How Panpsychism Explains Consciousness | Phillip Goff
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Philip Goff argues for panpyschism as a solution to the problems of materialism and dualism.
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/the-consciousnes...
Could all matter in the universe be conscious? Professor of Philosophy Philip Goff argues that panpyschism is real and solves the deep problems of materialism and dualism that have plagued philosophy for centuries.
#panpsychism #consciousness #philosophy
Philip Goff is a philosopher and consciousness researcher at Durham University, who is a leading defender of panpsychism. ‘Suddenly the universe appears in a new and much more revealing perspective." Phillip Pullman
Visit IAI.tv for our full library of debates, talks, articles and podcasts from international thought leaders and world-class academics.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
What do you think of Phillip Goff's ideas? Leave a comment below
You can watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/the-consciousness-puzzle-panpsychism?UA-cam&
Just a useless theory ! No proof no evidence ! Enjoy 😉 Religiosity
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
An admirably concise way of stating the Hard Problem.
Self awareness without oscillation of thoughts (ego). eg Observe or don't react to your own subconscious thoughts which surface to create mind chatter in the form of thought patters and habitual thoughts. Thoughts and 5 senses are closely linked. When we clean up our subconscious thoughts, we become fully conscious of our actions and thoughts. This is Vipassana Meditation (copied from hindu/vedic tantra technique by Buddhists). Also understand the purpose of conscious actions and thoughts. It is for not creating karma or cause and effect which puts an end to reincarnation. So, we can't look at all these so called "consciousness studies" without understanding the core hindu/vedic metaphysics, universal laws of dharma, karma and reincarnation. Truth is simple but only ego and words complicate it.
@@Dharmicaction in one paragraph, you've excellently summarised most of the keystones of mental metaphysics.
"If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" No, but a wave is still there. A sound is what your brain makes out of it - your subjective interpretation of that wave. If I put a tomato in the fridge is it still red? The world of experience that is in our heads is different from the actual objective reality that isn't. We live in the world of experience whilst stuck in true objective reality that we can never truly experience.
Wave wouldn't be wave if no observer or the observer is in a different form
But we would never know it.
according to Quantum Mechanics, if no observer then everything is in superposition, no trees falling so no sound in fact nothing is happening if no observer there to see it.
The last line is the position taken by Kant while stating the distinction between phenomena and noumena.
...if your fridge has a light, your eyes will see red
however, just because it looks black (to us) when there's no light, doesn't mean it's black either...
your response to vid is perfect ☆
For anyone new to this topic, when we claim that the lone tree falling in the woods does not make a sound, we are not claiming it does not emit sound waves that have the potential to create a noise within the consciousness of a potential hearer.
That's semantic masturbation.
By the way, how *does* panpsychism explain consciousness? Did I miss that part?
Suspicions confirmed: I 've been thinking for a while that my cellphone is conscious, and it's not even the most advanced one.
Might the neural correlates of conscious experience turn energy into quantum field(s), so that mathematical information of physical world in brain becomes probabilities of mental world in mind?
To me this appears to be a problem of recursion. Using consciousness to study consciousness causes the topic to unravel in your hands.
I watched this video earlier and this man said that the universe was consciousness its self and us humans were gifted with the capability to experience this level of consciousness. He said consciousness exist everywhere around the universe, so say u flew out of the universe somehow, and consciousness didn’t exist out of it, you would lose your perception of reality, either be turned to ai, just a animalistic human with no ego or u would disappear, ion fuckin know. but compare us to every other being on this planet, notice how we are at top of the food chain, were smarter, more conscious, we know how to perceive our world more, etc. He said that animals have conscious and that they are sentient(can feel ), but not to a degree we are. cool lil theory but who knows
Could consciousness have something to do with mathematics becoming probabilities in quantum fields?
Sheldrake views consciousness as the realm of possibility. That sounds related. He probably has something to say about your idea.
Philip Goff says early on that by what he means by consciousness is the existence of experience. He uses the example of pain, if he is to equate consciousness on this level then the reaction of the nerve system is a form of consciousness and Mutatis mutandis; everything with a form of sensory input is conscious. He then makes a leap to the idealist notion of consciousness in the mind. How did he arrive at this conjecture? It would be interesting to hear the arguments that he uses to get there.
How is this about panpsychism??
We know all this in our water.Sadly,when Spinoza expressed it explicitly he had to shut up because of a detrimental effect on collections.
It is a Scientific problem because....we all identify the quality of colour wave lengths, same goes for sounds etc. So there are things that are objective about consciousness. Which must be then related to the fact that we have brains.
The problem of consciousness?
Consciousness was put there by nature to solve the problems of survival?
Or consciousness is for problem solving or learning new ways to survive in nature.
