Dr. Philip Goff, Will Academia Get Beyond Materialism? |409|
Dr. Philip Goff is a philosophy professor who dares to challenge biological-robot-meaningless-universe party line.
photo by: Skeptiko
(clip from Dr. Strange)
I spent my last dollar getting here you’re talking to me about healing through belief…
You’re a man looking at the world through a keyhole and you spent your whole life trying to widen that keyhole to see more to know more and now on hearing that it can be widened in ways you can’t imagine you reject the possibility.
I reject it because I do not believe in fairy tales about chakras, or energy, or the power belief there is no such thing as spirit.
That’s a clip from the 2016 mega sci-fi hit Doctor Strange. This scene really captures a scientist at the tipping point.
We are made of matter nothing more… just another tiny momentary speck within an indifferent universe.
You think too little of yourself.
Oh you think you see through me doing what you don’t, but I see through (Dr. Strange is thrown out of his body)… what was that?
I pushed your astral form out of your physical body.
What’s in that tea? psilocybin? LSD?
Just tea, with a little honey.
Of course wouldn’t it be great if it was that simple, but the transition from the materialistic scientific paradigm into what lies beyond is anything but clean, and there are a lot of hangeroners as today’s guest Dr. Philip Goff (author of Galileo’s Error) has experienced.
Philip Goff: There is a philosopher who’s very good friend of mine a very warm and pathetic guy very kind cares about the world but he doesn’t think consciousness exists it’s always incredible to me that it you know in a sense he thinks you know no one has ever really felt pain. I think one of the big problems in that position is all of scientific knowledge is mediated through consciousness… thinking that you could have scientific evidence that consciousness doesn’t exist is a bit like thinking astronomy can tell us that there are no telescopes.
But one of the questions for me is how much of this hangeroner stuff should we tolerate, should we accept as just part of the change process, versus calling it for what it is:
Alex Tsakiris: you know in academia it’s really easy who gets the grants? who gets promoted? who doesn’t get promoted? who doesn’t get tenure? they get pruned off the tree and at the end of the day you wind up with what we have now. we wind up with you debating with Jerry Coyne, which again I know I get push back when I say this, but he’s just really incompetent. I’ve had him on the show and he just… just gets major things wrong that he’s supposed to know about. and yet he’s put forward and propped up. He’s at University of Chicago, been around forever, and this goes on and on. so that that’s the social engineering project, not that people don’t legitimately believe [in materialism] it’s just that the people who are really thinking this thing through are not presented as credible.
This was a very fun chat with a very bright guy who’s doing some great work. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. Phillip Goff.[box]
Listen Now:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
[/box][box]
Subscribe:
[one_third][/one_third] [one_third][/one_third] [one_third_last][/one_third_last] [/box] Click here for forum discussion
Click here for Philip Goff’s website
Read Excerpts
(machine generate transcript this time hope to have a real one next time)
3:47 – 3:52 today we welcome dr. Philip Goff to
3:50 – 3:55 skeptic Oh Philip is a philosopher and
3:52 – 3:57 consciousness researcher at Durham
3:55 – 3:60 University in the UK he’s the author of
3:57 – 4:02 consciousness and fundamental reality
3:60 – 4:06 he’s got a new book coming out titled
4:02 – 4:08 Galileo’s air a manifesto for a new
4:06 – 4:12 science of consciousness he blogs at
4:08 – 4:15 conscious and consciousness if you see a
4:12 – 4:18 theme here hey this guy is all about
4:15 – 4:20 consciousness and that just makes him a
4:18 – 4:22 perfect guest for what we love to talk
4:20 – 4:24 about here on skeptic Oh Philip I’m
4:22 – 4:26 really glad we were able to make this
4:24 – 4:27 happen finally and thanks so much for
4:26 – 4:32 joining me
4:27 – 4:40 great let’s get the chest so let’s start
4:32 – 4:40 out tell us who is dr. Phillip Goff yeah
4:42 – 4:49 worked in a lot of different places over
4:44 – 4:51 the last 10 or 11 years and I guess my
4:49 – 4:53 main focus is consciousness I guess more
4:51 – 4:57 generally I’ve just you know I’m just
4:53 – 4:60 really fascinated by things that don’t
4:57 – 5:01 seem to fit into our standard scientific
4:60 – 5:03 picture of the world or the thing things
5:01 – 5:05 that it’s really hard to fit in the
5:03 – 5:08 consciousness being at the obvious one
5:05 – 5:10 but also you know other things like
5:08 – 5:14 value for example we tend to think there
5:10 – 5:16 are you know facts about value can to
5:14 – 5:17 see how they fit in with the kind of
5:16 – 5:21 facts we know about for the natural
5:17 – 5:23 science or abstract objects like
5:21 – 5:26 mathematicians tell us all sorts of cool
5:23 – 5:27 things about numbers and sets you know
5:26 – 5:30 what the hell is the connection between
5:27 – 5:32 that kind of abstract realm and a
5:30 – 5:34 concrete world of tables and chairs so
5:32 – 5:37 you know I guess I’m just interested in
5:34 – 5:39 how how all these things fit together
5:37 – 5:41 and I you know how we can have a a
5:39 – 5:44 worldview that can accommodate you know
5:41 – 5:46 not just the things that empirical
5:44 – 5:48 science that observation experiment tell
5:46 – 5:49 us about but other things we have a
5:48 – 5:51 reason to believe in my consciousness
5:49 – 5:54 for example how we can fit them all
5:51 – 5:57 together there I guess that’s my the big
5:54 – 5:58 thing I try to do really yeah I like as
5:57 – 5:60 I was preparing for the unit
5:58 – 6:03 I forget where I ran across this but I
5:60 – 6:05 love this story early you know early
6:03 – 6:07 childhood story you know you say I asked
6:05 – 6:09 my parents where are we you know you say
6:07 – 6:11 hey I was always interested in
6:09 – 6:13 big-picture questions I asked my parents
6:11 – 6:15 where are we and then you have a great
6:13 – 6:16 sense of humor and you added but maybe
6:15 – 6:21 that’s because we just moved into a new
6:16 – 6:22 house about this in preparation for
6:21 – 6:25 Cynthia did you know did I show any
6:22 – 6:26 signs of early interest in philosophy I
6:25 – 6:28 guess I’ve been interested in full of
6:26 – 6:30 simple questions as long as I can
6:28 – 6:32 remember really and I was asking my dad
6:30 – 6:34 how far back that went and yet she said
6:32 – 6:35 to me when I was far I think he was five
6:34 – 6:39 I can’t remember now what I said in
6:35 – 6:42 light and yeah I asked why we’re here
6:39 – 6:44 but it was as I say I have to confess it
6:42 – 6:45 was we just moved to in you know so it
6:44 – 6:49 could have been connected to that I
6:45 – 6:50 don’t know but well I think it’s I think
6:49 – 6:53 it’s a great story especially the way
6:50 – 6:57 things turn out I mean it is interesting
6:53 – 7:00 because a lot of people do not have a
6:57 – 7:03 passion for these kind of questions
7:00 – 7:05 which to me always seemed fundamental
7:03 – 7:07 even in my life when I was running off
7:05 – 7:09 doing other things business primarily
7:07 – 7:11 chasing money and doing that kind of
7:09 – 7:13 stuff I always had in the back of my
7:11 – 7:15 mind that I’d like to get around to
7:13 – 7:19 answering these fundamental questions do
7:15 – 7:21 you ever wonder why more people don’t
7:19 – 7:23 seem to have this on the top of their
7:21 – 7:29 to-do list that is to get to the bottom
7:23 – 7:32 of this yeah I guess it’s partly to do
7:29 – 7:34 with the very kind of scientistic
7:32 – 7:36 culture we’re living in I mean people
7:34 – 7:38 don’t really know what philosophy is
7:36 – 7:42 they think no it’s the job of science to
7:38 – 7:44 tell us you know what the universe is
7:42 – 7:45 like maybe it’s a job of philosophers to
7:44 – 7:48 make us feel a bit better about it or
7:45 – 7:49 something but you know it’s the job of
7:48 – 7:51 science’ tell us what the world is like
7:49 – 7:53 and I guess I think we’re going through
7:51 – 7:56 a phase of history where people are
7:53 – 7:58 rightly you know blown away by the
7:56 – 8:01 success of physical science you know and
7:58 – 8:03 the extraordinary technology it’s
8:01 – 8:05 produced and you know that leads you to
8:03 – 8:08 think oh this works right we’ve got
8:05 – 8:11 something that works and to put all your
8:08 – 8:12 faith in that whereas as we might get
8:11 – 8:15 onto I
8:12 – 8:18 in my view the reason physical science
8:15 – 8:20 has been so successful is because it’s
8:18 – 8:23 it’s always been focused on on a quite
8:20 – 8:25 narrow task you know roughly telling us
8:23 – 8:28 how things behave and it’s done very
8:25 – 8:31 well focusing on that narrow task but
8:28 – 8:32 there’s lots of other things we know
8:31 – 8:35 about the world that you know don’t
8:32 – 8:37 quite fit in there such as consciousness
8:35 – 8:40 I mean you know consciousness is that is
8:37 – 8:42 the most interesting because on the one
