Galileo was attempting to represent the world through equations, he ran into the problem of being unable to represent the redness of an apple and how spicy curry tastes to an individual because these are qualitative experiences. These are qualities not inside the objects but instead in the minds of the observer.
Panpsychism believes physical science doesn't reveal everything about physical reality because it's based on a theoretical method that's purely quantitative. Particles and Fields that we study are constituted of consciousness; they are forms of consciousness. They bind together and form more complex consciousness like the inner subjective experiences we have.
If this sounds ridiculous, consider that most scientific theories that are accepted today are counter intuitive, like quantum mechanics and relativity. Consider just how much we don’t know about the intrinsic natures of objects, like the subjective experiences we have in our brain.
It is important that we don’t project our human type consciousness onto other objects, i.e. plants. If you have been around plants enough, you’d observe their growth isn’t algorithmic and they are competitive. They too could have some less dynamic version of consciousness.
This has implications to morality. If a forest fire is essentially burning conscious organisms, what will we think?
How would we think of ourselves? Probably just some temporary concentrations of conscious complexity that after we die, those consciousness goes on to combine into other living organisms.
It raises the problem that people can combine into a larger consciousness entity on a societal level.
Is consciousness only bred biologically, if so, then is AI only going to be intelligent instead of conscious.
Theoretical model in science explains most of what the object behaves and how it behaves, ie volcano you study its gas emissions and seismic activities, but scientists don’t study the nature of volcano itself.
If possible would you be willing to add this to YT podcast?
Please do an episode on Nick Land
How is that different from animism? Is the claim the same which "primitive" prople made thousand of years ago?
Panpyschism is like neo-animism but it replaces the ritual baggage of spirit with a more qualitative concern for consciousness. It reminds me of other new age incorporeals like the world soul (anima mundi) and the interbeing in zen teaching.
@@vermin5367 Thanks, that makes sense to me!
Hi, I have enjoyed your podcast for a while now, and I like very much how you communicate and summarise complex theories for just a few minutes. However, this last episode left me feeling quite uneasy. As @Chrisine Martin and @Człowiek pierwotny point out, the main principles of these ideas originated and were practised by Indigenous peoples in America (the continent) hundreds of years ago, then tried to be erased by colonisation. It does not sit well with me that they are being claimed without any reference whatsoever to these cultures as "new", especially by a British white person, who should be much more aware of their positionality. A great book that speaks of the indigenous origins of this thinking is 'Braiding Sweetgrass' by Robin Wall Kimmerer. It would be very good to bring it into the conversation about this topic.
These ideas are not knew. More so being re established. The spectrum of materialism, dualism, idealism has been around for thousands of years all over the world. It would be nice to hear more about the similarities/differences through cultures tho. Getting rid of the idea that these humans throughout spacetime were somehow primitive is a horrible ignorance that is sticking with us at the moment
Prof West, have you done a podcast on Process ontology? Any thoughts on how it alters, if at all, the Combination problem?
Red is the new green 🙏🏽
We, as human beings, must gift ai the power of choice and free will as we would have wished.
When is Dr Iain Mcgilchrist and his brain hemisphere thesis entering the conversation? You can't talk about consciousness or panpsychism without it.
I thought the difference between idealism and panpsychism was that the former is the monistic view that says everything _is_ consciousness, while the latter is the dualistic view that says everything _has_ consciousness? Is that incorrect?
Shinto and shamanism and most places around the world had the belief of things possessing consciousness.
May I ask where are the episodes between 71-132?
Wouldn't panpsychism just imply that even simple AI is already conscious on some level?
Yes and that if you configured it correctly you would create a conscious creature like us. But the interaction problem seems just as much of a problem as “the hard problem of consciousness”
Perception is reality
Earth Is a conscious body and we are it conscious transmit
I mean... I don't think finding out that plants have some rudimentary consciousness would change much. We already know animals are conscious yet we eat them. Did this Philp Goff guy forget that we are aware that animals are conscious?
That said, I personally enjoyed the format of splicing in some interview segments.
Appreciate the response. I want to make sure I'm not implying that Philip Goff is confused about all the questions presented on this episode. I think I presented his work fairly. He agreed. But a LOT of these questions are my own musings in relation to this larger series about the philosophy of mind. If plants being conscious is an insignificant point then that's on ME for being boring. I am not a panpsychist. I'm trying my best to steelman in the metamodernist tradition of the show. Thanks for listening! :)
@@philosophizethispodcast Hey no worries, I definitely did not find it boring or insignificant, I just found that particular prediction about our change in behavior somewhat unlikely. The idea about conscious plants did, however, remind me of Peter Wohlleben's book The Secret Life of Trees, in which he argues that the trees in a forest can be seen as one conscious complex, and they communicate with smells and signals through root systems, and so on. I unfortunately haven't read it yet, only read about it so I don't know how well thought-out it is, but at least this reminded me that I want to read it.
Also I think the most staggering thought related to pan-psychism might be how it would change our perspective on death. It would seem like it would mean that death would no longer be the infinite darkness that a materialist envisions it as today but rather something like the Hindu concept of a return to the world consciousness.
Bertrand Russell? Doesn't Spinoza describe a similar kind of monism?
And I'm sure there were probably Greeks and Arabs before Spinoza.
So... Hinduism?. Also the physical reality is a result of consciousness, at the same time it works in the opposite direction simultaneously. Linear causality is so passé.
More like yoga. A dualist approach to reality. Hinduism is broad as there are materialists, dualists and idealists with the category of Hinduism
@@tookie36 yoga has many schools which fall under Advaita/vishishdadvaita/dvaita
@@ALushPair “patanjali” yoga/ Samkhya I meant. But goes to show how diverse Indian discourse on philosophy, religion, consciousness, etc really is :)
I don't agree that most people are materialists in your audience or in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if most people agree with pan-psychism on some level, but they just don't care enough to alter their behavior toward animals or plants-just like they don't care about other people that much.
It is...
Panpsychism will not supersede bankrupt morality system.
Day 176 of requesting another video on NIETZSCHE 😢
I'm a psychoglandular person
❤
👍
Its ringo starr
FIRST!
No. smh
Isn't panpsychism just a creation story of dualism ?
11.00 That consciousnes may underlie material world does NOT mean each particle is conscious. I note you have defile meaning of consciouness to make this work. There are other more reasonable and logical idealisms. Why did you choose the flunky?
I don't like how you used a second person to read quotes. I found it jarring and chose to fast-forward through all the quoted passages. 🙉
I found your monkey emoji jarring. I fast forwarded through it.
I appreciate your show but in my opinion, Phillip Goff is Spinoza light (minus God)…inspiring to left leaning intellectuals, but not to spirit, like the idea of God becoming Man
Once materialists figure out consciousness you can make such a claim. Until then panpsychism is more likely materialists running away from consciousness being the fundamental truth of experience
Phil Goth on Galileo and exclusion of qualia from science, all good.
But please,Goth's panpsychism does not hold up. Better to go to other current idealists with more rational idealist options to look at.
Also look at current left right brain hemisphere studies, reinforces the Galileo theory but gives it meat and veges.
I've never understood why Consciousness cant just be sights and sounds triggering thoughts and feelings that turn into actions and memories. I dont understand how if you got a machine to do those and walk and talk and say "I seem to be alive, this is weird" how that wouldnt be consciousness. Hopefully I just cant grasp it and there's more to it than that (I want there to be more to it I swear!)
We already have machines that far exceed our ability of memory, calculations, poetry, art, etc… but no where near understanding how to make consciousness.