Dale Allison

Today I’m speaking with Dr. Dale Allison, historian and author of Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age. The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted through a religious lens (often without any reflection), but almost all of them needn’t be, which is something we return to quite a bit. Flatly disputing the phenomenon is not the only option available to the nonreligious.   We talk about paranormal and parapsychological phenomena, and two major sources of skepticism towards things that fall into those categories. On the one hand, of course, there’s materialism, conservative naturalism, skepticism (as in, the skeptic community), etc. But Protestant Christianity, I was surprised to learn, has also been a skeptical force in history due to their drive to debunk Catholic miracle stories, or even just extraordinary events documented by the Catholic Church that explicitly or implicitly were used as evidence for Catholicism.   Since we’re exploring new terrain that involves some quite unusual topics (e.g., clairvoyance, levitation, visions of dead loved ones, etc.) there’s a lot more I want to say, even in this little description box, but I’ll save it for the interview.   One thing I forgot to mention during the interview: In addition to Dr. Allison’s book, there are a couple podcasts that regularly discuss cases like the ones that came up today in greater depth. “Otherworld” and “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” come highly recommended from me.   Linktree

Today I’m speaking with Dr. Dale Allison, historian and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Mystery-Religious-Experience-Secular/dp/0802881882" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age</a>. The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted through a religious lens (often without any reflection), but almost all of them needn’t be, which is something we return to quite a bit. Flatly disputing the phenomenon is not the only option available to the nonreligious.  We talk about paranormal and parapsychological phenomena, and two major sources of skepticism towards things that fall into those categories. On the one hand, of course, there’s materialism, conservative naturalism, skepticism (as in, the skeptic community), etc. But Protestant Christianity, I was surprised to learn, has also been a skeptical force in history due to their drive to debunk Catholic miracle stories, or even just extraordinary events documented by the Catholic Church that explicitly or implicitly were used as evidence for Catholicism.  Since we’re exploring new terrain that involves some quite unusual topics (e.g., clairvoyance, levitation, visions of dead loved ones, etc.) there’s a lot more I want to say, even in this little description box, but I’ll save it for the interview.  One thing I forgot to mention during the interview: In addition to Dr. Allison’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Mystery-Religious-Experience-Secular/dp/0802881882" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">book</a>, there are a couple podcasts that regularly discuss cases like the ones that came up today in greater depth. “Otherworld” and “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” come highly recommended from me.  <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

68 - Encountering Mystery w/ Dale Allison 

Today, we discuss Agrippa's trilemma and look at our hands.   Epistemology Playlist   Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer  Linktree

Today, we discuss Agrippa's trilemma and look at our hands.  <a href="https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYthZ9K4fDau7A6zDE7LzDgH" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Epistemology Playlist</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

67 - The Skeptic's Error and the Moorean Shift 

Today, we discuss the idea that understanding a concept is not a matter of knowing a definition. As philosopher Michael Huemer argues, our main access to a concept comes “not through directly reflecting on the concept, but through activating the dispositions that constitute our understanding.”   The Wittgensteinian view of concepts explains how it’s possible that we know how to competently use terms even though it is so hard to successfully analyze them. I can’t provide a perfect conceptual analysis of knowledge (no one can), and yet I have no issue using the term and understanding what it means. Not only can I competently use words that I can’t analyze, I can reject proposed analyses as insufficient, like the justified true belief analysis. That’s because I understand the meaning of the concept, despite the fact that I can’t define it.   “Indefinability of words is perfectly normal," Huemer argues, "since understanding is not constituted by knowledge of definitions. The best way to convey a word’s meaning is through examples.” Language &amp; Meaning: Crash Course Philosophy  Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer  LinktreeOne note from Huemer on the Wittgensteinian view of concepts and the contrasting Lockean view: "I think what I have to say about concepts is like some stuff that Wittgenstein said, but I don’t actually care how well it matches Wittgenstein’s views. I also don’t care, by the way, whether the 'Lockean theory' matches Locke’s views. You have to add in caveats like this whenever you mention a major philosophical figure, because there are always people who have devoted their lives to studying that figure and who, if you let them, will give you all sorts of arguments that the famous philosopher has been completely misunderstood and never really said the things they’re famous for saying."

Today, we discuss the idea that understanding a concept is not a matter of knowing a definition. As philosopher Michael Huemer argues, our main access to a concept comes “not through directly reflecting on the concept, but through activating the dispositions that constitute our understanding.”  The Wittgensteinian view of concepts explains how it’s possible that we know how to competently use terms even though it is so hard to successfully analyze them. I can’t provide a perfect conceptual analysis of knowledge (no one can), and yet I have no issue using the term and understanding what it means. Not only can I competently use words that I can’t analyze, I can reject proposed analyses as insufficient, like the justified true belief analysis. That’s because I understand the meaning of the concept, despite the fact that I can’t define it.  “Indefinability of words is perfectly normal," Huemer argues, "since understanding is not constituted by knowledge of definitions. The best way to convey a word’s meaning is through examples.”  <a href="https://youtu.be/zmwgmt7wcv8" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Language &amp; Meaning: Crash Course Philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a> One note from Huemer on the Wittgensteinian view of concepts and the contrasting Lockean view: "I think what I have to say about concepts is like some stuff that Wittgenstein said, but I don’t actually care how well it matches Wittgenstein’s views. I also don’t care, by the way, whether the 'Lockean theory' matches Locke’s views. You have to add in caveats like this whenever you mention a major philosophical figure, because there are always people who have devoted their lives to studying that figure and who, if you let them, will give you all sorts of arguments that the famous philosopher has been completely misunderstood and never really said the things they’re famous for saying."

