Live data from Hacker News

Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

scientificamerican.com

31–40 of 356 posts

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#31
post #17

Even the theory's advocate acknowledges in this interview that it's untestable. There is no way to observe that the world would behave differently whether or not the theory is true. If that's so, I can't think what point there is discussing it, except as a mental exercise. If you can't test a theory, that means it can't affect anything. I.e. it has no practical use, except as a form of entertainment. I would almost a…

> There is no way to observe that the world would behave differently whether or not the theory is true. If that's so, I can't think what point there is discussing it, except as a mental exercise. This is a very materialistic view of the world. By this measure we shouldn’t talk about religious ideas or discuss the (non-monetary) value of art. I have great respect for science, but I think there are things worth discuss…

Art has plenty of value, in that people enjoy it. This theory probably has some value, in the same direction. Some people just enjoy talking about these philosophical ideas.

It's hard to exactly word my objection. I feel like people view philosophers as being in pursuit of the truth -- trying to understand and reason about how reality is. They have this reputation in a way that's entirely different from the reputation of artists, who folks generally recognize as producing work that is not claiming any kind of authority about reality. At one point in time, that may have even been the case. But I think, at least for philosophers who promulgate ideas like this one, the level of authority should be similar to that of an artist, or maybe a poet. The philosopher is not talking about reality, he's just putting some words together in a way that is interesting to some people.

(Your view of religion, IMO, both shortchanges it and gives it too much credit. I suspect most religious adherents would at least claim to believe that their religion does make predictions about reality that are or at least will be testable. Perhaps you won't be able to conduct that test while living, or at the present time. But at least most sects of Islam and Christianity expect that the god of their religion will at some point impinge on our material reality, and has done in the past. I am less familiar with Shinto, Buddhism, and Hinduism, but I'd be surprised to hear that most adherents of these religions view their religion's claims as generically and permanently untestable.)

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#33
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I ask, why is the sky blue, I don't want to hear "Because it's made of blue stuff." Well, you are not going far if you hear only what you want to hear. PS sky is blue because you perceive it as blue.

You missed the meaning of that idiom entirely. They don’t want to hear “because it’s made of blue stuff” because it’s wrong and useless, not because it is distasteful.

I don't think I missed anything, if you already decided what is wrong - this is not a honest search - you just want to find something which satisfies your views.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#34

Why so much dislike for this? It's a theory that pushes on some of the foundational assumptions we make. Maybe it resonates and maybe not. But just being open to a new set of ideas means we can maybe learn something new and interesting. Or not and that's fine too. People seem angry that someone else would talk about an idea they don't currently agree with.

Because it is obscurantist nonsense that explains nothing.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#36
post #29

This is the exact wrong direction we should take if we want to have any hope of understanding consciousness. Rather than pass a bong around and declare the whole universe is conscious, we should question the consciousness even of entities whose consciousness we currently take for granted. We should ask: is it really true that all humans are conscious[1], or is there something specific that triggers consciousness? For…

Spoken like the stereotypical materialist.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#37

Why so much dislike for this? It's a theory that pushes on some of the foundational assumptions we make. Maybe it resonates and maybe not. But just being open to a new set of ideas means we can maybe learn something new and interesting. Or not and that's fine too. People seem angry that someone else would talk about an idea they don't currently agree with.

Because it is obscurantist nonsense that explains nothing.

As opposed to all of the other explanations of consciousness...

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#38
post #29

This is the exact wrong direction we should take if we want to have any hope of understanding consciousness. Rather than pass a bong around and declare the whole universe is conscious, we should question the consciousness even of entities whose consciousness we currently take for granted. We should ask: is it really true that all humans are conscious[1], or is there something specific that triggers consciousness? For…

Spoken like the stereotypical materialist.

Was Jesus Christ a materialist? "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." (Matthew 8:22)

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#40
post #29

This is the exact wrong direction we should take if we want to have any hope of understanding consciousness. Rather than pass a bong around and declare the whole universe is conscious, we should question the consciousness even of entities whose consciousness we currently take for granted. We should ask: is it really true that all humans are conscious[1], or is there something specific that triggers consciousness? For…

Spoken like the stereotypical materialist.

That's not quite materialism - is more like primordial consciousness; Consciousness is additive.
Post reply on HN