Consciousness Live! S2 Ep 10 -Discussion with Philip Goff [Galileo's Error]

[TheSaffronasha]

Ok...enough's enough. I adore Philip Goff and I adore Bernardo Kastrup. WHY THE HELL aren't those two blokes hashing this out in a friendly debate. Please Please Please someone get them on air together.

[MontyCantsin]

I think Goff makes a very good case regarding the importance of philosophy to contemporary thought about the physical, in addition to the idea that science shouldn't just take take a stance of shut up and calculate. It does need to think about its methods and what they imply metaphysically so that some sort of worldview can be derived from it. Im terms of Goff's positive thesis with respect to consciousness, I'll need to read more of his technical work to see how coherent his written arguments are because judging from various video interviews in which he pushes for panpsychism to be taken seriously (I can't see much reason to give the view much credence, not least because it looks like it would be impossible to test scientifically), it seems that he either misrepresents many philosophical views, or has a limited understanding of them. Granted, he's an engaging orator and is trying to push for different ideas to be pursued, but I always come away with a sense of disappointment and can't help but wonder if he's actually thought about anything outside of 'electrons must be conscious because materialism doesn't satisfy my ontology'. Brown did a good job of examining Goff's thought, particularly because he was forced to seriously question the fact that he adopts arguments used by physicalists, thus undermining panpsychism.

[nonchai]

After a frustrating beginning on colour this turned out a very interesting discussion - one which clearly begs another down the line once Philip has given thought to those things he stated he needed to. Funny when it came to mereology and a shared slight disdain for aspects of metaphysics - but whether or not one can give mererology a wide berth while doing metaphysics - or a subset of it as relates to consciousness - it reminded me of someone else who in his book states his disdain for mereology - James Ladyman. And it seems to me.... given this conversation - yet again - as always has to happen this ends up in metaphysical lands connected to emergence and properties etc - that you simply must have James Ladyman on as guest. In fact I'd love to have James, Philip and you go heads to heads on this channel too!.

[zerothehero]

Goff “ I suppose, maybe but I’m not committed. I mention in the book but maybe, I haven’t worked out, Still thinking on this.I could agree but looking at this, also you could say but I’m not sure...I think you could say no, but yes you could say that but I suppose, maybe...”
Nothing like a clear cut argument.

[nonchai]

Finally its cool to have you guys delving into theoretical physics as well here - even bringing in Carrol and a few philosophers of physics as well. I think - certainly in my amateur dabblings - this just ends up being where things lead. Phil of mind to Metaphysics to philosophy of physics. So maybe Carrol, Maudlin and Arnold? as future guests. This stuff just... irritatingly or wonderfully - take yer pick - all just ends up utterly interconnected.

[nonchai]

Some aspects of the discussions on colour and realism made me think of Donald Hoffman too. Who I don't think you've had on yet - and clearly links to both Bernardo Kastrup and Philip in some ways.

[nonchai]

Oops.. finally - part two! - some discussion was given to IIT. Who would be the best professional *philosopher* currently arguing for some form of Tononi's theory?