66 - Wittgensteinian View of Concepts (The Failure of Analysis) 

What is knowledge? What does it mean to know something? Today, we discuss the defeasibility theory, which adds a fourth condition to the famous "justified true belief" analysis of knowledge. We also touch on Gettier cases, certainty, and what contemporary analytic philosophy is all about (the answer may surprise you!). For even more epistemology, check out the new series on Counter Apologetics about mistakes atheists often make about epistemology.    Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer  Linktree 

What is knowledge? What does it mean to know something? Today, we discuss the defeasibility theory, which adds a fourth condition to the famous "justified true belief" analysis of knowledge. We also touch on Gettier cases, certainty, and what contemporary analytic philosophy is all about (the answer may surprise you!).  For even more epistemology, check out the new series on Counter Apologetics about mistakes atheists often make about epistemology.  <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree </a>

65 - The Defeasibility Theory: What is Knowledge? 

We take a short break from our epistemology series to talk about the hypothesis of indifference, a limited God, natural teleology, pan-agentialism, and how value-orientation in the universe is not binary but rather comes on a continuum.  For reference, Paul Draper (1989) characterizes the hypothesis of indifference as follows: “neither the nature nor the condition of sentient beings on earth is the result of benevolent or malevolent actions performed by non-human persons.”   If the audio sounds different than usual, that's because I recorded this as a video and edited it slightly differently as a result. You can watch the video on YouTube here   Check out the series on atheism and epistemology over on Counter Apologetics here  Linktree

We take a short break from our epistemology series to talk about the hypothesis of indifference, a limited God, natural teleology, pan-agentialism, and how value-orientation in the universe is not binary but rather comes on a continuum. For reference, Paul Draper (1989) characterizes the hypothesis of indifference as follows: “neither the nature nor the condition of sentient beings on earth is the result of benevolent or malevolent actions performed by non-human persons.”  If the audio sounds different than usual, that's because I recorded this as a video and edited it slightly differently as a result. <a href="https://youtu.be/Gez6HtRKNIw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">You can watch the video on YouTube here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Check out the series on atheism and epistemology over on Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Linktree</a>

The Hypothesis of Indifference - Breaking the Binary

This is part one of a series about epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge and justification. When does something count as knowledge? How can we be justified in accepting mathematical truths, moral truths, and truths about the external world? Can I trust my perceptual faculties, my memory, my ability to reason? Can I know anything at all?   Today, we're discussing internalism vs. externalism about knowledge and justification. We also touch on the person-based nature of justification, giving others the benefit of the doubt, and empathy on the epistemic landscape.   Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer   Linktree

This is part one of a series about epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge and justification. When does something count as knowledge? How can we be justified in accepting mathematical truths, moral truths, and truths about the external world? Can I trust my perceptual faculties, my memory, my ability to reason? Can I know anything at all?  Today, we're discussing internalism vs. externalism about knowledge and justification. We also touch on the person-based nature of justification, giving others the benefit of the doubt, and empathy on the epistemic landscape. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

64 - Internalism: The Nature of Justification 

Perspective Philosophy and I speak about metaethics, intervening in wild animal suffering, veganism, the toll of working in a slaughterhouse, ethical intuition, moral disagreement, and a few metaphysical questions about contingency and necessity.   Full interview here   Linktree 

Perspective Philosophy and I speak about metaethics, intervening in wild animal suffering, veganism, the toll of working in a slaughterhouse, ethical intuition, moral disagreement, and a few metaphysical questions about contingency and necessity.  <a href="https://youtu.be/jrTFkorzHpU" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Full interview here </a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree </a>

Veganism & Metaethics w/ Perspective Philosophy 

“On panpsychism, how can there ever be unconsciousness, like in the case of dreamless sleep?” As far as objections go, this is a pretty weak one, but I decided to take the opportunity to talk about death, sleep, states of unconsciousness, and how panpsychists see the mind and its place in nature.   YouTube  Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Counter Apologetics here  Listen to our sister show, Counter Apologetics here  Transcript  Twitter @waldenpod @OnPanpsychism  linktr.ee/emersongreen

“On panpsychism, how can there ever be unconsciousness, like in the case of dreamless sleep?” As far as objections go, this is a pretty weak one, but I decided to take the opportunity to talk about death, sleep, states of unconsciousness, and how panpsychists see the mind and its place in nature.  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/EmersonGreen/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">YouTube</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Consider supporting the show on Patreon here</a> or <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/03/08/how-can-panpsychists-sleep/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Transcript</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Twitter</a> @waldenpod @OnPanpsychism <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">linktr.ee/emersongreen</a>

63 - How can panpsychists sleep? 

Philip Goff

Dustin Crummett

Philip Goff and Dustin Crummett debate psychophysical harmony, God, axiarchism, pan-agentialism, natural teleology, and explore some neglected terrain between theism and the hypothesis of indifference. What are our options in explaining the fine-tuning of consciousness?   Subscribe on YouTube  Twitter @waldenpod @Philip_Goff @dustin_crummett  Dustin's Channel  Mind Chat  Music by ichika Nito &amp; Whalers. Used with permission.  linktr.ee/emersongreen

Philip Goff and Dustin Crummett debate psychophysical harmony, God, axiarchism, pan-agentialism, natural teleology, and explore some neglected terrain between theism and the hypothesis of indifference. What are our options in explaining the fine-tuning of consciousness?  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/EmersonGreen/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe on YouTube</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Twitter </a>@waldenpod @Philip_Goff @dustin_crummett <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@dustin.crummett" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dustin's Channel</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/mindchat" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mind Chat</a> Music by ichika Nito &amp; Whalers. Used with permission. <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">linktr.ee/emersongreen</a>

62 - What's the Best Explanation of Psychophysical Harmony? w/ Philip Goff & Dustin Crummett

