Idealism, Panpsychism, Oneness and Multiplicity | Dr. Tony Nader and Dr. Philip Goff
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2022
- In this episode, Dr. Nader sits down with Dr. Philip Goff, a philosopher of mind and consciousness at Durham University and author of "Galileo's Error", to discuss panpsychism and consciousness.
As Dr. Goff explains, panpsychism is not a single view. There is an emerging research community of scientists and philosophers who approach panpsychism in many different ways and Dr. Goff shares how they differ.
Dr. Goff also co-hosts the podcast “Mind Chat” with his fellow philosopher Dr. Keith Frankish, where they interview leading scientists and philosophers of consciousness.
Dr Philip Goff | Twitter
/ philip_goff
Dr Philip Goff | Website
www.philipgoffphilosophy.com
Dr Philip Goff | Book - US Version
www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
Dr Philip Goff | Book - UK Version
www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1...
Dr Philip Goff | Podcast
/ mindchat
Dr Tony Nader | Books
www.drnaderbooks.com
Dr Tony Nader | Website
www.drtonynader.com
Dr Tony Nader | Instagram
/ drtonynader
Dr Tony Nader | Twitter
/ drtonynader
Dr Tony Nader | TH-cam
/ drtonynader
Dr Tony Nader | LinkedIn
/ dr-tony-nader
Consciousness Is All There Is | Podcast
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xeUiVx...
SoundCloud:
/ drtonynader - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Every topic on Consciousness is exciting particularly when the discussion becomes passionate
Wonderful and brilliant
I like discussions punctuated with smile and laugh
Wonderful discussion! Really enhanced my understanding.
Excellent... thanks 🙏.
A really beautiful exploration and sharing. Amazing nuggets relating to the true ultimate reality of life from Dr Nader. Super questions from Philip Goff, especially in the latter parts, resulting in a really satisfying, uplifting and rich experience. Find a comfortable chair or place, worth listening in its wholeness in one go if possible. Brilliant!
Two Awesomely Good Guys
Experientially, consciousness is not an experience of particles. It is a borderless field of awareness taking on the form of perception, within itself.
An edgeless field which is creative, knows its creativity and is also self-knowing, self-aware.
Experientially there are no observable ‘islands of consciousness.’
What an enjoyable discussion to listen to , I loved how you both teased out the topics with open minds and great knowledge. Wonderful food for thought. Thank you 🙏
It was really enjoyable and inspirational discussion. Thanks to both scientists for the time they spent in this wonderful dialogue and for sharing their ideas, opinions and experience. İ would like to listen again the continuation of this dialogue especially after Dr Goff's reading the book: One unbounded Ocean of Consciousness or maybe, after his experience of transcending. Never try - never know. The truth is within us.
It's true that perhaps in the womb or inside of a dream we can experience pure consciousness. But we are born into a world of survival where we have to use all of the mental and physical tools our bodies have given us. It is only through prayer, meditation, contemplation, scientific investigation, philosophy...that we can investigate these tools and cast them off.
Luke 10:38-42
The universe has no purpose but we can give it one. That is the entire point.
In fact, panpsychism could be our goal, to bring intelligence, meaning, beauty, mind, consciousness everywhere in the cosmos. But we are not there yet. It is something we need to work on.
Separate minds, privacy of mind does not mean Separate or private consciousnesses. Consider different leaves on a tree. One tree, many different leaves. Or consider waves and the ocean. Innumerable waves, one substance.
The fact that many different images appear on the screen should not necessarily lead us to conclude that there are many different screens.
On the question of "Can I be happy and sad at the same time?" I have some questions. Isn't the idea of being happy (or being sad,...) not possibly just a mistake? Is experiencing (for example) the feeing of happiness the same as BEING happy? Is there no difference between what could be called 'being happy' and what could instead be called 'feeling happy' or 'feeling happiness'?
We had this problem with life, and this why people made up the "vital force" concept that was completely ridiculous. We are doing a lot of progress in explaining life from non life (abiogenesis) and consciousness is next.
My amateur guess is that the model they use in the Wolfram Physics Project is promising. It gets really complicated really fast, but the foundation is very simple, just a graph (hypergraph in graph theory). So it's a oneness, and consciousness as I see it can be described as a state of being aware as a self, a state of the graph itself.
