Walden Pod

We discuss poetic naturalism and its nemesis, tunnel vision reductionism. Tunnel vision reductionism takes one description of reality and declares it to be the “real” description of reality to the exclusion of all others. At the very least, the given lower level of description is considered “more true” than higher-level descriptions. The basic problem with tunnel vision reductionism is that it has a narrow and inconsistent notion of the real. Neurons are taken to be real, but emotions are illusory (or at least, less real than neurons). Both are emergent, higher level phenomena, but for some reason, the former is the true description. But if love isn’t real because it’s a higher level description, then neurons aren’t real either. Neither are chemicals like oxytocin. But of course, higher level descriptions are real. There are many legitimate theories, models, vocabularies, stories, and ways of talking about the world. As poetic naturalist Sean Carroll puts it, “if a particular way of talking turns out to be sufficiently accurate and useful, the elements in its corresponding vocabulary deserve to be called real.” If we describe the biochemical correlates of love, we haven’t described everything there is to know about love, nor have we given the “real” description of love. “But all this only works if we reject reductive materialism, right?” No! This is true especially if one accepts reductive materialism. On reductive materialism, the feeling of love and oxytocin are both real in exactly the same way. Linktree YouTube Transcript Twitter @waldenpod

Here’s my conversation with John Buck and Craig Reid that was held on Craig’s YouTube channel. I was invited on to discuss atheism and consciousness, two of my favorite subjects. Unfortunately we were having audio issues at different points, but I did a bit of editing to make it more listenable. Craig’s channel is primarily devoted to Christian apologetics, but here we mostly discuss consciousness. We talk about my religious background near the beginning, and my reasons for being an atheist a bit near the end, but most of the conversation is on physicalism, panpsychism, dualism, and a lot of interesting questions related to those ideas. Craig's YouTube Channel  Follow John Buck on Twitter here and Craig Reed here  https://linktr.ee/emersongreen 

When it comes to the combination problem, there are almost always controversial hidden assumptions about the stuff doing the combining and about the entity being formed by the combining. The assumptions one makes about the self and physical reality alter the difficulty and nature of the combination problem. As Luke Roelofs has argued in his extensive book, Combining Minds, the combination problem is a much wider problem that doesn’t dissipate if one rejects panpsychism in favor of physicalism. He also convincingly shows that panpsychists are not required to appeal to strong emergence to explain the existence of the self or subject. While the combination problem does not deter me from taking panpsychism seriously, it’s nonetheless an interesting research program that warrants thoughtful study. The distinction I’m trying to draw here is between a problem that should dissuade one from adopting a view, and a puzzle that should inspire one to keep thinking about the view. Luke Roelofs on Consciousness Live! with Richard Brown [YouTube] Nino Kadic on the Combination Problem and Phenomenal Routing [YouTube] Galen Strawson on the subject-experience-content identity view [YouTube] The Subject of Experience - Galen Strawson [Oxford University Press] Panpsychism’s combination problem is a problem for everyone - Angela Mendelovici [PDF] Combining Minds: How to Think about Composite Subjectivity - Luke Roelofs [Oxford University Press] / / / Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism patreon.com/waldenpod https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

We discuss the ideas that have led me away from physicalism. Specifically, realism about phenomenal consciousness, phenomenal precision, nonemergence (that there is only weak emergence, no strong emergence), monism, the objective/subjective divide, and the explanatory gap. David Chalmers - Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness [text] Galen Strawson - Realistic monism: why physicalism entails panpsychism [doc] Thomas Nagel - Panpsychism [PDF] Nagel - What is it like to be a bat? [PDF] Nagel - Subjective and Objective [philpapers] Philip Goff - Orthodox Property Dualism+The Linguistic Theory of Vagueness=Panpsychism [Springer] Hunter Ash - The Argument from Vagueness [YouTube] Galen Strawson & Philosophy Bites - Panpsychism [YouTube] William James - Principles of Psychology [text] Panpsychism [SEP] . . . Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