When did consciousness first evolve? If physicalism is true, we’d expect it to have evolved gradually, just as other complex biological phenomena evolved gradually. But the transition from feeling nothing to feeling something couldn’t have been gradual. No matter how minimal a conscious experience is, if it’s “like something” to exist – anything at all – it’s not like nothing at all. On reflection it seems hard to imagine anything other than a sharp border between non-experiential reality and experiential reality. On the other hand, complex physical states are not sharp: they admit borderline cases. If we remove one atom at a time from a given brain state, it will eventually be vague or indeterminate whether or not the organism is still in that physical brain state. So if consciousness is just a kind of physical state, we’d expect consciousness to follow suit. Since it seems impossible that there could be a borderline case of consciousness – it’s either like something for a creature or like nothing – we have reason to think that physicalism is false.   Michael Tye - Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness   David Papineau’s review of Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness in NDPR  Nino Kadic - Phenomenology of Fundamental Reality  YouTube  Listen to our sister show, Counter Apologetics here  Support at patreon.com/counter or patreon.com/waldenpod   Music by ichika Nito and used with permission.  Transcript   Twitter @waldenpod @OnPanpsychism  linktr.ee/emersongreen/ timestamps / 00:00 The vagueness argument 04:18 Which creatures are conscious? 06:18 The sharpness of consciousness 10:09 The vagueness of biological phenomena 12:41 The sharpness of consciousness (cont.) 20:14 Weak emergence 21:42 The advantage of vagueness arguments

When did consciousness first evolve? If physicalism is true, we’d expect it to have evolved gradually, just as other complex biological phenomena evolved gradually. But the transition from feeling nothing to feeling something couldn’t have been gradual. No matter how minimal a conscious experience is, if it’s “like something” to exist – anything at all – it’s not like nothing at all. On reflection it seems hard to imagine anything other than a sharp border between non-experiential reality and experiential reality. On the other hand, complex physical states are not sharp: they admit borderline cases. If we remove one atom at a time from a given brain state, it will eventually be vague or indeterminate whether or not the organism is still in that physical brain state. So if consciousness is just a kind of physical state, we’d expect consciousness to follow suit. Since it seems impossible that there could be a borderline case of consciousness – it’s either like something for a creature or like nothing – we have reason to think that physicalism is false.  <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/39910" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Michael Tye - Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness </a> <a href="https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/vagueness-and-the-evolution-of-consciousness-through-the-looking-glass/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Papineau’s review of Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness in NDPR</a> <a href="https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/phenomenology-of-fundamental-reality(ea85e9fa-6b07-4018-9c54-a54407d16f35).html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nino Kadic - Phenomenology of Fundamental Reality</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/EmersonGreen/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">YouTube</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Counter Apologetics here</a> Support at <a href="http://patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/counter</a> or <a href="http://patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/waldenpod</a> Music by ichika Nito and used with permission. <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/the-vagueness-argument-against-physicalism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Transcript</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Twitter </a>@waldenpod @OnPanpsychism <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">linktr.ee/emersongreen</a> / timestamps / 00:00 The vagueness argument 04:18 Which creatures are conscious? 06:18 The sharpness of consciousness 10:09 The vagueness of biological phenomena 12:41 The sharpness of consciousness (cont.) 20:14 Weak emergence 21:42 The advantage of vagueness arguments

61 - The Vagueness Argument Against Physicalism 

Walden Pod is a philosophy, science, and culture podcast hosted by Emerson Green (Counter Apologetics Podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417) ).

This is a clear, concise, and informative philosophy podcast. The host, Emerson Green, is an intellectual force to reckon with. Whether you’re already a philosophy junkie on the search for substantive philosophical examinations, or you are just becoming interested in philosophy more generally, I highly recommend taking a listen.

Don’t miss out.

Good!

Walden Pod is a philosophy, science, and culture podcast hosted by Emerson Green (Counter Apologetics Podcast (<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417</a>) ).

Walden Pod

I try to answer the question, "What's the value of philosophy?" This is a sequel to episode one of this podcast, Is philosophy dead?   Bertrand Russell - The Value of Philosophy [pdf] David Egan on Philosophy [Aeon]  The Panpsycast is a great philosophy podcast, as is Stephen West’s Philosophize This!  Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

I try to answer the question, "What's the value of philosophy?" This is a sequel to episode one of this podcast, <a href="http://https//audioboom.com/posts/7326850-01-is-philosophy-dead" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Is philosophy dead?</a> <a href="https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/RussellValuePhilosophy1912.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Bertrand Russell - The Value of Philosophy</a> [pdf] <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/is-there-anything-especially-expert-about-being-a-philosopher?fbclid=IwAR1JelD-FDbkHqC2oRSwW0yFp9_aOxnZfWwC3ClZXmWYu5qeOtrLNjLbxNY" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Egan on Philosophy</a> [Aeon] <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-panpsycast-philosophy-podcast/id1141816572" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Panpsycast</a> is a great philosophy podcast, as is <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophize-this/id659155419" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Stephen West’s Philosophize This!</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

15 - You're Wrong to Hate Philosophy

Is ideology a bad thing? Should we strive to free ourselves from ideology? I think there is a lot of confusion around the concept, and that the word has wrongly fallen into disrepute. Ideology is frequently conflated with dogma, closed-mindedness, and irrational certainty. Ideology, however, is merely a “a system of ideas and ideals,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s a set of descriptive and normative beliefs. Everyone has an ideology, and we would all do well to admit as much and stop using it as a dirty word.   Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Is ideology a bad thing? Should we strive to free ourselves from ideology? I think there is a lot of confusion around the concept, and that the word has wrongly fallen into disrepute. Ideology is frequently conflated with dogma, closed-mindedness, and irrational certainty. Ideology, however, is merely a “a system of ideas and ideals,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s a set of descriptive and normative beliefs. Everyone has an ideology, and we would all do well to admit as much and stop using it as a dirty word. Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

