Walden Pod

Jacob Bell has written articles on ancient philosophy for Classical Wisdom Weekly, and he manages a popular Facebook page called Philosophy Daily. We discuss what’s become the norm for this podcast, consciousness. We spend a lot of time on neutral monism and structural realism (or as it’s sometimes called, relational metaphysics). We also touch upon emergence, intrinsic natures, causation, and the Aristotelian notion of potentiality and actuality. Jacob’s Blog [ExistentialismToday] Philosophy Daily [Facebook] Neutral Monism [SEP] Michael Silberstein on Neutral Monism and Structural Realism [YouTube] Structural Realism [SEP] Michael Esfeld - Moderate SR [PDF] Philip Goff on Structural Realism [YouTube] Review of Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized - James Ladyman and Don Ross [Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews] Embrace the Void Interview on Emergence [ETV] 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 @waldenpod

We discuss three arguments against epiphenomenalism, the view that consciousness has no physical effects. (I) Plausible Examples of Mental Causation a. Utterances about phenomenal consciousness b. The placebo effect (II) Popper’s Deductive Evolutionary Argument (III) James’s Abductive Evolutionary Argument Hedda Hassel Mørch - The Evolutionary Argument for Phenomenal Powers [PDF] Mørch’s paper was my primary resource for this episode, and it happens to be one of my favorite papers in philosophy of mind. A Pill Against Epiphenomenalism - Patrick Spät [PDF] Epiphenomenalism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] 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 Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

We compare the merits of property versus substance dualism using William Lycan’s paper, “Is property dualism better off than substance dualism?” William Lycan - Is property dualism better off than substance dualism? [JSTOR] John Searle - Why I Am Not A Property Dualist [PDF] Richard Swinburne clip on brain events vs. sensations [Twitter] And since I mentioned dual-aspect monism a few times, here’s a fascinating exploration of the view: Jiri Benovsky - Dual-Aspect Monism [PDF] Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Rate the show on iTunes 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 Follow on Twitter @waldenpod You can support the show at patreon.com/waldenpod 

We discuss Thomas Nagel's controversial book, Mind and Cosmos. The book has quite a reputation, but I think it's often misunderstood. Intelligent design proponents, happy to be taken seriously for once, hilariously extol the book. They don’t seem to realize that while the book does take them more seriously than they’re used to, it also provides naturalistic answers to all their objections. I guess they only read the subtitle. Naturalists, atheists, and darwinists, on the other hand, seem to perceive this book as a threat, which is mostly Nagel’s fault for his controversial presentation, and failing to make clear that he’s making adjustments to the dominant paradigm and not rejecting it in favor of theism or mysticism. His proposed adjustments are radical to be sure, but it’s flatly untrue to say he’s an evolution denier or anti-naturalist. We also discuss Nagel's neutral monism, natural teleology, and philosophy of science. Mind and Cosmos [Amazon]  Nagel - The Core of Mind and Cosmos [NYT]  Sean Carroll on Mind and Cosmos [Preposterous Universe] Michael Chorost - Mind and Cosmos [Chronicle of Higher Education] 

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

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

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

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

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

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