8:40 – 8:44 hand it’s so hard to fit into our
8:42 – 8:47 standard scientific picture of reality
8:44 – 8:49 but on the other hand it’s so hard to
8:47 – 8:52 deny it exists you know you’re nothing
8:49 – 8:54 is more evident than the reality of our
8:52 – 8:57 feelings and experiences so you know we
8:54 – 8:58 have to account for it somehow it has to
8:57 – 9:01 fit in there somehow you know but it’s
8:58 – 9:03 so hard to make it fit so you know I
9:01 – 9:05 mean things have changed a lot I’d say
9:03 – 9:09 you know but hold on hold on full stop
9:05 – 9:12 because I always worry that even casting
9:09 – 9:15 it that way is I think conceding too
9:12 – 9:18 much to materialistic science from a
9:15 – 9:22 philosophical standpoint consciousness
9:18 – 9:25 your consciousness is really the only
9:22 – 9:27 thing you can be sure of and contrasting
9:25 – 9:30 that with this theory out there this
9:27 – 9:33 unproven and in a lot of ways falsified
9:30 – 9:36 theory that the world is out there that
9:33 – 9:39 the world is measurable that the rule
9:36 – 9:41 there’s a consensus among all of us I
9:39 – 9:45 mean that is just falsified over and
9:41 – 9:47 over again so do we even from the
9:45 – 9:49 beginning because of the power of
9:47 – 9:52 science in our society do we concede too
9:49 – 9:55 much even at the beginning yeah
9:52 – 9:58 certainly agree with you to the extent
9:55 – 10:02 that I think what is known with greater
9:58 – 10:06 certainty is the reality of my own
10:02 – 10:10 consciousness you know is there a really
10:06 – 10:12 a table out there that’s questionable is
10:10 – 10:14 certainly known with certainty but if
10:12 – 10:16 I’m in pain
10:14 – 10:18 it’s very hard to deny the reality of my
10:16 – 10:22 pain that I’m immediately aware of in my
10:18 – 10:24 experience so I think you know decart
10:22 – 10:26 you know the start of modern philosophy
10:24 – 10:27 back in the Scientific Revolution got
10:26 – 10:29 that completely right although I don’t
10:27 – 10:33 agree with them about a lot of other
10:29 – 10:34 things but I suppose it depends what you
10:33 – 10:38 mean by science
10:34 – 10:41 I tend to distinguish physical science
10:38 – 10:44 from a more expansive conception of
10:41 – 10:47 science physical science being focused
10:44 – 10:53 on obsession and experiment
10:47 – 10:55 and quantitative analysis in intuitive
10:53 – 10:58 vocabulary mathema I don’t think those
10:55 – 10:60 resources are much good at least for
10:58 – 11:01 giving a complete account of
10:60 – 11:04 consciousness and I think they were
11:01 – 11:06 never designed for that purpose but what
11:04 – 11:09 I like to move towards is expansive
11:06 – 11:13 conception of science sometimes called
11:09 – 11:15 the boost gala AIIMS where we where we
11:13 – 11:17 take your observation environment
11:15 – 11:20 uncertain as they don’t think they’re
11:17 – 11:23 important for informing our theory of
11:20 – 11:26 the world but we also take the reality
11:23 – 11:28 of consciousness as we immediately
11:26 – 11:32 experience it as a datum at least equal
11:28 – 11:33 if not more important than observation
11:32 – 11:35 experiment and we try to put them both
11:33 – 11:38 together and try to find a theory a
11:35 – 11:41 reality that can account for both and I
11:38 – 11:42 don’t people are really in the mindset
11:41 – 11:45 of thinking of science like that they
11:42 – 11:47 think of Sciences the job of science is
11:45 – 11:48 account for the data of observation
11:47 – 11:51 experiment you know once you’ve done
11:48 – 11:52 that job done but I think that you know
11:51 – 11:55 know there’s something else there’s
11:52 – 11:56 something else we know is real and if we
11:55 – 11:58 can’t account for that then our theory
11:56 – 12:01 is incomplete so I think we need to move
11:58 – 12:04 to an expansive conception of science
12:01 – 12:05 where we take consciousness as a datum
12:04 – 12:08 and it’s so right
12:05 – 12:12 yeah I hear you I keep wanting to go
12:08 – 12:15 further and I guess that’s been one of
12:12 – 12:17 my aims on this show because well I
12:15 – 12:20 started with believing there was this
12:17 – 12:22 legitimate divide you know and this
12:20 – 12:24 legitimate question about the hard
12:22 – 12:26 problem of consciousness which you know
12:24 – 12:27 now I come to understand is such a
12:26 – 12:29 misnomer I mean what’s
12:27 – 12:31 easy problem of consciousness it kind of
12:29 – 12:35 misses the point from the beginning but
12:31 – 12:38 that led me to an investigation of
12:35 – 12:42 frontier science parapsychology here are
12:38 – 12:44 folks saying wait I can take I can play
12:42 – 12:46 by the rules of the game that is the
12:44 – 12:50 scientific method and I can show you
12:46 – 12:53 that consciousness doesn’t work the way
12:50 – 12:56 you think it does that an epiphenomena
12:53 – 12:59 of the brain model of brain based
12:56 – 13:02 consciousness falls apart from these
12:59 – 13:04 parapsychology experiments and then when
13:02 – 13:06 you start pulling all that apart and
13:04 – 13:08 there’s all this bobbling back and forth
13:06 – 13:11 hey take it one step further go to the
13:08 – 13:13 near-death experience science
13:11 – 13:15 experiments published in peer-reviewed
13:13 – 13:17 journals and now you’re totally off the
13:15 – 13:18 reservation there’s no way we can get
13:17 – 13:21 back to that
13:18 – 13:25 don’t be materialistic science brain
13:21 – 13:27 based neurology nonsense what about what
13:25 – 13:30 about that path what about it– so my
13:27 – 13:33 poke at you is I don’t see Phillip Gough
13:30 – 13:36 parapsychology I don’t see dr. Phillip
13:33 – 13:39 Goff near-death experience aren’t these
13:36 – 13:42 probably the best examples we have of
13:39 – 13:47 science that undermines this
13:42 – 13:50 materialistic consciousness idea I guess
13:47 – 13:55 I guess you’re critiquing materialism
13:50 – 13:57 perhaps from a different angle I mean I
13:55 – 14:00 mean my protamine I guess my
13:57 – 14:04 philosophical education we were told
14:00 – 14:08 that the the only options you know you
14:04 – 14:10 had to be a materialist or a duelist you
14:08 – 14:12 had to you had to think you know like a
14:10 – 14:14 materia so you could just explain
14:12 – 14:17 consciousness in terms of the chemistry
14:14 – 14:19 of the brain oh you’re a duelist and you
14:17 – 14:21 think consciousness is outside of the
14:19 – 14:23 physical body and brain which is maybe
14:21 – 14:24 from what you’ve just said that more the
14:23 – 14:28 direction you’re a man perhaps
14:24 – 14:32 I guess I’ve always found both of these
14:28 – 14:33 problematic and you know for a long time
14:32 – 14:35 I was kind of disillusioned with it all
14:33 – 14:38 and thought you know none of these
14:35 – 14:41 options work but I guess what what I’m
14:38 – 14:44 just interested in is is
14:41 – 14:48 general picture of reality that is able
14:44 – 14:50 to bring together you know what we know
14:48 – 14:52 about reality from observation and
14:50 – 14:55 experiment and what we know about
14:52 – 14:58 consciousness from the inside as it were
14:55 – 15:00 you know a general theory of reality and
14:58 – 15:02 then you know obviously we want to do
15:00 – 15:04 empirical work to fill out the details
15:02 – 15:08 and people will argue over that and you
15:04 – 15:08 know you can push in your direction and
15:09 – 15:13 you know I guess the more conventional
15:11 – 15:15 scientists for better or worse I don’t
15:13 – 15:16 mean to say conventional in a positive
15:15 – 15:19 or a negative way will push in the
15:16 – 15:22 opposite direction I want a general
15:19 – 15:25 framework that can fit in consciousness
15:22 – 15:27 whatever the science tells us you know
15:25 – 15:28 so I guess I’m working you know
15:27 – 15:32 different people work on different
15:28 – 15:36 things I’m working at a at that general
15:32 – 15:37 framework and you know part of the
15:36 – 15:40 reason you know my last book the new
15:37 – 15:43 consciousness but man reality was a very
15:40 – 15:45 academic book it’s probably a bit more
15:43 – 15:47 accessible than a normal academic book
15:45 – 15:49 but it’s still pretty you know it
15:47 – 15:51 inaccessible in some ways so the the
15:49 – 15:53 purpose of my new book is very different
15:51 – 15:56 kind of book very much aimed at a
15:53 – 15:59 general audience very much trying to get
15:56 – 16:01 this general framework out there that’s
15:59 – 16:03 getting more known and causing a lot of
16:01 – 16:04 excitement in academic philosophy for
16:03 – 16:07 trying to get it out there to a broader
16:04 – 16:09 audience to scientists to think is more
16:07 – 16:12 broadly so that you know we can start to
16:09 – 16:14 try and or fill in the details of this
16:12 – 16:15 view you know bringing in more of the
16:14 – 16:18 empirical science but I guess I’m
16:15 – 16:21 working at that more abstract level that
16:18 – 16:24 abstracts from those specificities that
16:21 – 16:26 make sense maybe I’m gonna push you a
16:24 – 16:27 little bit on that for a second but tell
16:26 – 16:30 us about that book it sounds interesting
16:27 – 16:34 Galileo’s air that immediately draws us