I'm trying to stare at my own eyeball.
Ahh! The question becomes what converts a vibration (a sensory input into a particular area of the brain) into a higher vibration (labelling as red, etc. into a sense what is being experienced from sensory inputs)?
Light
@@a.r.2554 light is a vibration. what vibrates it?
@stridedeck from everything I gather ... electric magnetic waves ... then the question turns to...where's the intergalactic map located ?
@@stridedeck i know Carl Jung spoke of this ...
@@a.r.2554 everywhere and nowhere!
Indeed, even without awareness, a branch will fall, and still be instinctively heard. For to hear is instinctive; but, to listen, is to be aware of.
What does the tree experience?
@@simongross3122 it doesn't experience anything at all, it just have to be there first, to provide us a habitat that we may survive in thereof. The construct of the human bodies are indicative that the trees are here first, before humans came into existence.
@@SabiazothPsyche How could you possibly know that? I assume that you are not a tree.
@@simongross3122 @Simon Gross Trees don't have cells that transmit information, nor does not retain it, so that then its awareness would make some sense of its existence. They simply exist, that's not contingent of human consciousness by itself.
@@SabiazothPsyche sounds like assumptions which most science is based from. Trees are alive. Therefore they probably have concious experince. We may not understand it. But that's irrelevant. We hardly understand anything
As far as known and understandble the universe constructed a being as humans that is the pinnacle and masterpiece that has been constructed over billions of years. The mention fact constitutes that we define the truth by facts and observations.
If we analyze the pinnacle of the universe it has to be said that these species developed a need for knowing from an intrinsic curiosity. We abserve a less developed curiosity in lower stages of the animal kingdom. If the modern explanatory of evolution is right and if man is the pinnacle of the known universe and if consciousness is an undeniable phenomenon then we must agree that consciousness is not only the aim of the universe but its also the motive and at the sametime the instrument by wich it crawled from the depths to to surface.
To comprehend this view in a small frame all we need is to imagine a small particle that travels trough the universe and eventually bind’s by physical law until it becomes a part of living three that gives life to other combined matter.
This particle is the building block that forms the tree fruit and and later being obsorbed by the human and becomes the light that we call consciousness. The question are 2 namely.
Is matter part of consciousness?
Is consciousness the law that governs the universe?
My answer is that both are one and the samething. There is now law without matter and a dead matter has no properties.
From this point of view we can suggest that consciousness is one but has degrees that flows from the tiny particle to this article that you are reading. The only barrier is limitation to grasp to fullness of that one consciousness. I call this the Alpha-conscious. We only comprehend a portion of that fullness wich is restricted by the evolution of our kind.
One may use a subjective example by using the psychosocial domain to pointing out the adult that became an Infant by an disability has no value in the relm of consciousness becaus the infant has is happy as it should be.
Objectivly the motive and the aim of the Alpha-conscious is to be known by itself if we observe and consider the humane as pinnacle. Hereby is the evolutionary chain reversed and reduced in a descending degree from adult to infant. Thats a degradation and therefor bad .. as einschtein said in his kast words in his biography God is great -Allahu Akbar
If the falling tree makes the needle of a sound level meter twitch, does that mean the meter is conscious? I don't think so! A falling tree in an empty forest does make a sound even though there's no one there to hear it.
If you define sound as something which must be heard by a conscious being... then, er....
@@JohnPW22 anyone that thinks that something must be heard to make a sound is not applying common sense!
@@mrmetaphysics9457 If there is no listener to hear it, it falls in absolute silence.
@@glenemma1 being deaf should not mean that you are dumb!
@@mrmetaphysics9457 There is no need to be insulting.
I literally meant that a tree falling without any hearer falls in complete silence.
Consiousness is observer not experience. Experience is knowledge between observer and observed.
This video had everything to do with consciousness and nothing to do with Panpsychism
The tree falling in the woods did make a sound. It was experienced by consciousness around it, but not by the one asking the question. We have to get over the thought that we are the center of the Universe. We are only part of the whole. All the critters in the forest heard the tree fall. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I think the mistake you're making here is taking the example too literally. Of course, no one is literally suggesting a real tree falling wouldn't be heard by something in the forest. The example assumes only that there's a tree falling and there's either a human there to hear it, or not, and otherwise nothing else to hear it. Not because we're the center of the universe, but because we're discussing our subjective **human** experiences, not the subjective experiences of birds or monkeys because it is impossible for us to discuss their experiences. Philosophers and scientists, I'm sure, are in unanimous agreement that other species hear sound, but we have no window into their subjective experience of it. The example is in no way attempting to contrast human consciousness from animal consciousness, its only point is to show that our perception/experience of an event is entirely different than that event in of itself. The "sound" a falling tree makes is an experience, but when that sound isn't heard (by anyone or anything), then there's no experience. Only the sound waves.
