Scientific American on a philosophical grift: panpsychism

Well, Scientific American has published an article that, while on a subject of questionable interest, is at least neither woke nor wrong. The topic is panpsychism, which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines this way: Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and … Continue reading Scientific American on a philosophical grift: panpsychism

John Horgan on free will and superdeterminism

John Horgan’s opinion piece on the physics theory of “superdeterminism” (which we’ve encountered before in a video by Sabine Hossenfelder), and its relevance to free will, appeared in the latest Scientific American. Click to read the short piece: Although I had (and still have) trouble understanding superdeterminism, it is, as Horgan and Sabine explain, a … Continue reading John Horgan on free will and superdeterminism

Brian Greene: We don’t have free will: one idea in a wide-ranging book

Physicist Brian Greene published the book below in 2020, and it appears to cover, well, just about everything from the Big Bang to consciousness, even spiritually and death. Click image to go to the Amazon site: Some of the book’s topics are covered in the interview below, and its breadth reminds me of Sean Carroll’s … Continue reading Brian Greene: We don’t have free will: one idea in a wide-ranging book

Sean Carroll vs. Philip Goff on panpsychism

Since we’ve been talking about panpsychism lately—that’s the theory that the entire Universe and its constituents are in some way conscious—I thought I’d post a podcast in which two opposing academics hash out the issues. I’ll be posting a bit more about panpsychism in the weeks to come as I read and learn more about … Continue reading Sean Carroll vs. Philip Goff on panpsychism

A philosophical red flag

Okay, I took the bait and am now reading Philip Goff’s trade book on panpsychism, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. (Why do I let myself repeatedly fall victim to the Courtier’s Reply? I am a sucker.) It hasn’t convinced me so far that matter is somehow conscious, and yet there seem to … Continue reading A philosophical red flag

Panpsychism: a big bag of nothing

I was suckered by the Courtier’s Reply of panpsychists like Philip Goff, and so have finished his popular (i.e., trade) book, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. I am not going to summarize it or review it at length, as it says little beyond what I’ve summarized previously. It has not convinced … Continue reading Panpsychism: a big bag of nothing

A good critique of panpsychism but a lousy alternative

The article at hand was published by the Institute of Art and Ideas, a British organization that I hadn’t heard of but is described by Wikipedia thusly: The Institute of Art and Ideas is an arts organisation founded in 2008 in London. Its programming includes the world’s largest philosophy and music festival, HowTheLightGetsIn and the online channel IAI TV, where … Continue reading A good critique of panpsychism but a lousy alternative

Panpsychism makes a sneaky return

Panpsychism is the theory—or rather, a hypothesis, since there’s not a shred of evidence supporting it—that every bit of matter in the Universe is conscious in some way.  Given the lack of evidence, though, that atoms, rocks, and buckets of water are conscious, we must ask why this crazy hypothesis was proposed, and why it’s … Continue reading Panpsychism makes a sneaky return