Phillip Goff

And it's just a very different explanatory question. So here's an analogy. I think it's like, imagine someone saying, wow, telescopes, really good in astronomy. Let's apply them in pure mathematics. No, they're just totally different expansion projects. So I think people are doing something similar with, look, physical explanation has been so good at explaining so much.

And it's just a very different explanatory question. So here's an analogy. I think it's like, imagine someone saying, wow, telescopes, really good in astronomy. Let's apply them in pure mathematics. No, they're just totally different expansion projects. So I think people are doing something similar with, look, physical explanation has been so good at explaining so much.

Let's just plug that into consciousness. But what has it been good at explaining? It's been good at explaining publicly observable behavior, why a system behaves the way it does. But when we're interested in consciousness, we're interested in something different, why a system feels. And that is not... as Galileo understood what physical science is set up to deal with.

Let's just plug that into consciousness. But what has it been good at explaining? It's been good at explaining publicly observable behavior, why a system behaves the way it does. But when we're interested in consciousness, we're interested in something different, why a system feels. And that is not... as Galileo understood what physical science is set up to deal with.

Let's just plug that into consciousness. But what has it been good at explaining? It's been good at explaining publicly observable behavior, why a system behaves the way it does. But when we're interested in consciousness, we're interested in something different, why a system feels. And that is not... as Galileo understood what physical science is set up to deal with.

Yeah, it's a good question. Every time I write a book, most of the book is the sort of cold-blooded scientific philosophical arguments. But then the final chapter is, what does this mean for us? What does this mean for the meaning and purpose of human existence? And I have this slogan, we should be interested ultimately in not what we'd like to be true, but what's most likely to be true.

Yeah, it's a good question. Every time I write a book, most of the book is the sort of cold-blooded scientific philosophical arguments. But then the final chapter is, what does this mean for us? What does this mean for the meaning and purpose of human existence? And I have this slogan, we should be interested ultimately in not what we'd like to be true, but what's most likely to be true.

Yeah, it's a good question. Every time I write a book, most of the book is the sort of cold-blooded scientific philosophical arguments. But then the final chapter is, what does this mean for us? What does this mean for the meaning and purpose of human existence? And I have this slogan, we should be interested ultimately in not what we'd like to be true, but what's most likely to be true.

Actually, I think with panpsychism or views in this ballpark, I think not only is there a very good case for them probably being true, but they're probably also a a couple of different things. I mean, I think panpsychism potentially leads to a better relationship with the environment. Um, If you think of a tree as just a mechanism, then it doesn't really have any value in its own right, does it?

Actually, I think with panpsychism or views in this ballpark, I think not only is there a very good case for them probably being true, but they're probably also a a couple of different things. I mean, I think panpsychism potentially leads to a better relationship with the environment. Um, If you think of a tree as just a mechanism, then it doesn't really have any value in its own right, does it?

Actually, I think with panpsychism or views in this ballpark, I think not only is there a very good case for them probably being true, but they're probably also a a couple of different things. I mean, I think panpsychism potentially leads to a better relationship with the environment. Um, If you think of a tree as just a mechanism, then it doesn't really have any value in its own right, does it?

It's just... It's a piece of wood. Yeah, it's something. It's a mechanism, right? Hugging a tree doesn't really make much sense. A tree's not conscious. It's like, you know, hugging your computer or something. I don't think that's the way most of us engage with forests and trees and plants, you know? So I think if you think of a tree as...

It's just... It's a piece of wood. Yeah, it's something. It's a mechanism, right? Hugging a tree doesn't really make much sense. A tree's not conscious. It's like, you know, hugging your computer or something. I don't think that's the way most of us engage with forests and trees and plants, you know? So I think if you think of a tree as...

It's just... It's a piece of wood. Yeah, it's something. It's a mechanism, right? Hugging a tree doesn't really make much sense. A tree's not conscious. It's like, you know, hugging your computer or something. I don't think that's the way most of us engage with forests and trees and plants, you know? So I think if you think of a tree as...

a conscious entity in its own right, albeit of a very alien kind, then a tree has value in its own right.

a conscious entity in its own right, albeit of a very alien kind, then a tree has value in its own right.

a conscious entity in its own right, albeit of a very alien kind, then a tree has value in its own right.

Yeah. I mean, I'm actually a panpsychist who doesn't quite think everything is conscious. That's why I think I disagree with Annika. I think Annika thinks that literally everything is conscious, including rocks and tables and chairs. I'm probably more inclined to think consciousness exists at the fundamental level of at the level of physics, but at higher macroscopic levels, it's much rarer.

Yeah. I mean, I'm actually a panpsychist who doesn't quite think everything is conscious. That's why I think I disagree with Annika. I think Annika thinks that literally everything is conscious, including rocks and tables and chairs. I'm probably more inclined to think consciousness exists at the fundamental level of at the level of physics, but at higher macroscopic levels, it's much rarer.

Yeah. I mean, I'm actually a panpsychist who doesn't quite think everything is conscious. That's why I think I disagree with Annika. I think Annika thinks that literally everything is conscious, including rocks and tables and chairs. I'm probably more inclined to think consciousness exists at the fundamental level of at the level of physics, but at higher macroscopic levels, it's much rarer.