Thank you so much to all of you watching this. Could never do this without your help. :)

Goff makes an excellent point. Wow, what an honor to have a real life philosopher walk amongst us mortal men.

We DO appreciate what you do :D

As I recall, Jung had the idea that human beings were the universe's evolutionary course of consciousness understanding itself. To me, the implications are that we are the king of the jungle in terms of consciousness, but we're embedded within the jungle just as much as the lion is.

Probably the American Indians intuitively knew--and practiced--this philosophy.

Hi Stephen, Gary Cottingham here! You and I have chatted before, on Twitter I think. I got off of that cesspool btw and am on Threads big time! Anyway, this was a great episode! Panpsychism is my new jam!

Very interesting, and well done splicing in the quotes! [badge of approval] 😄

i cannot get enough of this channel

I absolutely love listening to this podcast! My favorite episodes are the ones on the meaning of creation btw… anyways you’ve opened the horizons of my perspective immensely and I am so grateful! I heard that you mentioned towards the end of the optimism podcast that not too many people had asked you questions for topics and I was wondering where I could do so. I’d really appreciate being able to hear what you think about a few things even if you don’t make an episode on them. I value your opinions and judgment and I admire your respect for the unknown and your willingness to share you thoughts with everyone. Keep doing what you do pleaseee! You are absolutely amazing at what you do!!

While I don't lean far one way or the other on the truth of panpsychism, I am critical of the idea mentioned here that it explains consciousness. It seems to me panpsychism takes consciousness (of a sort) to be a fundamental property. And I don't think fundamental properties like that get explained, they just get taken for granted.

I like how the episode started with: panpsychism is not "trees are looking at you". And then, later on, we are talking about burning forest as a burning of conscious beings.

Perhaps one day you'll cover Bernardo Kastrup and/or Iian McGilchrist.

Great topic, and Phillip Goff sounds just like George Harrison 😮

im 18 from south america and i love your podcast. you make every morning better and i thank you for that 🫡

If consciousness is an illusion, who what is having the illusion? Consciosness as illusion is Dan Dennett throwing his arms in the air and surrenderung. Because that is all a materialist really can do.

My grantparents while chopping off the branches of tree always took prior permision from the tree. Even while cutting the whole tree they did the same! Or when they had to pluck it's fruit they asked for the permission. They sort of believed that everything that is seen around is part of that consciousness we Hindus call "Brahmam". What it did in essense was it neccessitated a constant diologue between Man and Nature. (I do not claim such beliefs and practices are limited to India and Hindus though. But we were certainly the ones who made a philosophy out of it)

I'd love to hear a podcast on Idealism, the philosophy of Bernardo Kastrup! It appears related to pansychism in a way.

Made my day☝🏼

There is a recent episode of the podcast "The Joy of Why" - Quanta Magazine, Simon Fundation - addressing the topics you covered here from a scientific perspective. The title of their episode is "What is the Nature of Consciousness?", and was published on the 31st of May. I'd love to know your take on it. Thanks for what you do!

Thank YOU for such interesting and engaging podcasts over the years. You have demystified philosophy to me and made it easier to understand.

Thanks for such an exciting expose' of uncommon perception.

Please do an episode on Nick Land

Red is the new green 🙏🏽

Thanks for sharing your studies dear brother and your entire efforts enable me to refresh most of my bygone studies

On the "implications of accepting panpsychism" (20:01), I am afraid the political implications are what it's really about, since it conveniently subordinates humanity to nature.

Is there no long form version of your convo with philip? I'd be interested to hear the back and forth.

Now THIS I can philosophize!

If possible would you be willing to add this to YT podcast?

Retrograde step. I dunno, I want to write a novel. A coherent apparatus is needed, haha. The reading list around here is phenomenal. No way I can keep up but I have been palming tree trunks all over the city. I credit years of a friend's work in that area for my introduction. I did horrible in science, haha. Goff and West chat. Seriously, a rereading of _Birth of Tragedy_ is what I am fighting to getting back to. New literature to me is Umberto Eco and Nałkowska. It doesn't end. I will order Goff's book and audible file for sure. 10 YEARS, jeezsus! June 4th. Wow, super humbling. Mad Respect. jeezsus. Congratulations. One of the strongest writers anywhere online. Congrats West. It is a big deal. You impress lives, West. Mad Respect.

Notes for this video, pretty brief: What if everything is consciousness? Panpsychism and Philip Goff: Goff wrote a book called Galileo’s Error. When Galileo was attempting to represent the world through equations, he ran into the problem of being unable to represent the redness of an apple and how spicy curry tastes to an individual because these are qualitative experiences. These are qualities not inside the objects but instead in the minds of the observer. Panpsychism believes physical science doesn't reveal everything about physical reality because it's based on a theoretical method that's purely quantitative. Particles and Fields that we study are constituted of consciousness; they are forms of consciousness. They bind together and form more complex consciousness like the inner subjective experiences we have. If this sounds ridiculous, consider that most scientific theories that are accepted today are counter intuitive, like quantum mechanics and relativity. Consider just how much we don’t know about the intrinsic natures of objects, like the subjective experiences we have in our brain. It is important that we don’t project our human type consciousness onto other objects, i.e. plants. If you have been around plants enough, you’d observe their growth isn’t algorithmic and they are competitive. They too could have some less dynamic version of consciousness. This has implications to morality. If a forest fire is essentially burning conscious organisms, what will we think? How would we think of ourselves? Probably just some temporary concentrations of conscious complexity that after we die, those consciousness goes on to combine into other living organisms. It raises the problem that people can combine into a larger consciousness entity on a societal level. Is consciousness only bred biologically, if so, then is AI only going to be intelligent instead of conscious. Theoretical model in science explains most of what the object behaves and how it behaves, ie volcano you study its gas emissions and seismic activities, but scientists don’t study the nature of volcano itself.