16:30 – 16:39 in what’s the general premise so I guess
16:34 – 16:41 the big argument is that the reason we
16:39 – 16:42 have a problem of consciousness is
16:41 – 16:45 because of the way
16:42 – 16:48 Galileo designed physical science and
16:45 – 16:49 hence if we want to solve the problem of
16:48 – 16:53 consciousness you know we need to
16:49 – 16:54 rethink what what science is so you know
16:53 – 16:56 that I mean the
16:54 – 17:00 key moment in the Scientific Revolution
16:56 – 17:02 is when Galileo says mathematics is to
17:00 – 17:05 be the language of the new science right
17:02 – 17:08 and but what is that and forgotten is
17:05 – 17:11 the philosophical work he had to do to
17:08 – 17:14 get to that stage right because before
17:11 – 17:18 Galileo people thought the world was
17:14 – 17:19 full of qualities thought the physical
17:18 – 17:22 world was you know they were colours on
17:19 – 17:25 the surfaces of objects and smells
17:22 – 17:28 floating through the air and tastes in
17:25 – 17:29 food and this is a problem for Galileo
17:28 – 17:32 because he wanna it’s hard to see how
17:29 – 17:34 you can capture these qualities in
17:32 – 17:37 mathematical language you know how can
17:34 – 17:39 you capture what you know the redness of
17:37 – 17:42 red in the abstract language of
17:39 – 17:43 mathematics so what Galileo did and this
17:42 – 17:46 is you know this is the start of modern
17:43 – 17:49 science what Galileo did was he he gave
17:46 – 17:52 a philosophical reinterpretation of
17:49 – 17:54 reality right you know he said I don’t
17:52 – 17:56 think those qualities are really out
17:54 – 17:59 there in reality I think they’re in the
17:56 – 18:01 soul they’re in consciousness they’re
17:59 – 18:04 outside of the domain of science and
18:01 – 18:08 then the job of science is to focus on
18:04 – 18:09 the quantitative aspects of matter what
18:08 – 18:12 you can capture in mathematics eyes
18:09 – 18:13 shape motion they’re they’re the only
18:12 – 18:16 things that are really in the physical
18:13 – 18:20 scientific domain so he introduces this
18:16 – 18:23 dualism this radical division between
18:20 – 18:27 you know between consciousness and its
18:23 – 18:30 qualities outside of science and the
18:27 – 18:32 quantitative mathematical physical world
18:30 – 18:34 and so this is the start of mathematical
18:32 – 18:36 physics and it’s been you know
18:34 – 18:41 incredibly successful at what it does
18:36 – 18:43 but you know it was never intended to be
18:41 – 18:47 a complete theory of reality and it was
18:43 – 18:48 always premise on taking consciousness
18:47 – 18:52 in the qualities of consciousness
18:48 – 18:54 outside of science and so you know if we
18:52 – 18:56 need to if we if we want a complete
18:54 – 18:58 theory of reality that includes
18:56 – 18:60 consciousness you know we have to find a
18:58 – 19:01 way of bringing it back in so I think
18:60 – 19:04 you know like if Galileo is to
19:01 – 19:06 time-travel to the present day and hear
19:04 – 19:08 about this problem of giving a physical
19:06 – 19:09 explanation of consciousness
19:08 – 19:11 he’d say you know of course that’s
19:09 – 19:14 impossible I designed science to deal
19:11 – 19:15 with quantities not qualities so I think
19:14 – 19:17 you know it’s been the problem of
19:15 – 19:19 consciousness has been written in from
19:17 – 19:22 the start really so that’s the kind of
19:19 – 19:25 starting point of the book yeah you know
19:22 – 19:27 I always point to the famous quote
19:25 – 19:29 that’s attributed to Richard Feynman but
19:27 – 19:33 I think it was actually someone else but
19:29 – 19:35 you know in the early 1900’s when the
19:33 – 19:38 great quantum physicists are really
19:35 – 19:39 trying to solve that problem and they
19:38 – 19:43 get to it and they go hey you know what
19:39 – 19:46 we can’t its consciousness there’s there
19:43 – 19:49 we’ve run right up against the wall of
19:46 – 19:52 consciousness right and then find Minh
19:49 – 19:53 and his group go off and say the shut up
19:52 – 19:56 and calculate things do you know that
19:53 – 19:59 story where they just kind of go yeah so
19:56 – 20:03 shut up and calculate to me is what we
19:59 – 20:06 live in now and what the right the only
20:03 – 20:08 the only problem with that is that we
20:06 – 20:11 kind of ignore the fact that we took a
20:08 – 20:13 philosophical side step to the problem
20:11 – 20:15 right so we we ran into the wall and we
20:13 – 20:17 said okay it’s perfectly fine to say
20:15 – 20:19 well we’ll just step around it for now
20:17 – 20:21 and see what kind of iPhones we can make
20:19 – 20:24 out of this but then you do have to come
20:21 – 20:26 back at some point and go we did kind of
20:24 – 20:29 sidestep the fact that none of this
20:26 – 20:31 really makes any sense from a
20:29 – 20:33 measurement standpoint and that’s where
20:31 – 20:37 I guess I feel like we’re still kind of
20:33 – 20:40 tiptoeing around the dilemma with
20:37 – 20:42 science in general and I’m not even
20:40 – 20:45 willing to concede that you know we have
20:42 – 20:48 to compartmentalize it here there if we
20:45 – 20:51 can’t measure then science is out of
20:48 – 20:54 business and everything we know about
20:51 – 20:58 quantum physics tells us that at the
20:54 – 21:01 fundamental level that we know of we are
20:58 – 21:04 no longer able to really measure things
21:01 – 21:07 so I just wonder if if we’re really
21:04 – 21:09 there and I listened to your interview
21:07 – 21:11 your excellent interview with Michael
21:09 – 21:13 Shermer and I sent you a copy of my
21:11 – 21:16 interview with Michael Shermer who is
21:13 – 21:20 one of my favorite favorite frenemies in
21:16 – 21:22 this whole thing because he sounds so
21:20 – 21:24 brilliant and yet
21:22 – 21:26 it’s total gobbly gook what he says and
21:24 – 21:29 when you push it to any degree it just
21:26 – 21:30 doesn’t hold up it doesn’t make any
21:29 – 21:33 sense it’s like listening to Neil
21:30 – 21:36 deGrasse Tyson talk about consciousness
21:33 – 21:39 it’s just silliness I mean it just
21:36 – 21:42 doesn’t make any sense so I guess one of
21:39 – 21:45 the questions I posed is is this worth
21:42 – 21:47 saving can this be recovered in the way
21:45 – 21:50 that you’re talking about or is this
21:47 – 21:52 fundamental shift that we’re talking
21:50 – 21:53 about really lead us in a whole
21:52 – 21:55 different direction and I guess I’d have
21:53 – 21:59 to add one more problem is I always feel
21:55 – 22:01 like philosophers and philosophy at this
21:59 – 22:03 point you know philosophy supposed to be
22:01 – 22:05 keen philosophy supposed to be on top
22:03 – 22:08 and I think they’ve been pushed down for
22:05 – 22:11 so long that they’re kind of careful
22:08 – 22:14 about saying these kind of things like
22:11 – 22:15 hey you guys are all nincompoops what
22:14 – 22:17 you’re saying doesn’t make any sense
22:15 – 22:19 consciousness is an illusion is
22:17 – 22:21 laughable to a first-grader
22:19 – 22:24 if you went and said you know your
22:21 – 22:27 entire experience of your mom your dad
22:24 – 22:29 your classmates your family that’s all
22:27 – 22:31 an illusion they would laugh in your
22:29 – 22:33 face and yet we sit around and have
22:31 – 22:36 conferences where we debate this you
22:33 – 22:38 know and Sam Harris and Chalmers are
22:36 – 22:40 sitting there well do you think Dan
22:38 – 22:42 Dennett really believes that I mean
22:40 – 22:50 we’re giving legitimacy to just these
22:42 – 22:53 wildly insane ideas yeah does people who
22:50 – 22:56 deny the existence of consciousness yeah
22:53 – 22:58 I mean a very close friend of me to use
22:56 – 22:60 the same term on Keith frankish who’s a
22:58 – 23:03 philosopher who’s very good friend of
22:60 – 23:05 mine a very warm empathetic guy very
23:03 – 23:08 kind cares about the world but he
23:05 – 23:10 doesn’t think consciousness exists it
23:08 – 23:12 was incredible to me that it you know in
23:10 – 23:16 a sense he thinks you know no one has
23:12 – 23:19 ever really felt pain or no so I guess
23:16 – 23:23 I’m how do people get to that position
23:19 – 23:25 and I think one of the big problems in
23:23 – 23:28 that position that I often put to keep
23:25 – 23:29 is you know all of cut all of scientific
23:28 – 23:31 knowledge is mediated through
23:29 – 23:36 consciousness right New York you only
23:31 – 23:38 know that electrons because you have
23:36 – 23:40 you know conscious experiences of cloud
23:38 – 23:43 chambers and things you know you only
23:40 – 23:45 know any scientific experimental data
23:43 – 23:49 because you have conscious experience of
23:45 – 23:52 your instruments you know so in a way
23:49 – 23:53 thinking that you could have scientific
23:52 – 23:55 evidence the consciousness doesn’t exist
23:53 – 23:57 is a bit like thinking astronomy can
23:55 – 23:60 tell us that there aren’t any telescopes
23:57 – 24:03 you know or it’s like it’s kind of like
23:60 – 24:04 another analogy it’s like believing
24:03 – 24:06 someone who tells you that they never
24:04 – 24:07 tell the truth you know it’s sort of
24:06 – 24:10 self-defeating
24:07 – 24:13 so I think there is you know I always
