Philip Goff

Black and white image of Professor Philip Goff, facing the camera, set against a white background.

What happens when philosophy meets cutting edge science?
💡As part of our ‘Spotlight on’ series, @philipgoff.bsky.social discusses his bold approach to understanding consciousness and why questioning the fundamentals matters more than ever.
Read more👉 bit.ly/4rV57lU
#DUinspire
#DUSpotlightOn

I'm not saying you completely endorsed panpsychism being good for science, but my memory is that you raised that possibility in our chat. I haven't watched it yet so we'll both have to wait to find out! Do you trust me not to put out a deep fake of Anil saying "Panpsychism is the way forward!" 😜

Some philosophical claims that at least 60% of philosophers agree about: atheism (67%), gender is social construction (63%), moral realism (62%), conceivability of zombies (61%).

Which ones did the majority get right?

In BB brains, my belief that I'll exist in 5 secs in unjustified. With disharmony, my beliefs about my conscious states are radically wrong. What's the relevant difference?

From philpapers survey 2020

Some philosophical claims that at least 60% of philosophers agree about: atheism (67%), gender is social construction (63%), moral realism (62%), conceivability of zombies (61%).

Which ones did the majority get right?

I had a lovely chat @anilseth.bsky.social l that i'm going to put on my channel at the end of this month. Anil raised the possibility that maybe panpsychism might be best for the science, because you can stop worrying about the hard problem and just get on with the science!

a man with long hair and a tie says housted by your own petard ALT: a man with long hair and a tie says housted by your own petard

Great analogy! Just as physicists want to avoid cosmologies where it's highly likely we're Boltzmann Brains, so I want avoid hypotheses (e.g. physicalism) where it's highly likely there's psychophysical disharmony. But in both cases, it's okay to assume the skeptical scenario is false.

When we assume we're not in the Matrix we get all sorts of things we need to explain, i.e. the normal facts of science. When we assume psycho-physical harmony, we have to explain why there's psycho-physical harmony. What's the difference?

It's just the old problem of how we rule out wildly skeptical scenarios. It's not incoherent that the world was created five minutes ago but no one takes that possibility seriously as something that might be actual.

I don't take inverted Ian seriously as something that might be true in the real world, so in that sense I'm not inconsistent with what I just said to Keith. But I take it seriously as a conceptual possibility, and this raises the need to explain why it's psychophysical harmony obtains in real world

You're essentially asking me how we rule out wildly skeptical scenarios. I could equally ask you: How do you know we're in the Matrix?

I think of it as an extension of the normal scientific project, that tries to correlate observable brain activity with unobservable consciousness, partly by trusting people's testimony as to what their experience is like.

I don't think science can explain consciousness but it's crucial for helping us to understand it.

I don't think science can explain consciousness but it's crucial for helping us to understand it.

I know I took a jar of pickled onions down from the top shelf of the fridge for my mother in law who was visiting & couldn't reach...best guess is that it's some weird neurodiverse thing that I just wrote down after doing this...not sure about the second word...one of life's great mysteries...

I don’t crave certainty about what is true, but I do crave certainty regarding the correct probabilities to attach to my beliefs.

a white and black gauge with the word hz at the bottom ALT: a white and black gauge with the word hz at the bottom

Measure the strength of my intuitions.

I don’t crave certainty about what is true, but I do crave certainty regarding the correct probabilities to attach to my beliefs.

Great article by my favourite heretic!
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Andreas Nordlander: Vi har fortfarande ingen aning om vad medvetandet är Är materialismen på väg att förlora sitt grepp om vetenskapen? Teologen Andreas Nordlander frågar sig vart vi som kultur, i så fall, är på väg i stället.

How can I share that there's a big article on my 'Why?' book in Sweden's biggest newspaper, without it seeming like I'm showing off?
www.dn.se/kultur/andre...

This item is on my "to do" list "Hope/pickled onions"...anyone any idea what the hellI this is referring to???

don't worry, i can see your question

My call for questions for AMA is in the messages...can you see that?

Stuck for something to do on your Saturday night??? Why not listen to a 2.5 hours debate on ethical emotivism?

The most recent Panpsycast episode is one of the best podcast chats I've ever had. My favourite bit was Miri Albahari giving her heretical view that Buddhism and Advaita Vedandta are compatible. Check it out! (link below)

Episode 152, ‘God, Consciousness, and Fundamental Reality’ with Philip Goff, David Godman, and Miri Albahari (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion) Welcome to Episode 152 (Part II of II), where Goff, Godman, and Albahari discuss the methods and impact of Christian and Hindu philosophy. The supreme being of classical theism is unlimited in power...

www.thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/...

cool, I'll check it out! Going on Phil Halper's channel to discuss this soon

you win this round of banter