Of course, if this example was meant in any way as a value judgment of the various forms of consciousness (it's definitely not), then you'd be totally correct and I'd agree with you.
Please feel free to share my website, you can MAKE BLOTTER PICS there!
I am a devout atheist, of course. Please help me to know that I will see my beloved husband again or I will probably go mad here. You begin with "consciousness" ; isn't that an argument from "ignorance"? How do we know it is not all simply the brain? I will listen to this again. I like you.
Guys, what on Earth is this comment. It's beautiful.
@@spiderwizard1032 I don't understand what you say here. Did I not explain well? Beautiful? Not sure whether you like me or don't ! Ha! That is the problem with words on paper. Thanks, anyway. All I want is encouragement that I will see my Hansel again; kind of killing me.
as a devout atheist, you will never see anything you hope for after death, since that hope is the same as faith and is completely useless in an atheistic worldview.
However, place your trust in Christ as God incarnate, revealed to the world as a sign of love and truth, and acknowledge yourself as a mere creature who will not have certainty of what comes after death until it comes :)
I have video playlists on my channel to help you
@@philosophicalneo Oh, I'm sure you do. But, please try to understand that I regard any human in 2022 who believes in "Jesus Christ" as a complete idiot. I cannot help it. You surely know that none of that stuff is true, as no religion is real, all based on ancient legends and efforts to understand. I cannot prove there is no god as you cannot prove there is. However, we do know now, WE KNOW IT, that everything in the Bible is ancient Hebrew literature. There is no Yahweh or Jesus. Do a bit of research and think. Please think.
The idea that science has become so quantitatively-focused (to the detriment of qualitative concerns) makes a lot of sense once you draw upon Marxian base/superstructure theory. The so-called modern era of the last few centuries has pushed capital and exchange (fundamentally quantitative ways of relating to people and to the economy) into a place of dominance/hegemony, where everything is given a price and everything is objectified into a resource that can be turned into a commodity that in turn can generate capital. Capitalism is the quantitative impulse colonizing all avenues of life. The framing and focus of modern science reflects this, insofar as it's argued that the whole universe can be broken down into quantitatively-defined pieces of dead matter/exploitable resources. Without rejecting the quantitative, I believe that we absolutely need a rebirth in the qualitative dimensions, which is advocated in philosophies like panpsychism and in political ideologies like eco-socialism (which imbues nature with intrinsic value and democratically organizes the economy around qualitative use-values rather than quantitative exchange-values; i.e. we should put people in homes because homes are part of a qualitatively well-lived life and because we have the means to do so, and not because selling houses can generate capital for a choice few property owners).
Panpsychism does not explain consciousness it just banishes it to the earth making it earthly and the companion of nymphs like the mythological god Pan. We would expect more of consciousness,, something that would free us from the earth not banish us into it. Let consciousness remain the hard problem, let us give it that respect, until we know better.
👁✝️👁
So could one break down panpsychism to a kind of fundamental ontological RELATIONISM? Wouldn't be the name PANRELATIONISM a better description then?
Wtf lol
No. First, there is no relation without the thing that relates and its capacity for relationship. Second, the whole point is that consciousness, or knowing, cannot be reduced to anything else. It is axiomatic. It is the equivalent and of being.
Sometimes, I like to think of panpsychism as the last-ditch effort of physicalists to have excuses to not see God; but again, if they run out of reasons, having rational conversations will become quite tricky, now won't it?
Most panpsychists believe in God, actually
@@ObsidianMiner32 Dunno, haven't done/seen the census; but that doesn't weaken my point on physicalism's credibility, now does it? 😉
@Mark Coleman I don't see the need for such (self-)censorship; if God is such a bad explanation, He will surely die off in the marketplace of ideas and leave His throne vacant to the next best thing - but, if not...
@Mark Coleman We can all make claims - not all of us can back 'em up, though. So--if what you're implying is that God doesn't exist, how come what you're doing here is not just relabeling God as 'consciousness'? How come 'consciousness' is different from 'God'?
@Mark Coleman "because religion makes god look like a authoritarian. Why would god create us just to put rules on us that if we brake we get to burn for eternity?" Your pop culture-grade theological background on Hell/free will aside, it doesn't seem as though you grasp the ontological content of my question. So, do you like earthquakes? No? Therefore, earthquakes don't exist, right? What about North Korean despots, or cancer? Makes no sense...
"From my point of view consciousness is one being" 'Kay - and I asked: why can't that Being be God? Because you don't like earthquakes, or something?