24:10 – 24:16 think of that Albert Albert Camus quote
24:13 – 24:20 there’s only one philosophical question
24:16 – 24:22 suicide so I mean if you really believe
24:20 – 24:25 I mean it I don’t mean to to be too
24:22 – 24:26 harsh on that and I’m not sure you know
24:25 – 24:28 exactly how he meant it but the way it’s
24:26 – 24:32 interpreted I think is beautiful which
24:28 – 24:35 is if you really believe that there is
24:32 – 24:39 no such thing is your experience then
24:35 – 24:41 you’re living in a complete worthless
24:39 – 24:44 meaningless existence and you can’t even
24:41 – 24:46 cop out by saying well you know maybe my
24:44 – 24:47 kids will be different no there’s none
24:46 – 24:50 of it you know that why would you
24:47 – 24:52 persist in the game you know yeah it’s
24:50 – 24:54 it’s very hard to get in the mindset of
24:52 – 24:55 but people say about quite a big
24:54 – 24:59 philosophy of the 20th century
24:55 – 25:03 Quine was a huge influence and yeah
24:59 – 25:04 people he kind of famously towards the
25:03 – 25:06 end of these pretty much denied the
25:04 – 25:08 reality conscious consciousness but then
25:06 – 25:11 people said actually when you read his
25:08 – 25:16 autobiography just about his life and it
25:11 – 25:19 seemed like he was startlingly lacking
25:16 – 25:22 in introspection you know he never seems
25:19 – 25:25 to mention anything subjective so maybe
25:22 – 25:27 in a sense he somehow wasn’t aware or he
25:25 – 25:30 didn’t attend to consciousness very
25:27 – 25:32 often but uh so yeah I think he famously
25:30 – 25:33 said actually if there’s such a thing as
25:32 – 25:34 consciousness I’m not conscious of it or
25:33 – 25:37 something
25:34 – 25:39 witty thing like anyway but you know why
25:37 – 25:41 are people led to that I think is the
25:39 – 25:42 question we need to ask now I get into
25:41 – 25:44 the about the detail techie
25:42 – 25:46 philosophical arguments but at the end
25:44 – 25:48 of the day they don’t really convince
25:46 – 25:50 people you got it you got to get the big
25:48 – 25:51 and narrative why people are in that
25:50 – 25:53 mindset and that’s really what I’m
25:51 – 25:55 trying to do with this new book that’s
25:53 – 25:57 why it’s framed in terms of going back
25:55 – 25:59 to the start of the Scientific
25:57 – 26:03 Revolution because I think people have
25:59 – 26:05 this idea what why is Keith Frankish or
26:03 – 26:08 other people Daniel Dennett led to that
26:05 – 26:10 because they’re blown away by how
26:08 – 26:12 successful science is you ain’t got
26:10 – 26:15 lights and hair dryers and men on the
26:12 – 26:17 moon and they you know they’re impressed
26:15 – 26:20 by that and it is impressive but it’s
26:17 – 26:21 drawing the right moral from that so
26:20 – 26:24 they think oh it’s it’s so impressive
26:21 – 26:27 that must mean it can tell us everything
26:24 – 26:28 whereas I say it’s so impressive because
26:27 – 26:30 it was never supposed to tell us
26:28 – 26:33 everything because it was always focused
26:30 – 26:35 on this very narrow task and I think it
26:33 – 26:38 you know he can persuade people of that
26:35 – 26:40 narrative you know that that big picture
26:38 – 26:43 of yes physical sides has been
26:40 – 26:46 successful book do you enjoy a different
26:43 – 26:50 implication from its can start to change
26:46 – 26:51 but yeah I don’t think I agree with you
26:50 – 26:52 that I don’t want to take these people
26:51 – 26:56 seriously though right you know I think
26:52 – 26:58 I think there’s I don’t know these
26:56 – 27:02 questions apart these questions are very
26:58 – 27:04 abstract I’m happy for all sorts of
27:02 – 27:08 people to defend all sorts of different
27:04 – 27:11 things and you know see where we end up
27:08 – 27:13 okay let me kind of come at it a
27:11 – 27:15 different way cuz I don’t disagree with
27:13 – 27:18 you on that and and I certainly agree
27:15 – 27:21 with you that the the accomplishments of
27:18 – 27:23 engineering over the last century
27:21 – 27:25 certainly are mind-blowing and you just
27:23 – 27:27 can’t get past them and they are
27:25 – 27:29 overwhelming but I think there’s two
27:27 – 27:31 other things at play that we have to
27:29 – 27:33 consider I would I think they’re at play
27:31 – 27:36 and we can talk about whether they are
27:33 – 27:40 or not but one is our understanding of
27:36 – 27:43 consciousness this limited understanding
27:40 – 27:46 this an income poopourri about
27:43 – 27:49 consciousness as a social engineering
27:46 – 27:51 project so I sent you a link right
27:49 – 27:53 before the show on I apologize for not
27:51 – 27:55 sending it you too too far in advance
27:53 – 27:57 but I didn’t think about it but there’s
27:55 – 27:60 recently been a huge dump of CIA
27:57 – 28:01 documents related to their projects
27:60 – 28:04 related to
28:01 – 28:05 psychic spying Project Star Gate which
28:04 – 28:08 we’ve talked a lot about on this show
28:05 – 28:09 but other projects as well grill flame
28:08 – 28:11 and there’s all these other ones the
28:09 – 28:15 minutes the men that stare at goats
28:11 – 28:19 thing the point of all that is that for
28:15 – 28:21 the last 50 years those organizations
28:19 – 28:24 and operations both in the US and in
28:21 – 28:26 other countries have never have gone way
28:24 – 28:28 past all this
28:26 – 28:31 well that’s silliness of course we know
28:28 – 28:34 that consciousness is real we know that
28:31 – 28:36 extended consciousness in these ways
28:34 – 28:40 that science clearly can’t understand we
28:36 – 28:42 know that’s real so is there a game a
28:40 – 28:45 little bit of gaming of this system
28:42 – 28:48 going on let’s let all these folks just
28:45 – 28:52 go along with that idea and let’s not
28:48 – 28:54 necessarily introduce this new idea to
28:52 – 28:56 the general public and that is that we
28:54 – 28:60 know that consciousness is much more
28:56 – 29:03 expansive so let’s start there is there
28:60 – 29:06 potentially a social engineering aspect
29:03 – 29:09 to our limited understanding of
29:06 – 29:14 consciousness that’s a very interesting
29:09 – 29:16 proposition it’s not I guess in I I
29:14 – 29:18 spent a lot of time arguing with
29:16 – 29:20 materialists and people who don’t
29:18 – 29:22 believe in consciousness and people who
29:20 – 29:26 have waited to use me I guess I ain’t
29:22 – 29:28 really persuaded that people actually
29:26 – 29:30 believe that and and I think I
29:28 – 29:33 understand why they believe that it’s
29:30 – 29:34 something to do with being blown away by
29:33 – 29:37 the success of Technology or something
29:34 – 29:39 so you’re saying now that that just to
29:37 – 29:41 be clear I mean the two are not mutually
29:39 – 29:44 exclusive I mean the way social
29:41 – 29:46 engineering works is we do not let the
29:44 – 29:48 game play and we just lay down the
29:46 – 29:51 cheese where we want the rats to go in
29:48 – 29:51 the maze so you know in academia it’s
29:51 – 29:53 really easy
29:51 – 29:55 who gets the grants who gets promoted
29:53 – 29:58 who doesn’t get promoted who doesn’t get
29:55 – 29:59 tenure and they get pruned off the tree
29:58 – 30:01 and at the end of the day you wind up
29:59 – 30:03 with what we have now
30:01 – 30:05 you know we wind up with with you
30:03 – 30:07 arguing with who’s the kind of religion
30:05 – 30:09 guy that
30:07 – 30:11 Jerry Coyne it winds up with you
30:09 – 30:13 debating with Jerry Coyne which again I
30:11 – 30:16 I know I people pushback when I say this
30:13 – 30:19 but he’s just really incompetent I mean
30:16 – 30:21 I’ve had him on the show and he just
30:19 – 30:22 blows like you pointed out in your
30:21 – 30:25 debate with him he just gets major
30:22 – 30:26 things wrong that he’s supposed to know
30:25 – 30:29 about
30:26 – 30:31 and yet he’s put forward and propped up
30:29 – 30:33 University of Chicago been around
30:31 – 30:35 forever and this goes on and on so that
30:33 – 30:37 that’s the social engineering project
30:35 – 30:40 not that people don’t legitimately
30:37 – 30:43 believe you know they believe it’s just
30:40 – 30:45 that the people who are really thinking
30:43 – 30:48 this thing through are not presented as
30:45 – 30:49 credible clean might be good I don’t
30:48 – 30:51 know in particularly his work but I
30:49 – 30:53 guess he might be good at what he’s
30:51 – 30:55 doing like I mean you know like Dawkins
30:53 – 30:57 and Tyson and these people I mean as far
30:55 – 30:59 as I know I’m you know I’m not an expert
30:57 – 31:01 in their field but I think you know
30:59 – 31:05 they’re good at what they’re doing but
31:01 – 31:07 they get a platform to speak on issues
31:05 – 31:10 why are we have to side a barrier
31:07 – 31:12 expertise and I think that’s part of
31:10 – 31:16 this not understanding what philosophy
31:12 – 31:19 is you know this scientistic culture and
31:16 – 31:22 I guess look I’ll read the things you
31:19 – 31:26 sent I haven’t I hadn’t you know at time
31:22 – 31:28 you know it since without reading those
31:26 – 31:30 Philip in general you want you
31:28 – 31:32 understand the proposition is that this
31:30 – 31:35 stuff goes on like so the remote viewing
31:32 – 31:37 research this the MKULTRA research is