14 - In Defense of Ideology

We address four common objections to panpsychism, argue that a heavier burden falls on the materialist than the panpsychist, and discuss why panpsychism is more Copernican than its competitors.    (1) “The incredulous stare,” or an argument from strangeness, which appeals to our common sense and argues that panpsychism is forbiddingly counter-intuitive.  (2) Falsifiability. Isn’t panpsychism unfalsifiable?  (3) Isn’t physics entirely on the side of materialism?  (4) Wouldn’t panpsychism force us to add a particle to the standard model? Doesn’t panpsychism imply that physics is wrong?   Find me on Facebook or contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com   You can support the podcast here and get access to the premium feed [Patreon]   emersongreenblog.wordpress.com  Sean Carroll - The laws underlying everyday life are completely understood [Preposterous Universe]   Sean Carroll - Atoms and Death [YouTube]  Galen Strawson on Panpsychism [YouTube]   Galen Strawson - Things That Bother Me [Amazon]

We address four common objections to panpsychism, argue that a heavier burden falls on the materialist than the panpsychist, and discuss why panpsychism is more Copernican than its competitors.  (1) “The incredulous stare,” or an argument from strangeness, which appeals to our common sense and argues that panpsychism is forbiddingly counter-intuitive.  (2) Falsifiability. Isn’t panpsychism unfalsifiable?  (3) Isn’t physics entirely on the side of materialism?  (4) Wouldn’t panpsychism force us to add a particle to the standard model? Doesn’t panpsychism imply that physics is wrong?  <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Find me on Facebook</a> or contact me at <a href="mailto:emersongreen@protonmail.com">emersongreen@protonmail.com</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">You can support the podcast here and get access to the premium feed</a> [Patreon]  <a href="http://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sean Carroll - The laws underlying everyday life are completely understood</a> [Preposterous Universe]  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40eiycH077A&amp;t=737s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sean Carroll - Atoms and Death</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi-TOxtczQQ&amp;t=10s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Galen Strawson on Panpsychism</a> [YouTube]  <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Things-That-Bother-Me-Freedom/dp/1681372207/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=things+that+bother+me&amp;qid=1567286902&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Galen Strawson - Things That Bother Me</a> [Amazon]

10 - Objections to Panpsychism (pt. I)

Patron Feed

The Combination Problem is widely considered to be the most serious difficulty facing panpsychism. The exact nature of the problem depends on your view of fundamental reality (the parts that are being combined) and the self (what is being formed through combination). We also discuss Galileo, the fusion view, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, and a few other related issues.   Subscribe to the feed at patreon.com/waldenpod to unlock the extended version of this episode and others!  The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness - Hedda Hassel Mørch [Philosophy Now]  Hedda Hassel Mørch - Panpsychism and IIT [YouTube]   Hedda Hassel Mørch - Is IIT Compatible with Russellian panpsychism? [MindsOnline]  Hedda Hassel Mørch - IIT and Panpsychism [The Panpsycast]  Hedda Hassel Mørch - Panpsychism and Causation: A New Argument and Solution to the Combination Problem [PDF]  The Neuroscience of Consciousness - Integrated Information Theory [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]    / / / / /    Transcripts of all episodes available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com   Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast  Subscribe on YouTube for Counter Apologetics and Walden Pod episodes   If you would, please rate the podcast on iTunes here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172

The Combination Problem is widely considered to be the most serious difficulty facing panpsychism. The exact nature of the problem depends on your view of fundamental reality (the parts that are being combined) and the self (what is being formed through combination). We also discuss Galileo, the fusion view, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, and a few other related issues. Subscribe to the feed at <a href="http://patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/waldenpod</a> to unlock the extended version of this episode and others! <a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/The_Integrated_Information_Theory_of_Consciousness" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness - Hedda Hassel Mørch</a> [Philosophy Now] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KilB03lOlYE&amp;t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hedda Hassel Mørch - Panpsychism and IIT</a> [YouTube]  <a href="http://mindsonline.philosophyofbrains.com/2016/2016-2/can-iit-solve-the-combination-problem-for-russellian-panpsychism/#comments" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hedda Hassel Mørch - Is IIT Compatible with Russellian panpsychism?</a> [MindsOnline] <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode47-part1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hedda Hassel Mørch - IIT and Panpsychism</a> [The Panpsycast] <a href="https://www.newdualism.org/papers/H.Morch/Morch-dissertation-Oslo2014.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hedda Hassel Mørch - Panpsychism and Causation: A New Argument and Solution to the Combination Problem</a> [PDF] <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-neuroscience/#InfoInteTheo" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Neuroscience of Consciousness - Integrated Information Theory</a> [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]  / / / / /  Transcripts of all episodes available at <a href="http://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe on YouTube for Counter Apologetics and Walden Pod episodes</a> If you would, please rate the podcast on iTunes here: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172</a>

12 - The Combination Problem and Integrated Information Theory (Objections pt. III) [Patron Feed]

We discuss a few more common objections to panpsychism, including Dan Dennett’s pan-nifty-ism, mysterianism, the woo accusation, and appeals to neuroscience.  Get early access to episodes and access to premium episodes at https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod

We discuss a few more common objections to panpsychism, including Dan Dennett’s pan-nifty-ism, mysterianism, the woo accusation, and appeals to neuroscience. Get early access to episodes and access to premium episodes at <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod</a>

11 - Objections to Panpsychism (pt. II)