"And the truth is we are that being in physical form" Amidst some stereotypical woowoo, I sense pantheism may be involved; if that's the case, why not just tell me that and cut the esoteric poetry (well, not that I'm not fond of thinking of God abstractly, myself...)?
"That would explain the process of evolution" Yet wouldn't explain existence itself
"I'll link a video you should watch by Allan watts" I appreciate the thought, but I'm already familiar with Watts and his Buddhist and New Age ideas; not a big fan, but he can make sense up to a point, I suppose...
Great presentation ... but
1. Why should we assume that science will not be able to explain consciousness?
2. Why should philosophy assume it can even suggest answers when it does no research in the areas?
3. When did philosophy ever come up with something new that science failed to discover?
Most scientific theories are a type of philosophy, or draw on many branches of philosophy. I think philosophy and the scientific method are mutually inclusive.
Science itself rests on a whole lot of philosophical ideas
Goff says that the reason science won't be able to explain consciousness is that it was designed to explain the world in quantitative, mathematical terms while consciousness is a qualitative thing. It's not extended, you can't do measurements on it.
Basically consciousness isn’t in the category of things science can address because of science’s inherent limits.
@Mark Coleman The reason why science can't explain consciousness, is because science is simply happening within consciousness. In a sense, it is an entirelt different dimension. Only consciousness can be conscious of consciousness
Characters within a movie, would never be capable of finding the screen in which they are appearing on from within the movie (weird analogy in this case, because I don't recall it fully)
Science is a specific philosophical reduction of philosophical thought.
This dude babbled for 3 hours on Rogan lmao
Oh god, another case of Are the carnists okay? Of course, rabbits know their existence 🤦🏼
Disappointing that to learn you are non vegan
"How Panpsychism Explains Consciousness".
-Well any magical made up "explanation" can be shaped to appear as such! Its not like we can actually study it and identify its limitations...we make the rules and we make it feet!
Haha. I say the same about cosmic inflation.
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas perhaps you should study the cosmic inflation theory closer. There are explanations, and it's not just pulled out of nowhere. There is plenty of literature to look into, if you feel like challenging your axioms. I do all the time, keeps life fresh, ya know?
@@jsnel9185 the faith is strong in this one.
This video is not complete and does not even mention panpsychism. Thumbs down.
Phil Goff needs to become an idealist. The problems are great with this idea of his.
I think his problem with idealism would be that it leaves us stuck inside the epistemic gap between the two metaphysical kinds he wants to be a realist about for good reasons: 1) awareness and 2) causo-mathematical structure.
He wants to preserve (1) on the basis of acquaintance with one's own subjective experience; he wants to preserve (2) by defending its pragmatic success in explaining a world we appear to understand very little of without it.
Panpsychism unifies this picture for him (though not without its own problems).
@@MarksMindBox i dont think objective idealists have these problems
@@miguelfonseca1104 Good point. I suppose there's a sense in which Goff's view might be construed as a version of objective idealism. At least, I can't see a sharp distinction between certain forms of both pictures.
@@miguelfonseca1104 though one problem objective idealists still face is in explaining why awareness seems particulate in the local case (i.e in the case of phenomenal consciousness). This is one problem Goff's version of pansychism avoids.
@@MarksMindBox you mean the so called "de-composition" problem the cosmopsychists also have?
Panpsychism doesnt explain consciousness at all. It's a lot of hand-waving and vagueness and avoiding the whole question in it's entirety. It's a complete waste of time.
Phil you need a lifeline. CALL BERNARDO!
This guy is the definition of trying to sound smart by using big words every other sentence.
@@InspirebyKhan absolutely as soon as I watched 2 minutes on Rogan. I knew.
Sounds like Animism and phenomonolgy.
This is a tired and disingenuous argument given by people with absolutely no understanding of neuroscience
Shame on this channel.
This is a stolen concept from Advaita Vedanta Philosophy which is 2000 years.
only 2000 yr old? I would say 4000 yr.
@@Dharmicaction Sri Adi Shankara's sampradaya is atleast 2000 yrs. (as against he fabricated 700 CE) & hence the claim by Bhaskarjyaa. Dharmic rules - when we claim something we got to substantiate it by atlest giving the sampradaya or the vedic scripture the idea/thought belongs to. Giving some arbitrary 4000 yrs. without that i going to simply backfire and invalidate our claim itself.
its not about what you argue but how you argue it. That's like saying all monist philosophies are a rip-off of Parmenides.
You can get via different ways at different times to the same results. Please miss with that "cultural appropriation" nonsense.
I was thinking about that listening to him. Advaita and buddhism (and the whole yogic tradition really) were asking really interesting questions about consciousness and the nature of experience, way before Galileo.
I can't believe people are actually panpsychists. What a shame