31:35 – 31:39 all about consciousness so all this
31:37 – 31:41 stuff has been going on for 50 years at
31:39 – 31:45 this deep level of consciousness that
31:41 – 31:47 totally is stands in contrast to
31:45 – 31:50 academic understanding of consciousness
31:47 – 31:53 I just don’t love to look into it I mean
31:50 – 31:57 I guess I feel like I have a decent
31:53 – 31:60 explanation of why people like Jerry
31:57 – 32:02 Cohen like Tyson are believing the
31:60 – 32:05 things they believe even though to my
32:02 – 32:06 mind they seem crazy and so but then
32:05 – 32:10 you’re now telling me that this other
32:06 – 32:12 explanation involving things that are
32:10 – 32:14 just generally accepted that it’s sort
32:12 – 32:15 of being hidden or something I mean I
32:14 – 32:20 guess I just have to look into that I
32:15 – 32:23 just I I guess I it’s not something I
32:20 – 32:26 I had a great deal of experience though
32:23 – 32:28 so yeah I don’t know what there is
32:26 – 32:30 really to look into what well I mean
32:28 – 32:33 because we’ll never know right I mean
32:30 – 32:35 we’ll never know to what to what extent
32:33 – 32:37 these people are propped up or to what
32:35 – 32:39 extent there’s another agenda to me it’s
32:37 – 32:41 kind of like back to the parapsychology
32:39 – 32:43 and near-death experience science stuff
32:41 – 32:47 you know like near-death experience
32:43 – 32:49 science at this point over 200 papers
32:47 – 32:53 published in peer-reviewed journals a
32:49 – 32:56 literal almost complete consensus among
32:53 – 32:58 people researchers mainly in the medical
32:56 – 33:02 field who studied near-death experience
32:58 – 33:03 a yep by the best way we can look at the
33:02 – 33:06 data the only way we can look at the
33:03 – 33:08 data consciousness seems to survive
33:06 – 33:10 bodily death and if you’re not
33:08 – 33:13 comfortable with bodily death it seems
33:10 – 33:15 to survive these brain states that we do
33:13 – 33:19 not understand how they could possibly
33:15 – 33:22 produce consciousness so you know we’re
33:19 – 33:24 in no-man’s land here it doesn’t make
33:22 – 33:28 sense to come back and talk about
33:24 – 33:31 neuroscience quote-unquote until that
33:28 – 33:34 problem if you will or that question is
33:31 – 33:36 resolved and yet we continue to do that
33:34 – 33:38 and not only that there’s this huge
33:36 – 33:40 backlash which on one hand is
33:38 – 33:42 understandable that you know anything
33:40 – 33:46 that’s gonna totally change the paradigm
33:42 – 33:48 and cause you to lose your long history
33:46 – 33:51 of research is going to be rebelled
33:48 – 33:59 against but they’re all the same to me
33:51 – 34:00 I’m whether they’re very related so at
33:59 – 34:05 the end of the day what neuroscience
34:00 – 34:07 gives you correlations between certain
34:05 – 34:09 things happening in the brain and
34:07 – 34:11 certain thing and certain kinds of
34:09 – 34:13 conscious experience you know so you can
34:11 – 34:15 scan people’s brain and you can ask them
34:13 – 34:18 how they’re feeling and we can get some
34:15 – 34:21 data about correlations and then we can
34:18 – 34:22 start to think about that I take it well
34:21 – 34:23 I’ll ask you in a minute I mean I take
34:22 – 34:26 it maybe you can agree with that
34:23 – 34:30 understanding of your aside and maybe
34:26 – 34:33 maybe you disagree but so I just think
34:30 – 34:34 that’s completely neutral on any sort of
34:33 – 34:36 philosophic
34:34 – 34:37 theoria consciousness because i mean
34:36 – 34:39 that people have this idea that
34:37 – 34:43 neuroscience is supporting materialism
34:39 – 34:46 but and your your querying that from one
34:43 – 34:49 angle but actually it’s a non-starter
34:46 – 34:53 anyway because neuroscience just gives
34:49 – 34:54 you correlations at best let’s say and
34:53 – 34:57 that’s not a theory of consciousness
34:54 – 34:58 right because to get a theory of
34:57 – 35:02 consciousness we want to explain those
34:58 – 35:05 correlations you know why is it that you
35:02 – 35:07 know certain things going on in the
35:05 – 35:09 brain sometimes at least correspond to
35:07 – 35:11 consciousness certain conscious states
35:09 – 35:12 know the dualist can give one
35:11 – 35:14 explanation the materialists given
35:12 – 35:16 over-the-pants I kissed my own favorite
35:14 – 35:18 you can give another and we can fight
35:16 – 35:20 over it but but neuroscience in itself I
35:18 – 35:22 would just say it’s neutral so I don’t
35:20 – 35:23 think you meter so I would say back to
35:22 – 35:24 you I guess I don’t think you need to
35:23 – 35:28 worry about neuroscience because
35:24 – 35:30 properly understood it’s just neutral
35:28 – 35:32 data right it’s not a theory it’s not it
35:30 – 35:33 doesn’t depend on materialism or
35:32 – 35:35 anything like that
35:33 – 35:37 yeah but that’s not what neuroscience
35:35 – 35:39 thinks that’s not what neuroscience
35:37 – 35:43 neuroscience is built in on the idea
35:39 – 35:45 that consciousness is a property of the
35:43 – 35:47 brain it’s an epiphenomena than I don’t
35:45 – 35:51 agree I think who are you pointing to I
35:47 – 35:54 mean I you know Sam Harris who I mean
35:51 – 35:55 all the people I’ve interviewed but it
35:54 – 35:57 put that aside for a second because a
35:55 – 35:60 near-death experience
35:57 – 36:01 we’re totally off reservation on that
35:60 – 36:04 right because we no longer have those
36:01 – 36:05 correlates we have consciousness and we
36:04 – 36:08 no longer have the correlates right
36:05 – 36:11 right so the brain is now measurably
36:08 – 36:13 dead by the way that we define it and
36:11 – 36:16 people are having these profound
36:13 – 36:18 conscious experiences and we know that
36:16 – 36:21 because when we carefully study it
36:18 – 36:23 they’re recalling things more
36:21 – 36:25 significantly than people that don’t
36:23 – 36:28 have near-death experiences and
36:25 – 36:30 impossibly if it’s true things that
36:28 – 36:33 occurred when their brain was
36:30 – 36:35 essentially dead so if the whole thing
36:33 – 36:37 is shattered I just don’t think we can
36:35 – 36:40 put all the pieces back together so two
36:37 – 36:42 things I guess I mean one thing you know
36:40 – 36:43 this might sound like a pedantic point
36:42 – 36:45 but I don’t think that challenges in
36:43 – 36:46 neuroscience you know I think that
36:45 – 36:49 challenges
36:46 – 36:52 certain theories that people might
36:49 – 36:54 extract from neuroscience they might say
36:52 – 36:56 no they might say that they think you
36:54 – 36:58 know consciousness is never like you’re
36:56 – 36:60 just giving a different area of the
36:58 – 37:02 correlations you’re saying sometimes you
36:60 – 37:03 have consciousness when you don’t have
37:02 – 37:06 anything in the brain so that’s a
37:03 – 37:08 different kind of view of the empirical
37:06 – 37:10 equipment but you know the neuroscience
37:08 – 37:11 is I would say it’s neutral on that yeah
37:10 – 37:13 I think you could say I’m firing
37:11 – 37:16 neuroscience I just disagree with
37:13 – 37:19 materialism which some people I guess
37:16 – 37:21 many neuroscientists are materialists
37:19 – 37:23 but I want to say that separate from
37:21 – 37:24 their what they’re officially doing is
37:23 – 37:26 neuroscientists which is building
37:24 – 37:28 correlations I think you know you could
37:26 – 37:30 agree even if you think consciousness
37:28 – 37:32 can exist outside of a brain you can
37:30 – 37:34 still agree that you know there are many
37:32 – 37:36 correlations like feelings of hunger
37:34 – 37:38 tend to be correlated with you know
37:36 – 37:39 certain bits of the brain and so on so I
37:38 – 37:41 don’t think you need to deny your
37:39 – 37:44 assigned anyway that’s maybe a slightly
37:41 – 37:45 pedantic point though I it’s good I like
37:44 – 37:48 it I just I just looked up on our
37:45 – 37:50 friends at Wikipedia the most untrusted
37:48 – 37:53 source on the Internet neuroscience the
37:50 – 37:56 understanding of the biological basis of
37:53 – 37:60 learning memory behavior perception and
37:56 – 38:03 consciousness described as the ultimate
37:60 – 38:07 challenge of biological sciences no I
38:03 – 38:10 think these guys claim that they are
38:07 – 38:12 understanding the biological basis of
38:10 – 38:14 consciousness along with learning memory
38:12 – 38:17 behavior and everything else well I mean
38:14 – 38:19 that way of describing it is in tension
38:17 – 38:20 with how I think of neuroscience or
38:19 – 38:23 maybe there’s a fight out here over what
38:20 – 38:23 neuroscience is I you know I would call
38:23 – 38:25 neuro
38:23 – 38:29 I love neuroscience and I try to stay
38:25 – 38:32 up-to-date as possible but you know
38:29 – 38:34 conscious consciousness itself is
38:32 – 38:36 unobservable you know you can’t look
38:34 – 38:38 inside I’ve never had anyone deny that
38:36 – 38:39 who believes in consciousness you can’t
38:38 – 38:41 look inside someone’s head and see their
38:39 – 38:43 feelings and experiences all the
38:41 – 38:45 neuroscientists can do is see what’s
38:43 – 38:47 going on in the brain and so it seems to
38:45 – 38:49 me to follow from that but really what