The conclusion of our series on panpsychism, the view that the what-it-is-like-ness of conscious experience is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world.   Transcripts of episodes available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com    Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast  Subscribe on YouTube to Walden Pod and Counter Apologetics  If you would, please rate Walden Pod on iTunes    Become a supporter at patreon.com/waldenpod to unlock all episodes!   Galen Strawson   The Wright Show [YouTube]  Philosophy Bites [YouTube]  The Panpsycast Interview [Panpsycast]  Things That Bother Me [Amazon]   Thomas Nagel  What is it like to be a bat? [PDF]  Panpsychism [PDF]  Mind and Cosmos [Amazon]  Very Bad Wizards - Thomas Nagel’s Philosophy of Mind [Fireside]   Hedda Hassel Mørch  The Panpsycast Interview [Panpsycast]  Panpsychism and Causation: A New Argument and a Solution to the Combination Problem [PDF]  The Fusion View and IIT [YouTube]  Is IIT Compatible with Russellian panpsychism? [MindsOnline]   Philip Goff   On Panpsychism [Youtube]   A Post-Galilean Paradigm - Podcast and Transcript [Edge]  Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness [Amazon]  Unbelievable - Does consciousness point to God? [YouTube]  Sean Carroll and Philip Goff [YouTube]  Philip Goff on Galileo’s Error [Panpsycast]  Panpsychism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]   Annaka Harris   Conscious - Making Sense Podcast [YouTube]  Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind [Amazon]   William Seagar  Panpsychism vs. Strong Emergence [YouTube]   Bertrand Russell   The Analysis of Matter [PhilPapers]  Russellian Monism [SEP]   Counter Apologetics CA13 Prayer Studies CA27 Argument from Consciousness CA29 Science vs. the Soul CA58 NDEs pt. II CA66 Atheism, Materialism, and Consciousness   If you’ve never contemplated the philosophy of mind, here are several entry-level episodes that can help put all this into context: https://thepanpsycast.com/episodes-by-category (scroll to ‘Philosophy of Mind’ category)

The conclusion of our series on panpsychism, the view that the what-it-is-like-ness of conscious experience is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. Transcripts of episodes available at <a href="http://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe on YouTube to Walden Pod and Counter Apologetics</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">If you would, please rate Walden Pod on iTunes</a> Become a supporter at <a href="http://patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">patreon.com/waldenpod</a> to unlock all episodes! Galen Strawson  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ydqAhPNuyY&amp;t=1096s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Wright Show</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi-TOxtczQQ&amp;t=546s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Philosophy Bites</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/strawson1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Panpsycast Interview</a> [Panpsycast] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Things-That-Bother-Me-Freedom/dp/1681372207/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=things+that+bother+me&amp;qid=1567286902&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Things That Bother Me</a> [Amazon] Thomas Nagel <a href="https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">What is it like to be a bat? </a>[PDF] <a href="http://www.philosopher.eu/nagel-panpsychism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Panpsychism</a> [PDF] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mind and Cosmos</a> [Amazon] <a href="https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/175" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Very Bad Wizards - Thomas Nagel’s Philosophy of Mind</a> [Fireside] Hedda Hassel Mørch <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode47-part1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Panpsycast Interview</a> [Panpsycast] <a href="https://www.newdualism.org/papers/H.Morch/Morch-dissertation-Oslo2014.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Panpsychism and Causation: A New Argument and a Solution to the Combination Problem</a> [PDF] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KilB03lOlYE&amp;t=1439s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Fusion View and IIT</a> [YouTube] <a href="http://mindsonline.philosophyofbrains.com/2016/2016-2/can-iit-solve-the-combination-problem-for-russellian-panpsychism/#comments" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Is IIT Compatible with Russellian panpsychism?</a> [MindsOnline] Philip Goff  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P88V_MbWEHM&amp;t=679s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">On Panpsychism</a> [Youtube]  <a href="https://www.edge.org/conversation/philip_goff-a-post-galilean-paradigm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A Post-Galilean Paradigm - Podcast and Transcript</a> [Edge] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Error-Foundations-Science-Consciousness/dp/1524747963" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness</a> [Amazon] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef2vvT5GfoE" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Unbelievable - Does consciousness point to God?</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfAhup-fDYs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sean Carroll and Philip Goff</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode69-p1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Philip Goff on Galileo’s Error</a> [Panpsycast] <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Panpsychism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a> [SEP] Annaka Harris  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xetBSdxdsFY" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Conscious - Making Sense Podcast</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Brief-Guide-Fundamental-Mystery/dp/0062906712" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind</a> [Amazon] William Seagar <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YxuK7W_Pz0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Panpsychism vs. Strong Emergence</a> [YouTube] Bertrand Russell  <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSTAO" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Analysis of Matter</a> [PhilPapers] <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Russellian Monism</a> [SEP] Counter Apologetics <a href="http://counterapologetics.blubrry.net/2017/11/12/ca13-prayer-studies/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CA13 Prayer Studies</a> <a href="http://counterapologetics.blubrry.net/2018/05/10/ca27-argument-from-consciousness-pt-i/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CA27 Argument from Consciousness</a> <a href="http://counterapologetics.blubrry.net/2018/06/07/ca29-science-vs-the-soul/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CA29 Science vs. the Soul</a> <a href="http://counterapologetics.blubrry.net/2019/08/19/ca58-ndes-pt-ii/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CA58 NDEs pt. II</a> CA66 Atheism, Materialism, and Consciousness If you’ve never contemplated the philosophy of mind, here are several entry-level episodes that can help put all this into context: <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/episodes-by-category" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://thepanpsycast.com/episodes-by-category</a> (scroll to ‘Philosophy of Mind’ category)

13 - Panpsychism: Epilogue

"Panpsychism," says Thomas Nagel, “appears to follow from a few simple premises, each of which is more plausible than its denial, though not perhaps more plausible than the denial of panpsychism.” Any non-panpsychist is going to have to deny one of these four premises: (1) Material composition, (2) Realism, (3) Nonreductionism, or (4) Nonemergence. Panpsychism seems to follow from these, and those who don’t accept the view will have to deny one of the four.     Note: I switched premises 2 and 3. Nagel’s second premise is Nonreductionism and mine is Realism (I thought this was the more logical order). So when I’m referencing premises, I’m always referring to *my* second and third premises, not Nagel’s.   In this clip, we discuss the four basic premises underlying panpsychism. Support Walden Pod for access to the full version on the Patron Feed here: https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod  Panpsychism - Thomas Nagel [PDF]   Moral Questions - Nagel [Amazon]  Leave a review of Walden Pod [iTunes]    Check out the blog at https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/    Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or at https://www.facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast

"Panpsychism," says Thomas Nagel, “appears to follow from a few simple premises, each of which is more plausible than its denial, though not perhaps more plausible than the denial of panpsychism.” Any non-panpsychist is going to have to deny one of these four premises: (1) Material composition, (2) Realism, (3) Nonreductionism, or (4) Nonemergence. Panpsychism seems to follow from these, and those who don’t accept the view will have to deny one of the four.  Note: I switched premises 2 and 3. Nagel’s second premise is Nonreductionism and mine is Realism (I thought this was the more logical order). So when I’m referencing premises, I’m always referring to *my* second and third premises, not Nagel’s. In this clip, we discuss the four basic premises underlying panpsychism. Support Walden Pod for access to the full version on the Patron Feed here: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod</a> <a href="http://www.philosopher.eu/nagel-panpsychism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Panpsychism - Thomas Nagel</a> [PDF] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Questions-Canto-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0521406765" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Moral Questions - Nagel</a> [Amazon] <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Leave a review of Walden Pod</a> [iTunes] Check out the blog at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/ </a> Contact me at <a href="mailto:emersongreen@protonmail.com">emersongreen@protonmail.com</a> or at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast</a>

09 - Panpsychism: Four Premises (teaser)

Sabine Hossenfelder

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a critique of panpsychism that’s become widely-cited in The Panpsychism Wars. Hossenfelder argues that physics has ruled out panpsychism. Panpsychists simply haven’t attempted to reconcile the massive conflict with the evidence. However, her arguments are deeply flawed, and one doesn’t need to affirm panpsychism to notice.  Sabine Hossenfelder “Electrons Don’t Think”   Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com  Rate the show on iTunes here  Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)  Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here  Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here    Contact me @waldenpod on Twitter or on Facebook    Music is by ichika Nito and was used with permission.    “Why do the Deniers ignore a long line of distinguished materialist predecessors and ally themselves with Descartes, their sworn enemy, in holding that experience can’t possibly be physical—thereby obliging themselves to endorse the Denial? The answer appears to be that they share with Descartes one very large assumption: that we know enough about the physical to be certain that experience can’t be physical.” - Galen Strawson   “What a physiologist sees when he examines a brain is in the physiologist, not in the brain he is examining.” - Bertrand Russell   “[M]aterialism ... is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself in his calculation.” – Schopenhauer

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a critique of panpsychism that’s become widely-cited in The Panpsychism Wars. Hossenfelder argues that physics has ruled out panpsychism. Panpsychists simply haven’t attempted to reconcile the massive conflict with the evidence. However, her arguments are deeply flawed, and one doesn’t need to affirm panpsychism to notice. <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sabine Hossenfelder “Electrons Don’t Think”</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me @waldenpod on Twitter or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a> Music is by ichika Nito and was used with permission. “Why do the Deniers ignore a long line of distinguished materialist predecessors and ally themselves with Descartes, their sworn enemy, in holding that experience can’t possibly be physical—thereby obliging themselves to endorse the Denial? The answer appears to be that they share with Descartes one very large assumption: that we know enough about the physical to be certain that experience can’t be physical.” - <a href="https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Galen Strawson</a> “What a physiologist sees when he examines a brain is in the physiologist, not in the brain he is examining.” - <a href="https://twitter.com/OnPanpsychism/status/1237974901019021317" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Bertrand Russell</a> “[M]aterialism ... is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself in his calculation.” – <a href="https://twitter.com/PeterSjostedtH/status/1243549450473275393" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Schopenhauer</a>

22 - Has Physics Debunked Panpsychism? Answering Sabine Hossenfelder

Is panpsychism the modern élan vital? Though many opponents of panpsychism have drawn the comparison, élan vital is a terrible analogy for consciousness and panpsychism. I’ve noticed that vitalism comes up frequently in discussions about consciousness. I think the lazy analogy that’s often drawn between the panpsychist and vitalist projects needs to be examined.  Thomas Nagel - What is it like to be a bat? [PDF]  Hylozoism [Wikipedia]  David Chalmers on the vitalism analogy: https://twitter.com/mrstevetweedale/status/1320866551583494144?s=21     Transcripts at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com  Rate the show on iTunes here  Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)  Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here  Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here    Contact me on Facebook or on Twitter @waldenpod

Is panpsychism the modern élan vital? Though many opponents of panpsychism have drawn the comparison, élan vital is a terrible analogy for consciousness and panpsychism. I’ve noticed that vitalism comes up frequently in discussions about consciousness. I think the lazy analogy that’s often drawn between the panpsychist and vitalist projects needs to be examined. <a href="https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Thomas Nagel - What is it like to be a bat?</a> [PDF] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hylozoism</a> [Wikipedia] David Chalmers on the vitalism analogy: <a href="https://twitter.com/mrstevetweedale/status/1320866551583494144?s=21" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/mrstevetweedale/status/1320866551583494144?s=21</a> Transcripts at <a href="http://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook </a>or on Twitter @waldenpod