We discuss the metaphysical views of pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, as elaborated in his magnum opus, The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer developed a fascinating dual-aspect monism, according to which from outside, the world appears as representation, but from inside, it appears as will: ontological monism and epistemological dualism. To Schopenhauer, desire-driven will is what we are from inside, and he goes on to argue that we should think of the underlying reality of all appearance in the same way. You represent my will as a body, but I know that there’s an underlying reality to your representation that’s experiential in character. Schopenhauer thinks the basis of this dual-aspect character of reality pervades the natural world, organic and inorganic. Why? Because this is our only form of insight into—or acquaintance with—anything as a thing in itself. “[O]n the path of objective knowledge, thus starting from the representation, we shall never get beyond the representation, i.e., the phenomenon.  We shall therefore remain at the outside of things; we shall never be able to penetrate into their inner nature, and investigate what they are in themselves…So far, I agree with Kant.  But … we ourselves are the thing-in-itself. Consequently, a way from within stands open to us to that real inner nature of things to which we cannot penetrate from without.  It is, so to speak, a subterranean passage, a secret alliance, which, as if by treachery, places us all at once in the fortress that could not be taken by attack from without.” - Schopenhauer Schopenhauer on Will and Representation - Academy of Ideas [YouTube] Peter Sjöstedt-H - Noumenautics: Metaphysics - Meta-Ethics - Psychedelics [Amazon] Schopenhauer and the Philosophy of Mind - Peter Sjöstedt-H [Philosopher.eu] Hedda Hassel Mørch - Argument for Panpsychism from Experience of Causation [PDF] Nietzsche’s Metaphysics? - Galen Strawson [YouTube] Idealism - Schopenhauer [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Arthur Schopenhauer [SEP] Arthur Schopenhauer [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] 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 Support the show at patreon.com/waldenpod Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

I would like to introduce what may be a new argument, the f-inductive argument from consciousness for panpsychism.  Panpsychism entails the existence of consciousness, whereas most competing views do not. The evidence—consciousness, in this case—is not surprising on the hypothesis of panpsychism, but is surprising on the hypothesis of physicalism, as well as many of panpsychism’s rivals. The probability that consciousness would exist on panpsychism isn’t just high—it’s 1. The probability that we would find this evidence in a physicalist universe is less than that. In fact, it’s unexpected. So other evidence held equal, panpsychism has a notable edge here. Jeffery Jay Lowder | F-Inductive Arguments: A New Type of Inductive Argument [Patheos] Jeffery Jay Lowder | An F-Inductive Argument from Consciousness for Theism, Revisited [Patheos] Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com My Discord 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 Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism / / /  Let B=background information or evidence; E=the evidence to be explained; H=an explanatory hypothesis; Pr(|H|)=the intrinsic probability of H; and Pr(x|y)=the epistemic probability of x conditional upon y. C-inductive:  Pr(H | E & B) > P(H | B) F-inductive:  Pr(E | H2 & B) > Pr(E | H1 & B) P-inductive:  Pr(H | E & B) > ½ Here is the F-inductive argument from consciousness for panpsychism: Let E in this case be consciousness. (1) E is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E) is 1. (2) Panpsychism is not intrinsically much less probable than Physicalism, i.e., Pr(|Panpsychism|) is not much less than Pr(|Physicalism|). (3) Pr(E | Panpsychism & B) > Pr(E | Physicalism & B). (4) Therefore, other evidence held equal, Panpsychism is probably true. Pr(Panpsychism | B & E) > 0.5.

Here’s a very short overview of my version of panpsychism. Please keep in mind that this contains some technical language and assumes some background knowledge in philosophy of mind.  @waldenpod on Twitter and @OnPanpsychism Transcript Rate the show on iTunes here Support the podcast at patreon.com/waldenpod 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