38:47 – 38:52 what they’re accessing if you’re just
38:49 – 38:54 focusing on what they can get up through
38:52 – 38:57 observation it seems to me all they can
38:54 – 38:60 get as correlations they might then you
38:57 – 39:03 know take themselves to offer some
38:60 – 39:05 the area of you know how consciousness
39:03 – 39:07 is explained in terms of brain processes
39:05 – 39:10 and I you know I would question that on
39:07 – 39:12 philosophical grounds but yeah I mean
39:10 – 39:13 maybe maybe there’s a fight here that
39:12 – 39:19 needs to be had Oh over what
39:13 – 39:24 neurosciences but uh yeah look I guess
39:19 – 39:25 we’re both challenging materialism from
39:24 – 39:28 different angles right you’re
39:25 – 39:30 challenging it on empirical grounds
39:28 – 39:32 you’re saying there’s this evidence but
39:30 – 39:34 it’s false you know I don’t know about
39:32 – 39:36 that that’s not something I’ve looked
39:34 – 39:37 into a great deal you know you can send
39:36 – 39:39 me stuff on it and I’ll look into it and
39:37 – 39:42 think about it I guess I’m challenging
39:39 – 39:46 it on on on philosophical grounds I just
39:42 – 39:49 think for me the essential issue is that
39:46 – 39:52 consciousness is a purely sorry physical
39:49 – 39:55 science works with a purely quantitative
39:52 – 39:57 vocabulary whereas consciousness is an
39:55 – 39:60 essentially qualitative phenomenon it
39:57 – 40:02 involves qualities the redness of a red
39:60 – 40:05 experience you know the smell of coffee
40:02 – 40:08 the taste of men and it you can’t
40:05 – 40:10 capture those kind of qualities in the
40:08 – 40:12 purely quantitative of Cabul area
40:10 – 40:14 physical science so I think you know
40:12 – 40:17 that I think really materialism in
40:14 – 40:20 incoherent on philosophical grounds
40:17 – 40:22 because it’s trying to you know if you
40:20 – 40:24 if you’re gonna have a purely
40:22 – 40:25 quantitative vocabulary
40:24 – 40:27 you’re never gonna capture those kind of
40:25 – 40:29 qualities so I returned yet on
40:27 – 40:31 philosophical grounds whereas I guess
40:29 – 40:34 you’re challenging it from addition more
40:31 – 40:36 empirical angle no I like that and I
40:34 – 40:39 like what you bring forward with that
40:36 – 40:41 and hey you like you say we are really
40:39 – 40:43 in the same side here in terms of
40:41 – 40:44 throwing stones that scientific
40:43 – 40:48 materialism as it applies to
40:44 – 40:49 consciousness it’s just a good chat to
40:48 – 40:51 have you know and we’ve kind of covered
40:49 – 40:53 some ground here in terms of
40:51 – 40:55 understanding the pushback on
40:53 – 40:58 materialism when we say first we
40:55 – 40:60 understand that people are scientists if
40:58 – 41:01 you will and to a certain extent the
40:60 – 41:03 general public although I think the
41:01 – 41:06 general public is really kind of more on
41:03 – 41:08 our side when you really break it down
41:06 – 41:11 and start asking the questions about do
41:08 – 41:13 you believe in love do you believe in
41:11 – 41:15 the connection you have with
41:13 – 41:17 other people you know even if you ask
41:15 – 41:19 people if they believe in ghosts and
41:17 – 41:21 spirits which are way outside you know
41:19 – 41:23 there’s a significant number of people
41:21 – 41:25 believe in that so I think the public is
41:23 – 41:28 really kind of on our side who are
41:25 – 41:32 really who’s outside of this loop is a
41:28 – 41:35 relatively small group of materialist
41:32 – 41:36 scientists who we don’t understand and
41:35 – 41:38 that’s one of things we’ve been
41:36 – 41:40 processing here is what’s the agenda and
41:38 – 41:43 you’ve suggested that part of the agenda
41:40 – 41:45 is just they’re just blown away by the
41:43 – 41:47 accomplishments of engineering and the
41:45 – 41:49 iPhone is freaking fantastic even though
41:47 – 41:52 I’m an Android guy that’s fantastic so
41:49 – 41:55 great hats off and then number two we
41:52 – 41:57 said there’s also the potential for
41:55 – 41:59 social engineering and that’s I’m
41:57 – 42:02 definitely on board with that and you
41:59 – 42:03 not so much the third thing I think that
42:02 – 42:06 I want to bring up because you do have
42:03 – 42:08 an excellent blog and it’s people should
42:06 – 42:11 check it out you talk about not only
42:08 – 42:13 consciousness but then you roll that in
42:11 – 42:16 to social issues and political issues
42:13 – 42:18 and stuff that’s going on there so the
42:16 – 42:21 third thing I want to point out there is
42:18 – 42:23 I think part of the reactionary thing
42:21 – 42:25 that we get from mainstream
42:23 – 42:28 materialistic science I think is on
42:25 – 42:30 religious grounds and you touched on
42:28 – 42:33 this in a recent blog post that I was
42:30 – 42:36 alluding to because it raised the ire of
42:33 – 42:38 head priest Jerry Coyne at University of
42:36 – 42:42 Chicago one of the last remaining raging
42:38 – 42:44 atheists but you titled it religion but
42:42 – 42:47 not as we know it so I thought that
42:44 – 42:49 would be an interesting maybe final
42:47 – 42:51 topic to talk about here today and then
42:49 – 42:53 we can get back and talk some more about
42:51 – 42:55 your books but tell me what you were
42:53 – 42:57 going for there and and how it relates
42:55 – 43:00 to these issues of consciousness yeah
42:57 – 43:03 that was the title of the blog post and
43:00 – 43:06 that was my response to Jerry cone Jerry
43:03 – 43:08 Coyne sorry but and it was following on
43:06 – 43:10 from an article I published in that
43:08 – 43:14 Times Literary Supplement last week
43:10 – 43:17 called believers without belief so I was
43:14 – 43:20 exploring alternative approaches to
43:17 – 43:23 engaging with conventional Western
43:20 – 43:27 religion like Christianity Judaism Islam
43:23 – 43:28 and so one of them for example what
43:27 – 43:32 what’s known as religious fictional ISM
43:28 – 43:35 so the the religious fiction is someone
43:32 – 43:40 who you know goes to church or temple
43:35 – 43:42 pray they think the contentious
43:40 – 43:44 propositions of religion like I don’t
43:42 – 43:44 know God exists or Jesus rose from the
43:44 – 43:46 dead
43:44 – 43:49 they think they’re false strictly
43:46 – 43:51 speaking right so it sounds like a kind
43:49 – 43:55 of contradiction but but the thought is
43:51 – 43:57 that the certain a certain value certain
43:55 – 44:01 people and as individuals or in a
43:57 – 44:03 community maybe get out of religious
44:01 – 44:05 practice that is independent of whether
44:03 – 44:08 these you know the discourse is
44:05 – 44:10 literally true so like there are
44:08 – 44:12 stronger and weaker forms of this you
44:10 – 44:13 know a really strong form would be
44:12 – 44:15 someone who has to know the same
44:13 – 44:17 worldview as Richard Dawkins but still
44:15 – 44:18 goes to church and though you know there
44:17 – 44:20 are there are there are people like that
44:18 – 44:23 although it’s may be difficult to see
44:20 – 44:26 the motivation but you know a more and
44:23 – 44:28 more moderate form would be someone who
44:26 – 44:32 believes in some kind of transcendent
44:28 – 44:34 spiritual reality but doesn’t believe in
44:32 – 44:37 a personal God doesn’t believe in that
44:34 – 44:41 God has traditionally construed and so
44:37 – 44:44 they you know they they engage in
44:41 – 44:47 Christian on Judaic ritual and discourse
44:44 – 44:50 but they take they take that as as as
44:47 – 44:53 non-literal as metaphorical you know
44:50 – 44:56 conceiving of the transcendent
44:53 – 44:59 as a loving parent for example as a
44:56 – 45:02 person and that’s understood as an
44:59 – 45:05 important part of the practice even if
45:02 – 45:07 it’s not literally true and actually you
45:05 – 45:12 know that this this is this historically
45:07 – 45:14 was a very mainstream in Christianity
45:12 – 45:16 certainly a very mainstream position you
45:14 – 45:18 know Aquinas as view comes close to this
45:16 – 45:21 and it sort of been forgotten about I
45:18 – 45:22 think you know since the Scientific
45:21 – 45:24 Revolution and the Protestant
45:22 – 45:27 Reformation where we start to get these
45:24 – 45:30 wars with science and so now I just like
45:27 – 45:33 to remind people that you know it’s
45:30 – 45:35 having a lot of people who think a lot
45:33 – 45:37 of people call themselves spiritual but
45:35 – 45:40 not religious because they think you
45:37 – 45:42 know I don’t believe this sort of
45:40 – 45:45 God has traditionally construed in
45:42 – 45:47 Christianity say but you know there are
45:45 – 45:50 these alternative ways of understanding
45:47 – 45:52 what’s going on in there that you know
45:50 – 45:54 might be helpful for some people who
45:52 – 45:57 could you know fit with a way of fitting
45:54 – 45:60 with their own personal religious views
45:57 – 46:03 while still perhaps engaging with a
45:60 – 46:05 cultural form that you know it’s
46:03 – 46:06 familiar to them and you know more
46:05 – 46:09 suited to them maybe I thought that was
46:06 – 46:12 that was the broad spoken like a true
46:09 – 46:15 academic philosopher you’re kind of on
46:12 – 46:17 the outside looking in here people are