21 - Élan Vital and Panpsychism

Aaron Rabinowitz

I’m joined by Aaron Rabinowitz of Embrace the Void and Philosophers in Space to discuss his view of consciousness and its place in nature. And to avenge all those who have suffered under his ETV Lightning Rounds, he’s also subjected to his own Realist / Antirealist Lightning Round.   Our first discussion on The Right to Reason Podcast: https://therighttoreason.podbean.com/e/panpsychism-debate/   You can listen to Aaron on Embrace the Void here and Philosophers in Space here   I didn’t do justice to Hunter Ash’s argument for panpsychism we mentioned early on, so here’s a brief explanation of the argument from the SEP: “More recently, Goff (2013) has argued that consciousness is not vague, and that this leads to a sorites-style argument for panpsychism. Very roughly if consciousness does not admit of borderline cases, then we will have to suppose that some utterly precise micro-level change—down to an exact arrangement of particles—marked the first appearance of consciousness (or the change from non-conscious to conscious embryo/foetus), and it is going to seem arbitrary that it was that utterly precise change that was responsible for this significant change in nature.”  And here’s Aaron’s conversation with Hunter   Follow Aaron on Twitter @ETVpod and Emerson @waldenpod Listen to ichika Nito here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

I’m joined by Aaron Rabinowitz of Embrace the Void and Philosophers in Space to discuss his view of consciousness and its place in nature. And to avenge all those who have suffered under his ETV Lightning Rounds, he’s also subjected to his own Realist / Antirealist Lightning Round. Our first discussion on The Right to Reason Podcast: <a href="https://therighttoreason.podbean.com/e/panpsychism-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://therighttoreason.podbean.com/e/panpsychism-debate/</a> You can listen to Aaron on <a href="https://voidpod.com/podcasts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Embrace the Void here</a> and <a href="https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Philosophers in Space here</a> I didn’t do justice to Hunter Ash’s argument for panpsychism we mentioned early on, so here’s a brief explanation of the argument <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">from the SEP</a>: “More recently, Goff (2013) has argued that consciousness is not vague, and that this leads to a sorites-style argument for panpsychism. Very roughly if consciousness does not admit of borderline cases, then we will have to suppose that some utterly precise micro-level change—down to an exact arrangement of particles—marked the first appearance of consciousness (or the change from non-conscious to conscious embryo/foetus), and it is going to seem arbitrary that it was that utterly precise change that was responsible for this significant change in nature.” <a href="https://podbay.fm/podcast/1213974770/e/1565959253" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">And here’s Aaron’s conversation with Hunter</a> Follow Aaron on Twitter @ETVpod and Emerson @waldenpod <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt0pxG5dn8U" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to ichika Nito here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

20 - Aaron Rabinowitz on Neutral Monism and Panpsychism

We answer one of the more common challenges issued to panpsychists: some variation of “Show me the evidence.” We discuss whether panpsychism can be tested, our theory of mind module, emergence, Descartes's conception of matter, Occam’s Razor, and the fact that consciousness is always inferred, never observed.    “We can but infer sentience rather than verify it, and people will differ in their guessed inferences: some might stop sentience at the lobster limit, others might stop at the beetle border – but why stop at all? If one demands a stop, the determining criterion must be established.”  - Peter Sjöstedt-H    “How do the combined material objects that make up a human body change from a state of being non-conscious to a state of being conscious? There are three possible answers: i) They don’t. Human beings are not conscious. ii) A miracle happens. A conscious state ‘emerges’ from non-conscious matter. iii) They don’t. Consciousness already exists within the matter our brains are made from.”  - Tim Bollands  Can Panpsychism be tested? - Philip Goff [Conscience and Consciousness]  Emerson Green and Aaron Rabinowitz debate panpsychism on The Right to Reason podcast: https://player.fm/series/the-right-to-reason-2362355/panpsychism-debate  New music used with permission from ichika nito ichika Nito’s YouTube channel    Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com  Rate the show on iTunes here  Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)  Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here  Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here    Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

We answer one of the more common challenges issued to panpsychists: some variation of “Show me the evidence.” We discuss whether panpsychism can be tested, our theory of mind module, emergence, Descartes's conception of matter, Occam’s Razor, and the fact that consciousness is always inferred, never observed. “We can but infer sentience rather than verify it, and people will differ in their guessed inferences: some might stop sentience at the lobster limit, others might stop at the beetle border – but why stop at all? If one demands a stop, the determining criterion must be established.” <a href="https://highexistence.com/panpsychism-3-reasons-why-our-world-brimming-sentience/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">- Peter Sjöstedt-H</a> “How do the combined material objects that make up a human body change from a state of being non-conscious to a state of being conscious? There are three possible answers: i) They don’t. Human beings are not conscious. ii) A miracle happens. A conscious state ‘emerges’ from non-conscious matter. iii) They don’t. Consciousness already exists within the matter our brains are made from.” <a href="https://twitter.com/ATBollands/status/1163828655778410502" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">- Tim Bollands</a> <a href="https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2019/07/26/can-panpsychism-be-tested-and-does-it-matter/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Can Panpsychism be tested? - Philip Goff</a> [Conscience and Consciousness] Emerson Green and Aaron Rabinowitz debate panpsychism on The Right to Reason podcast: <a href="https://player.fm/series/the-right-to-reason-2362355/panpsychism-debate" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://player.fm/series/the-right-to-reason-2362355/panpsychism-debate</a> <a href="https://nitomusic.bigcartel.com/product/ichika-guitar-loop-pack-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">New music used with permission from ichika nito</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklF31kD1eI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ichika Nito’s YouTube channel</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

19 - Panpsychism: "Show me the evidence!"