Micah Edvenson is here to corrupt the youth and spread communist propaganda with me today as we discuss socialism, why the kids are doing it, and much more. We talk about egalitarianism, inequality, the Soviet Union, the skeptical movement, libertarianism, taxation, whether socialists should support open borders, and answer several common anti-socialist canards. Videos and Articles (in the order they’re mentioned): On Anarchism - Noam Chomsky [Amazon] Rob Larson - Philanthropic Giving [Jacobin] Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It) - Elizabeth Anderson [Amazon] When did everyone become a socialist? [NY Mag] Defining Capitalism and Socialism - Thomas Metcalf [1000 Word Philosophy] Homage to Catalonia - George Orwell [Amazon] George Orwell - Down and Out in Paris and London [Amazon] Ownership and Control [Current Affairs] Requiem for the American Dream - Noam Chomsky [YouTube] Capitalism vs. Freedom: The Toll Road to Serfdom - Rob Larson [Amazon] What We Owe Each Other - T. M. Scanlon’s Egalitarian Philosophy (Review from Martin O’Neill) [Boston Review] What's Wrong with Inequality? - T.M. Scanlon [PhilosophyBites] What is the Point of Equality? - Elizabeth Anderson [PDF] Dustin Crummett - In Defense of Socialism [YouTube] Introduction to the Left and Right - Dustin Crummett (Micah’s favorite paper) [PDF] Harrison Bergeron - Kurt Vonnegut [PDF] Healthcare - Science Vs [Apple Podcasts] Rubin Report - Peterson, Weinstein, Shapiro [YouTube] Marx: Overcoming Alienation - Plastic Pills [YouTube] Ben Burgis - Taxation is Theft? [YouTube] The Myth of Ownership - Thomas Nagel & Liam Murphy [Amazon] The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality - Bhaskar Sunkara [Amazon] Richard Wolff - Democracy at Work [Amazon] Rutger Bregman - Utopia for Realists [Amazon] / / /  Clips (in order of appearance): Business Insider - Billionaires and Coronavirus Why Millennials Don't Have Any Money - Robert Reich Richard Wolff & Chapo Trap House Richard Wolff Defines Socialism and Capitalism Carl Sagan - “Are you a socialist?” Trent Horn - Can a Catholic be a socialist? Bernie Sanders: "Open borders? That's a Koch brothers proposal” / / /  Crusade Against Ignorance Videos: Socialism: What it is and isn’t - CAI [YouTube] Socialism and Economics - CAI [YouTube] Abortion & Philosophy - CAI [YouTube] Interview with Graham Oppy - CAI [YouTube] 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 patreon.com/waldenpod Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow Micah on Twitter @MicahEdvenson and Emerson @waldenpod / / / 

Nino Kadic is a third year PhD student at King’s College, London. I recently saw Nino deliver a presentation at the Science of Consciousness Conference called Dynamic Selves: An Outline for a New Type of Panpsychism, and I reached out to him to talk more about it. We discuss the combination problem for panpsychism, Leibniz, phenomenal routing, supervenience, strong vs. weak emergence, the phenomenal concept strategy, continental vs. analytic philosophy, Star Trek, and many other related subjects. A Short Solution to the Hard Problem - Tim Bollands [PDF] ninokadic.com Rate the show on iTunes here Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow Emerson on Twitter @waldenpod and Nino @nino_kadic

Is materialism compatible with the reality of phenomenal consciousness? I argue no. If one wishes to remain a materialist, they will eventually have to give up the reality of phenomenal consciousness and join the eliminativists. The logical result of materialism is illusionism. So if one wishes to remain a realist about phenomenal consciousness, they must abandon materialism. Some important definitions for our purposes today: Phenomenal consciousness: Phenomenal consciousness is that which mental states have when it is like something to be/have those mental states. Roughly, experience. Materialism: The view that phenomenal consciousness is either identical to or reducible to material states. Fundamental material reality is essentially non-experiential. If consciousness emerged, it was an instance of “weak emergence,” not “strong emergence”. Illusionism: A form of materialism (more specifically, a form of eliminative materialism) that claims phenomenal consciousness is illusory. Illusionists don’t claim to have explained why we have phenomenal states; they purport to explain why we think we have phenomenal states, and argue that this is sufficient to explain phenomenal consciousness. Nonreductive physicalism: The view that materialism is true, and that phenomenal consciousness is real and irreducible. Phenomenal consciousness is concretely real, but it’s not emergent, nor is it reducible to material states, nor is it identical to material states. (I think this view is incoherent.) Emergentism: Emergentism is synonymous with “strong emergence,” as contrasted with “weak emergence”. Emergentism is the view that phenomenal states are not identical to, reducible to, or deducible from material states. I think this is a species of dualism, though not necessarily substance dualism. Dualists believe that phenomenal states are not identical to material states, and that they are not reducible to material states; and that one could know all the material states and still not be able to deduce the mental states. Panpsychism: The view that experience is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. Mysterianism: The view that humans will never solve the hard problem of consciousness. This position can be arrived at by several mutually exclusive motivations. In today’s episode, I consider all philosophers who take this position “mysterians”, even though they don’t all dub themselves mysterians. /// 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 Support the podcast at patreon.com/waldenpod Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow on Twitter @waldenpod