46:15 – 46:20 drawn to religion
46:17 – 46:22 because they have an underlying
46:20 – 46:24 spiritually transformative experience
46:22 – 46:26 and they have it in all sorts of
46:24 – 46:30 different ways and then they try and
46:26 – 46:32 relate it to these organs in stitute
46:30 – 46:34 that are propped up I mean do you
46:32 – 46:37 believe there are such things as
46:34 – 46:39 spiritually transformative experiences
46:37 – 46:42 do you believe there are such things as
46:39 – 46:44 extended consciousness realms where
46:42 – 46:46 spirits exist and I’m not gonna pick on
46:44 – 46:48 you if you say one way or another but
46:46 – 46:50 that seems to be the fundamental
46:48 – 46:52 question well let me say this I mean I
46:50 – 46:55 guess to some extent I’m agnostic I’m
46:52 – 46:57 definitely an atheist about the
46:55 – 46:59 traditional conception of God
46:57 – 47:01 all-knowing all-powerful perfectly good
46:59 – 47:05 just because it’s the problem of evil
47:01 – 47:06 and suffering problem of reconciling the
47:05 – 47:10 suffering we find in the world with an
47:06 – 47:14 all-powerful and loving God yeah I find
47:10 – 47:17 that to be very overwhelming case but in
47:14 – 47:18 terms of let me say one thing that
47:17 – 47:20 actually I could talk it so I talked a
47:18 – 47:24 little bit of in my new in my new book
47:20 – 47:25 about mystical experiences now I’ve
47:24 – 47:27 never had a mystical experience I guess
47:25 – 47:29 it’s partly what you’re talking about
47:27 – 47:32 spiritually transformative experiences
47:29 – 47:36 so I’ve never had one myself a lie I
47:32 – 47:40 meditate every day but I’m still waiting
47:36 – 47:43 but so I guess to that extent I’ve got
47:40 – 47:47 to be somewhat agnostic but what I do
47:43 – 47:49 want to say so I’m upon psychist which I
47:47 – 47:51 can Rita that much about but I’m you
47:49 – 47:52 know I think the fundamental nature of
47:51 – 47:55 the material universe
47:52 – 47:56 in is in some sense constituted of
47:55 – 47:57 consciousness
47:56 – 47:59 so I’m upon Cyprus but on a pond
47:57 – 48:01 psychist you know not for spiritual
47:59 – 48:04 reasons but because I think it’s you
48:01 – 48:06 know the best account of consciousness
48:04 – 48:14 the best way of bringing consciousness
48:06 – 48:18 into our worldview but what I was think
48:14 – 48:21 if you’re a pun psychist so let me
48:18 – 48:24 rephrase this so I don’t know whether
48:21 – 48:27 these spiritual experiences are genuine
48:24 – 48:29 insights into reality or whether they’re
48:27 – 48:33 had delusions caused by something going
48:29 – 48:36 wrong in the brain but if you’re have a
48:33 – 48:38 pun psychist worldview there’s much less
48:36 – 48:41 pressure to say they’re delusions right
48:38 – 48:43 that’s what I want to say so like you
48:41 – 48:46 know a lot of people having people
48:43 – 48:50 having mystical experiences claim that
48:46 – 48:53 it becomes apparent to them that there
48:50 – 48:55 is this pure universal consciousness
48:53 – 48:58 that underlies all things right now if
48:55 – 48:59 you’re a materialist there’s a lot of
48:58 – 49:02 pressure to say that must be a delusion
48:59 – 49:03 right that’s just something funny gone
49:02 – 49:04 in the brain but if you’re a pun
49:03 – 49:07 psychist
49:04 – 49:09 and you already think the fundamental
49:07 – 49:11 nature of physical reality is made up of
49:09 – 49:16 consciousness well you know there’s not
49:11 – 49:19 more of a further step just a well maybe
49:16 – 49:20 this universal consciousness somehow
49:19 – 49:23 underlies these more mundane forms of
49:20 – 49:24 consciousness so you’re much more opens
49:23 – 49:27 eyes upon psychist
49:24 – 49:30 and much more open to that possibility
49:27 – 49:34 and you know I think in general that
49:30 – 49:36 it’s pump cycles and is a lot better for
49:34 – 49:39 our kind of spiritual health as a
49:36 – 49:42 worldview so I’m much more open in that
49:39 – 49:44 regard but and I guess I have I guess I
49:42 – 49:47 would say I have I’ve had fleeting
49:44 – 49:49 experiences when you you know certain
49:47 – 49:51 deep experience of beauty where you do
49:49 – 49:54 seem to have a fleeting awareness of
49:51 – 49:57 something like that but I guess I’m
49:54 – 49:59 still somewhat agnostic but very much
49:57 – 50:00 more open than I would be if I were a
49:59 – 50:03 materialist so I think that’s an
50:00 – 50:03 important it’s not the reason I am pants
50:03 – 50:05 I guess
50:03 – 50:06 I am a pants I guess but it’s I think
50:05 – 50:07 it’s a
50:06 – 50:11 interesting and important implications
50:07 – 50:13 of you you know that’s interesting you
50:11 – 50:16 know it’s interesting how people come at
50:13 – 50:18 this stuff I have not had the firework
50:16 – 50:21 kind of spiritually transformative
50:18 – 50:24 experience either I’m you know
50:21 – 50:25 meditation kind of guy like you and I’m
50:24 – 50:27 open to it
50:25 – 50:28 I’m waiting like you said I don’t know
50:27 – 50:30 if I’m waiting I’ve because we’re we
50:28 – 50:31 can’t really wait right that’s part of
50:30 – 50:33 the thing about meditating right we’re
50:31 – 50:36 not waiting we’re just being present but
50:33 – 50:37 analyse yourself a little bit you know
50:36 – 50:40 because I think there’s a lot of folks
50:37 – 50:44 like like you Philip and like me as well
50:40 – 50:47 especially guys we need to think it and
50:44 – 50:50 understand it really before we can feel
50:47 – 50:52 it in some ways and before we can
50:50 – 50:53 experience it and it sounds like that’s
50:52 – 50:57 where you’re coming from you know you
50:53 – 50:60 need to kind of grok pant psychism
50:57 – 51:01 versus materialism before you’re willing
50:60 – 51:03 to venture in do you have any any
51:01 – 51:07 thoughts does that ring true to you at
51:03 – 51:12 all or yeah yeah I guess some I guess
51:07 – 51:14 I’m always always thinking how things
51:12 – 51:16 fit together oh I want to I want a
51:14 – 51:18 complete world view where everything
51:16 – 51:20 fits nicely even sometimes women you
51:18 – 51:22 know I’ve got a young child and I
51:20 – 51:24 watched lots of you know kids films and
51:22 – 51:25 they often don’t make sense okay you
51:24 – 51:27 know that doesn’t make sense that you
51:25 – 51:30 have to tell myself to stop these stupid
51:27 – 51:32 and stuff I suppose I’m you know I’m a
51:30 – 51:34 kind of logical guy I want to know how
51:32 – 51:39 it all fits into a logical coherent
51:34 – 51:42 worldview so yeah I guess I don’t know
51:39 – 51:44 so I guess yeah a lot of people may
51:42 – 51:45 think of like sam harris or something
51:44 – 51:50 who’s really into meditation and
51:45 – 51:51 spiritual experiences and but you know
51:50 – 51:56 he wants to think about that in a way
51:51 – 51:58 that fits with his general worldview and
51:56 – 52:00 yeah i suppose i said that’s fine
51:58 – 52:03 depending on on your worldview generally
52:00 – 52:05 it’s maybe gonna affect how are you on
52:03 – 52:07 the standard and what you’re open to and
52:05 – 52:09 you know it could be fakes at some point
52:07 – 52:12 and you just have such an overwhelming
52:09 – 52:15 spiritual experience that that changes
52:12 – 52:17 your worldview but I guess because I’m
52:15 – 52:19 already at pants I kissed it you know it
52:17 – 52:20 wouldn’t be much of a change to my
52:19 – 52:22 worldview if
52:20 – 52:24 Italy came into direct contact with
52:22 – 52:27 universal consciousness than sorry
52:24 – 52:29 underlied it underlies all things you
52:27 – 52:31 know that wouldn’t be much of a change
52:29 – 52:34 to my worldview but you know we’ve just
52:31 – 52:37 I already think you know consciousness
52:34 – 52:41 is kind of everywhere yeah hey Philip
52:37 – 52:43 when is the Galileo’s aerbook when is
52:41 – 52:44 that coming out Galileo’s err a
52:43 – 52:46 manifesto for a new science of
52:44 – 52:48 consciousness is that definitely going
52:46 – 52:51 to be the title is that the subtitle has
52:48 – 52:52 changed two foundations for a new
52:51 – 52:55 science consciousness but yeah the type
52:52 – 53:00 of thing yeah it’s coming out August the
52:55 – 53:03 15th in the US and the UK yeah I’m just
53:00 – 53:05 doing the proofs right now so I mean if
53:03 – 53:06 I could just say bleep it so the other
53:05 – 53:09 thing that focuses on so the Galileo
53:06 – 53:11 stuff is why we have a problem of
53:09 – 53:15 consciousness and why we need to rethink
53:11 – 53:19 science but there’s also positive story
53:15 – 53:22 which is the rediscovery of certain
53:19 – 53:24 views defender by person Russell the
53:22 – 53:27 philosopher and Arthur Eddington in the
53:24 – 53:28 1920s the scientist incidentally the
53:27 – 53:31 first scientist to confirm general
53:28 – 53:33 relativity so that there’s been a recent
53:31 – 53:36 rediscovery of their ideas from the
53:33 – 53:38 1920s which is causing a lot of
53:36 – 53:42 excitement in academic philosophy and as
53:38 – 53:44 I kind of hold new or rapid approach to
53:42 – 53:46 consciousness that’s part of what I’m
53:44 – 53:49 trying to promote in the book gives us
53:46 – 53:50 is another problem with materialism so
53:49 – 53:52 you’ve talked about what you see is