Happy Darwin Day! We discuss geneticist Dimitri Belyaev’s efforts to domesticate the Russian silver fox, and how his experiments shed light on the domestication of grey wolves.  Belyaev's Foxes [Scientific American]  Rats and Foxes [NYT]  The Greatest Show On Earth - Richard Dawkins [Amazon]    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”  Intro music [YouTube]  Outro music - Ichika Nito [YouTube] Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Happy Darwin Day! We discuss geneticist Dimitri Belyaev’s efforts to domesticate the Russian silver fox, and how his experiments shed light on the domestication of grey wolves. <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Belyaev's Foxes</a> [Scientific American] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25rats.html?ei=5090&amp;en=ee8f5fbaf0576814&amp;ex=1311480000&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;emc=rss&amp;pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rats and Foxes</a> [NYT] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Greatest Show On Earth - Richard Dawkins</a> [Amazon] “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” <a href="http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTdPizz7Dic" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Intro music</a> [YouTube] <a href="http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklF31kD1eI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Outro music - Ichika Nito</a> [YouTube] Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

18 - From Wolves to Dogs

I am not an antinatalist. It would seem, however, that the idea has been growing in popularity. I hold that 'the asymmetry problem' is a decisive blow to strong antinatalism. I also reject weak antinatalism on epistemological grounds. Environmental antinatalism, arguably the most popular form, can also be rejected since it is not the best solution to the environmental challenges that we face. We also discuss several more issues related to antinatalism, like existentialism, panpsychism, memetics, True Detective, The Walking Dead, suicide, and climate change.  Transcript  David Benatar - We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist [The Critique]  Rust Cohle - clip from True Detective [YouTube]  CosmicSkeptic on Antinatalism [YouTube]  Al-Ma'arri, one of the first antinatalists [Existential Comics]  Procreation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]  r/antinatalism [reddit]  First Reformed (film recommendation) [Amazon]  “Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. . . . This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.”  Bertrand Russell  “[Having children] contributes to problems. It also contributes to progress. If we want to have works of art, for example, or scientific understanding, or technological solutions to the problems around us, they’re going to come from people. If you don’t have the people, you don’t have the contributions.”   Noam Chomsky

I am not an antinatalist. It would seem, however, that the idea has been growing in popularity. I hold that 'the asymmetry problem' is a decisive blow to strong antinatalism. I also reject weak antinatalism on epistemological grounds. Environmental antinatalism, arguably the most popular form, can also be rejected since it is not the best solution to the environmental challenges that we face. We also discuss several more issues related to antinatalism, like existentialism, panpsychism, memetics, True Detective, The Walking Dead, suicide, and climate change. <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/04/why-i-am-not-an-antinatalist/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Transcript</a> <a href="http://www.thecritique.com/articles/we-are-creatures-that-should-not-exist-the-theory-of-anti-natalism/?fbclid=IwAR1m5-W-aGI0mlu4VC758jyweSUZBuNkeP-M8_u8h67EnNYFgOLukJ-k5Oo" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Benatar - We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist</a> [The Critique] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAGbNL9Y5E4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rust Cohle - clip from True Detective</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUCenKvOzhI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CosmicSkeptic on Antinatalism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://existentialcomics.com/comic/241" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Al-Ma'arri, one of the first antinatalists</a> [Existential Comics] <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Procreation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a> [SEP] <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">r/antinatalism</a> [reddit] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07D6V7MRJ/ref=atv_dl_rdr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">First Reformed (film recommendation)</a> [Amazon] “Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. . . . This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.” Bertrand Russell “[Having children] contributes to problems. It also contributes to progress. If we want to have works of art, for example, or scientific understanding, or technological solutions to the problems around us, they’re going to come from people. If you don’t have the people, you don’t have the contributions.” Noam Chomsky

17 - Antinatalism

This episode is a work of fiction. The PDF is available here: Work and Its Own, or In Defense of Those Who Take Really Long Bathroom Breaks

This episode is a work of fiction. The PDF is available here: <a href="https://pdfhost.io/v/RNxPxdwy_Work_and_Its_Own_Emerson_Greenpdf.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Work and Its Own, or In Defense of Those Who Take Really Long Bathroom Breaks</a>

16 - Work and Its Own

We discuss two kinds of emergence, our evolved ‘theory of mind’ module, our epistemological foundations regarding the intrinsic nature of matter, élan vital, niftiness, the objective/subjective distinction, and how it all relates to panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness.    The other voice you heard was from Hedda Hassel Mørch of the University of Oslo. You can listen to her interviews on the Panpsycast here  David Chalmers - Strong and Weak Emergence [PDF]   Sean Carroll - Emergence [Preposterous Universe]   Galen Strawson - Real Naturalism and the Silliest Claim [Amazon]  Galen Strawson with Robert Wright [YouTube]  William James [text]  Walden Pod [Patreon]   Find me on Facebook or contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com

We discuss two kinds of emergence, our evolved ‘theory of mind’ module, our epistemological foundations regarding the intrinsic nature of matter, élan vital, niftiness, the objective/subjective distinction, and how it all relates to panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness.  The other voice you heard was from Hedda Hassel Mørch of the University of Oslo. <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode47-part2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">You can listen to her interviews on the Panpsycast here</a> <a href="http://www.consc.net/papers/emergence.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Chalmers - Strong and Weak Emergence</a> [PDF]  <a href="https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/03/philosophy-physics-and-how-it-all-fits-together/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sean Carroll - Emergence</a> [Preposterous Universe]  <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Things-That-Bother-Me-Freedom/dp/1681372207/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=things+that+bother+me&amp;qid=1567286902&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Galen Strawson - Real Naturalism and the Silliest Claim</a> [Amazon] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ydqAhPNuyY&amp;t=1033s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Galen Strawson with Robert Wright</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin6.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">William James</a> [text] <a href="http://patreon.com/waldenpod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Walden Pod</a> [Patreon]  <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Find me on Facebook</a> or contact me at <a href="mailto:emersongreen@protonmail.com">emersongreen@protonmail.com</a>

08 - The Hard Problem of Consciousness and Panpsychism

What is this?
1 quote, 3 ideas & 1 question from a carefully curated podcast episode.
Every Monday & Wednesday.

Want a 3rd insight and episode every week? Email me at curation@owltail.com.

OwlTail

OwlTail 1-3-1

The Best Multi-Part Documentaries, with documentaries on Obama, Federer vs Nadal, the making of Star Wars, Netflix vs Blockbuster and more. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!