What Dr. Nader was explaining is called in ancient Vedic texts, Lila, or divine play, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism). It is a beautiful poetic image but besides its poetic value it is difficult to accept as a scientific theory. One objections could be then "why just certain types of beings?". For example, why not unicorns, elves, giants in our universe? Why the universe seems mostly empty, deprived of life and in particular intelligent life? If the universe is this incredible phantasmagorical play why so few predictable characters?
Dr. Nader, does the way Teilhard deChardin uses "Omega Point" correspond the top of the pyramid you use? 51 minutes in.
Galileo didn't commit any error in the sense Dr. Goff explains.
Galileo basically said: "Let's not navel gaze and try to understand why or even what without understanding first HOW". This was so essential because most descriptions of HOW in ancient knowledge was completely wrong. Take for example the description by Aristotle of how a large stone and a big stone would fall (big stone moving faster than small stone for example and both at constant speed) that was completely wrong (both stones accelerate with the same rate and the travel with the same speed). If we cannot understand HOW we cannot understand WHAT or WHY.
Physics has been so successful in explaining more and more HOW at different levels of reality and that HOW now is the closest to WHAT or WHY we have. We can continue to accumulate information and improve our understanding of WHAT and WHY or take a pause and start to use our understanding of HOW to address WHAT and WHY. But we cannot say Galileo committed an error given his approach to knowledge of the universe is what allowed us to have these conversations today on computers, on the internet, to explore the cosmos and so on.
yess
How can consciousness explain how it gives rise to Giovanni? It cannot so let's say that Giovanni is primal and everything is Giovanni.
Based on about 56 min in at ABOUT 58 MINUTES IN we get, Why suffering? Freedom. Law and Order, Conservation of Energy, and...
Little disappointed with your guest
Excellent discussion from you
When one observes EEG data from sleep one can see clearly from the brain waves how the brain changes state from Deep Sleep to REM for example. It is a pretty brutal and sudden change. This to me indicates that conscious states are not gradual but discrete (maybe with some small gradation within a particular state). In other words, you have consciousness or you don't. Deep Sleep is not consciousness at all (closest brain state to be in coma) and when you are in this state there is no consciousness in the brain. You need a certain number of conditions (the right connectivity, the right amount of chemicals, brain waves) to support consciousness, REM is somehow similar in some of these conditions to the awaken state (it was called paradoxical sleep when it was discovered). If that is the case how a stone can have consciousness? If you mean for consciousness "interactions" with the environment then you generalize a very specific term to mean everything in existence and therefore you made the term meaningless.
:Sanity is the diary free vegetarian lifestyle yoga
You cannot use consciousness to encompass all that there is because it becomes then a meaningless term. Also trying to resolve the problem of why we are aware in the first place with saying "awareness" is primal is not a resolution at all.
I wonder if a person's bodily particles are spread out in a sort of Aura around them which I suppose you could call like an odor or a good person or a positive ion charge to their cellular structure perhaps maybe because they have a bigger sphere of area that they're bodily particle structure resides and I'm worse glow look like form rather than just the bodily form perhaps maybe this Spirit resides in The emptiness of space and if you expand your bodily molecular structure into a sort of oral field around you maybe more Spirit can enter into that field in that empty space along with the particles of the body that are also the next space almost like a neck catches fish but as opposed to fish it would be spiritual essence
Strange the mystical experiences are experienced by brains and not rocks... hmmm.
Sprinkles, (fairy dust) of Consciousness sound like what I have heard described as "Vrittis". Would they emerge as points of light at the time consciousness becomes aware of its observerhood and observes itself by itself, or are there different mechanics involved? (19:37 is the time in the talk that this question arose for me). Except for the problem of scale, they sound like the composition of Tinker Bell in the Disney Peter Pan animation.
💐🙏💐
Dr. Goff I really do not understand your stand on "physics tells us what physical properties do not what they are". EXACTLY ! Maybe because "what physical properties" are is a nonsensical statement?
How do we know anything if not through how things interact with each other?
If a thing, entity doesn't interact with anything, even itself then it doesn't exist. And if a thing interacts then what it does is what it is. Realizing this is what Galileo's genius was, not his error.