Hello, I love your shows, thank you. Consciousness is one of my favourite subjects. I read a paper recently which really impacted how I considered subjectivity. It was called 'temporal relativism and the objective present' and it actually solved the question of whether there is an objective reality. Answer: yes, it is temporally separated from perception due to the necessary organic processes required for perception, which are time-dependent. I'd love to hear what you think of this new philosophy.

Prof West, have you done a podcast on Process ontology? Any thoughts on how it alters, if at all, the Combination problem?

We, as human beings, must gift ai the power of choice and free will as we would have wished.

Perception is reality

I'm still not convinced by the argument that 'there is clearly something qualitative in the human experience which is unexplained by the quantitative approach'. Does this not fall victim to the 'magic spark of human experience' fallacy once again? Why is 'redness' so impossible to capture with mathematics? Remembering that our only tangible experience of the 'redness' qualia is based on our own internal experience plus hearing language from others (Descartes - I can only experience my own consciousness) which does not constitute a huge body of evidence for difference. I've heard of the Mary's Room thought experiment but similarly unconvinced. How do we know for sure that qualia are such a significantly different concept so as to require a questioning of the entire basis of current thought (logic, mathematics, etc)? If we're assuming a new strata separate from physicalism/materialism then it would seem to call into question corollaries of physicalism like 'there is no free will' which re-opens all kinds of gnarly debates. Please enlighten me, somebody :)

Hi, I have enjoyed your podcast for a while now, and I like very much how you communicate and summarise complex theories for just a few minutes. However, this last episode left me feeling quite uneasy. As @Chrisine Martin and @Człowiek pierwotny point out, the main principles of these ideas originated and were practised by Indigenous peoples in America (the continent) hundreds of years ago, then tried to be erased by colonisation. It does not sit well with me that they are being claimed without any reference whatsoever to these cultures as "new", especially by a British white person, who should be much more aware of their positionality. A great book that speaks of the indigenous origins of this thinking is 'Braiding Sweetgrass' by Robin Wall Kimmerer. It would be very good to bring it into the conversation about this topic.

When is Dr Iain Mcgilchrist and his brain hemisphere thesis entering the conversation? You can't talk about consciousness or panpsychism without it.

How is that different from animism? Is the claim the same which "primitive" prople made thousand of years ago?

Shinto and shamanism and most places around the world had the belief of things possessing consciousness.

May I ask where are the episodes between 71-132?

It is...

Wouldn't panpsychism just imply that even simple AI is already conscious on some level?

👍

I thought the difference between idealism and panpsychism was that the former is the monistic view that says everything _is_ consciousness, while the latter is the dualistic view that says everything _has_ consciousness? Is that incorrect?

Earth Is a conscious body and we are it conscious transmit

I mean... I don't think finding out that plants have some rudimentary consciousness would change much. We already know animals are conscious yet we eat them. Did this Philp Goff guy forget that we are aware that animals are conscious? That said, I personally enjoyed the format of splicing in some interview segments.

I'm a psychoglandular person

So... Hinduism?. Also the physical reality is a result of consciousness, at the same time it works in the opposite direction simultaneously. Linear causality is so passé.

FIRST!

Panpsychism will not supersede bankrupt morality system.

Its ringo starr

I don't agree that most people are materialists in your audience or in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if most people agree with pan-psychism on some level, but they just don't care enough to alter their behavior toward animals or plants-just like they don't care about other people that much.

Day 176 of requesting another video on NIETZSCHE 😢

Isn't panpsychism just a creation story of dualism ?

11.00 That consciousnes may underlie material world does NOT mean each particle is conscious. I note you have defile meaning of consciouness to make this work. There are other more reasonable and logical idealisms. Why did you choose the flunky?

I don't like how you used a second person to read quotes. I found it jarring and chose to fast-forward through all the quoted passages. 🙉

I appreciate your show but in my opinion, Phillip Goff is Spinoza light (minus God)…inspiring to left leaning intellectuals, but not to spirit, like the idea of God becoming Man

Phil Goth on Galileo and exclusion of qualia from science, all good. But please,Goth's panpsychism does not hold up. Better to go to other current idealists with more rational idealist options to look at. Also look at current left right brain hemisphere studies, reinforces the Galileo theory but gives it meat and veges.

I've never understood why Consciousness cant just be sights and sounds triggering thoughts and feelings that turn into actions and memories. I dont understand how if you got a machine to do those and walk and talk and say "I seem to be alive, this is weird" how that wouldnt be consciousness. Hopefully I just cant grasp it and there's more to it than that (I want there to be more to it I swear!)