53:50 – 53:54 empirical problems with materialism I’ve
53:52 – 53:57 talked about the problems as with
53:54 – 54:00 consciousness but you know what Russell
53:57 – 54:03 and Eddington realized in the 1920s is
54:00 – 54:06 that actually physical science isn’t
54:03 – 54:09 really telling us what stuff is anyway
54:06 – 54:11 so you know in the public mind physical
54:09 – 54:14 science is giving us this complete story
54:11 – 54:17 of the nature of space and time and
54:14 – 54:20 matter but what Russell and Eddington
54:17 – 54:23 realized in the 1920s is that when you
54:20 – 54:24 reflect on what the information you’re
54:23 – 54:26 getting from physical science it’s
54:24 – 54:28 really just telling us about the
54:26 – 54:31 behavior of stuff you know what stuff
54:28 – 54:32 does and that’s you know that’s why it’s
54:31 – 54:34 so useful for like engineering
54:32 – 54:37 technology because if you
54:34 – 54:38 how stuff behaves and you can predict
54:37 – 54:40 how it’s gonna behave you can get an
54:38 – 54:42 incredible technology but it doesn’t
54:40 – 54:44 really tell us what philosophers like to
54:42 – 54:47 call the intrinsic nature of matter you
54:44 – 54:50 know what it is in and of itself
54:47 – 54:51 independently of how it behaves so this
54:50 – 54:53 is you know this is another problem
54:51 – 54:55 materialism even before you get to
54:53 – 54:57 consciousness it’s not really telling us
54:55 – 55:01 what matter is it’s just telling us what
54:57 – 55:02 it does and so that so the what what’s
55:01 – 55:07 the hell is got this got to do with
55:02 – 55:09 consciousness you know you can see the
55:07 – 55:11 problem of consciousness is the problem
55:09 – 55:12 of finding a place for consciousness in
55:11 – 55:16 our worldview you know how does
55:12 – 55:18 consciousness fit in and Russell and
55:16 – 55:21 Eddington say well actually there’s this
55:18 – 55:23 huge hole in our scientific picture that
55:21 – 55:27 physics doesn’t tell us what matter is
55:23 – 55:30 and so there’s a potential for a way of
55:27 – 55:33 solving both these problems at once what
55:30 – 55:36 we say is that consciousness is the
55:33 – 55:38 intrinsic nature of matter so you know
55:36 – 55:40 there’s just matter physics describes it
55:38 – 55:43 from the outside it tells us what it
55:40 – 55:45 does but in its in its intrinsic nature
55:43 – 55:50 its constituted a consciousness so this
55:45 – 55:53 is the positive positive aspect of the
55:50 – 55:55 book that’s rediscovering this really
55:53 – 55:57 you know what I think is what is one of
55:55 – 55:60 the most promising solutions for moving
55:57 – 56:03 forward consciousness so yeah that’s the
55:60 – 56:05 other aspect so that would be no no
56:03 – 56:08 that’s awesome that’s perfect that’s
56:05 – 56:10 great and so what is going what will we
56:08 – 56:15 find over at the blog what’s coming up
56:10 – 56:17 what are you working on what am i
56:15 – 56:19 working on I don’t know I think about
56:17 – 56:21 the blog from month to month really and
56:19 – 56:22 what’s annoying me or what’s I don’t
56:21 – 56:25 know I probably should write something
56:22 – 56:27 that breaks it which is or dominates the
56:25 – 56:29 whole news here yeah I was reading I was
56:27 – 56:31 reading a little bit about brexit I just
56:29 – 56:35 didn’t even want to go there why would
56:31 – 56:37 you concede back to those idiots who are
56:35 – 56:39 trying to I mean the people voted let’s
56:37 – 56:42 let the people’s vote matter for once I
56:39 – 56:43 don’t know one of the things that struck
56:42 – 56:45 me coming back to Jerry Coyne
56:43 – 56:47 you know I was proposing the benefits of
56:45 – 56:50 religion and he say
56:47 – 56:51 people are fine communities are fine as
56:50 – 56:53 they are but you know I think we’re
56:51 – 56:56 living in a pretty messed-up world in
56:53 – 56:59 all sorts of ways you know that this the
56:56 – 57:01 far right all over Europe this you know
56:59 – 57:05 brexit crisis here you know I think I
57:01 – 57:07 think this is partly because people are
57:05 – 57:10 lacking these shared structures is
57:07 – 57:12 meaning lacking a worldview that makes
57:10 – 57:14 sense of their lives and the self
57:12 – 57:15 understanding so and this is yeah
57:14 – 57:17 because as part of what I try to do in
57:15 – 57:20 the final chapter of the book actually
57:17 – 57:22 go think about what implications can
57:20 – 57:23 psychism has to how we think about the
57:22 – 57:26 world how we think about the environment
57:23 – 57:29 and how we live our lives you know
57:26 – 57:34 spiritually and practically so yeah this
57:29 – 57:36 is you know so many philosophers are you
57:34 – 57:37 know so kind of cold blooded abstract
57:36 – 57:40 focused on a specific issue or not
57:37 – 57:46 forgotten how to look at the big picture
57:40 – 57:48 which is kind of crucial but yeah well
57:46 – 57:50 excellent it’s been absolutely terrific
57:48 – 57:53 chatting and I appreciate you going
57:50 – 57:54 through such as allowing me to just kind
57:53 – 57:56 of free flow it here and talk about so
57:54 – 57:58 many different things so I do hope
57:56 – 58:01 people check out the new book it sounds
57:58 – 58:03 fantastic and the the first book is much
58:01 – 58:06 more academically earning it but this is
58:03 – 58:08 cool will be the first one out on
58:06 – 58:10 talking about the new book and your
58:08 – 58:16 website as well and I hope people follow
58:10 – 58:18 your work so thanks again Phillip thanks
58:16 – 58:20 again to Phillip Gough for joining me
58:18 – 58:22 today on skeptic oh I guess the one
58:20 – 58:25 question I’d have to tee up from this
58:22 – 58:29 interview is the question of acceptance
58:25 – 58:32 we all get that biological robot in a
58:29 – 58:34 meaningless universe is an absurd idea
58:32 – 58:37 but how much do we need to pound that
58:34 – 58:40 over the head of stuck in the mud
58:37 – 58:43 academics and other ordained holders of
58:40 – 58:45 power and influence boy I’m tempted to
58:43 – 58:47 answer that question but I’m not going
58:45 – 58:49 to because I want you to answer it and
58:47 – 58:51 tell me what you think the best place to
58:49 – 58:53 do it is on the skeptical forum but you
58:51 – 58:56 can reach out and connect with me any
58:53 – 58:58 way you like email Facebook which I
58:56 – 59:01 never get over to but anyway the
58:58 – 59:04 important thing is that we find a way to
59:01 – 59:08 again I always say this but it’s so true
59:04 – 59:11 this amazing thing that’s going on of me
59:08 – 59:15 sitting in this room talking into the
59:11 – 59:17 mic and you popping those earbuds on and
59:15 – 59:20 walking around and hearing this
59:17 – 59:24 conversation is such a cool amazing
59:20 – 59:24 thing so let’s close the loop a little
59:24 – 59:27 bit
59:24 – 59:29 let’s send an email back and forth let’s
59:27 – 59:31 jump on a forum and talk about what’s
59:29 – 59:34 happening when we do make this
59:31 – 59:37 connection I hope you do that I’m ready
59:34 – 59:40 for it I’m waiting I hope you take the
59:37 – 59:43 next step of course do stay with me for
59:40 – 59:45 upcoming skeptical episodes and be sure
59:43 – 59:47 to check out the back catalog all
59:45 – 59:52 available for free download at skeptic
59:47 – 59:54 accom until next time take care and bye
59:52 – 59:58 for now
59:54 – 59:58 [Music]
60:00 – 60:03 [Music]
60:07 – 60:11 [Music]
60:09 – 60:13 so thanks for watching this video if it
60:11 – 60:16 wasn’t really a video but just an audio
60:13 – 60:17 stored as a video I apologize but
60:16 – 60:19 there’s more videos out there as well
60:17 – 60:21 but please check out the skeptic Oh
60:19 – 60:23 website you can see it here we cover a
60:21 – 60:25 lot of different stuff you might be
60:23 – 60:29 interested in relating to controversial
60:25 – 60:32 science and spirituality a lot of shows
60:29 – 60:34 up there over 350 of them are so all
60:32 – 60:37 free all available for download so do
60:34 – 60:46 check it out
More From Skeptiko
Bernardo Kastrup on AI Consciousness |643|
Consciousness, AI, and the future of science: A spirited debate If we really are on..The Spiritual Journey of Compromise and Doubt |642|
Insights from Howard Storm In the realm of near-death experiences (NDEs) and Christianity, few voices..Why Humans Suck at AI? |641|
Craig Smith from the Eye on AI Podcast Human bias and illogical thinking allows AI to..How AI is Humanizing Work |640|
Dan Tuchin uses AI to enrich the workplace. How AI is Humanizing Work Forget about..Christof Koch, Damn White Crows! |639|
Renowned neuroscientist tackled by NDE science. Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is sidestepping the consciousness elephant..AI Ethics is About Truth… Or Maybe Not |638|
Ben Byford, Machine Ethics Podcast Another week in AI and more droning on about how..Nathan Labenz from the Cognitive Revolution podcast |637|
AI Ethics may be unsustainable -=-=-= In the clamor surrounding AI ethics and safety are..AI Truth Ethics |636|
Launching a new pod Here are the first three episodes of the AI Truth Ethics..AI Journalism Truth |635|
Craig S. Smith used to write for WSJ and NYT, now he’s into AI. After..