Phillip Goff

But these don't come in kind of isolated packets, right? Intuitively. there's a fundamentally unified experience that involves all these different sub-experiences. So how does that arise from bumping around of conscious particles? But I'm more and more inclined to think that that very reductionist story is not what science is teaching us.

It tends to be more popular among philosophers and among theoretical physicists. I've debated Sean Carroll on this But actually, when you talk to, for example, condensed matter physicists who actually deal experimentally with complex systems, they don't tend to think this very reductionist story works.

It tends to be more popular among philosophers and among theoretical physicists. I've debated Sean Carroll on this But actually, when you talk to, for example, condensed matter physicists who actually deal experimentally with complex systems, they don't tend to think this very reductionist story works.

It tends to be more popular among philosophers and among theoretical physicists. I've debated Sean Carroll on this But actually, when you talk to, for example, condensed matter physicists who actually deal experimentally with complex systems, they don't tend to think this very reductionist story works.

They tend to think there are irreducible forms of complexity that involve their own causal principles that can't be boiled down to the basic equations of quantum mechanics. So once you embrace that story, I think this combination problem becomes less of a problem. We can accept a more layered view of reality where new forms of consciousness, new forms of experience arise at higher levels.

They tend to think there are irreducible forms of complexity that involve their own causal principles that can't be boiled down to the basic equations of quantum mechanics. So once you embrace that story, I think this combination problem becomes less of a problem. We can accept a more layered view of reality where new forms of consciousness, new forms of experience arise at higher levels.

They tend to think there are irreducible forms of complexity that involve their own causal principles that can't be boiled down to the basic equations of quantum mechanics. So once you embrace that story, I think this combination problem becomes less of a problem. We can accept a more layered view of reality where new forms of consciousness, new forms of experience arise at higher levels.

And that's just the basic story about how our universe works. So I'm more and more inclined to think, actually, that less reductionist story fits well with what science is currently telling us. And... really resolves a lot of the weight of this combination problem for panpsychism.

And that's just the basic story about how our universe works. So I'm more and more inclined to think, actually, that less reductionist story fits well with what science is currently telling us. And... really resolves a lot of the weight of this combination problem for panpsychism.

And that's just the basic story about how our universe works. So I'm more and more inclined to think, actually, that less reductionist story fits well with what science is currently telling us. And... really resolves a lot of the weight of this combination problem for panpsychism.

I think in a way what you're pressing is a way of articulating this fundamental question of whether mind or matter are more basic or more fundamental. So with physics, we get this purely mathematical story With consciousness, we get this story of subjective qualities of experience. Which is more fundamental? Which comes out of which, chicken or egg, as you say?

I think in a way what you're pressing is a way of articulating this fundamental question of whether mind or matter are more basic or more fundamental. So with physics, we get this purely mathematical story With consciousness, we get this story of subjective qualities of experience. Which is more fundamental? Which comes out of which, chicken or egg, as you say?

I think in a way what you're pressing is a way of articulating this fundamental question of whether mind or matter are more basic or more fundamental. So with physics, we get this purely mathematical story With consciousness, we get this story of subjective qualities of experience. Which is more fundamental? Which comes out of which, chicken or egg, as you say?

And I think we've had more success of trying to make sense of how the mathematical story of physics could emerge from some more fundamental story about mind or consciousness. We've had more success with that than doing it the other way around. So maybe we could connect to, I mean, here...

And I think we've had more success of trying to make sense of how the mathematical story of physics could emerge from some more fundamental story about mind or consciousness. We've had more success with that than doing it the other way around. So maybe we could connect to, I mean, here...

And I think we've had more success of trying to make sense of how the mathematical story of physics could emerge from some more fundamental story about mind or consciousness. We've had more success with that than doing it the other way around. So maybe we could connect to, I mean, here...

It's the influence of the great philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell from the 1920s, his very important work in his book, The Analysis of Matter, that is a really important inspiration for the contemporary panpsychist research program. I think of Russell as sort of the Darwin of consciousness. I think he sort of solved all the mysteries.

It's the influence of the great philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell from the 1920s, his very important work in his book, The Analysis of Matter, that is a really important inspiration for the contemporary panpsychist research program. I think of Russell as sort of the Darwin of consciousness. I think he sort of solved all the mysteries.

It's the influence of the great philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell from the 1920s, his very important work in his book, The Analysis of Matter, that is a really important inspiration for the contemporary panpsychist research program. I think of Russell as sort of the Darwin of consciousness. I think he sort of solved all the mysteries.

So Russell's great insight was, as you say, that physics is purely mathematical and And so in a sense, physics doesn't really care what fundamental reality is like. That sounds like weird. I remember when I first heard that and I thought, what are you talking about? Physics gives you this rich story of space and time and matter. But...