Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousn

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,025
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

28 Nov 2020, 6:16 pm

Philip Goff on Michael Shermer's Science Salon podcast. Not brand new stuff but still a fun listen.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

28 Nov 2020, 8:37 pm

Can I get a summary for someone who handles text much better than videos? Thanks.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,007
Location: Stendec

28 Nov 2020, 9:23 pm

No transcript, but the video is basically a pitch for a book "Galileo’s Error", in which Philip Goff offers yet another alternative to established science.

:roll: As if we did not already have way too many alternatives to established science.

Quote:
Rooted in an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of modern science and based on the early twentieth-century work of Arthur Eddington and Bertrand Russell, Goff makes the case for panpsychism, a theory which posits that consciousness is not confined to biological entities but is a fundamental feature of all physical matter -- from subatomic particles to the human brain. Shermer and Goff discuss:

• the problem Galileo’s approach to science solved,
• Galileo’s error in solving the consciousness problem, that is the qualitative,
• Dualism, Monism, Panpsychism,
• Material Monism, Mind Monism, and Idealism,
• hard problem of consciousness defined,
• how consciousness is at the bottom of reality,
• why science cannot discover the ultimate nature of reality,
• Model Dependent Realism, philosophy, and science,
• philosophical zombies and the “other minds problem,”
• free will, determinism, compatibilism, and panpsychism,
• objective moral values and science,
• fine tuning and the multiverse, and
• implications of panpsychism for attitudes toward nature and the meaning of life.

Philip Goff is a philosopher who teaches at Durham University. He is the author of Consciousness and Fundamental Reality and has published more than 40 academic papers. His writing has also appeared in many newspapers and magazines, including The Guardian and The Times Literary Supplement, and he has guest-edited an issue of Philosophy Now. He lives in Durham, England.

All of which is nothing more than the usual New-Age philosophical drivel in a different package.

Source:
This Article


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

28 Nov 2020, 9:54 pm

Like me, maybe you wonder, what is this error ?

The book claims it was to use math for the language of science.

"A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science; the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary. This is a much-discussed moment. What is less discussed is the philosophical work Galileo had to do to get to this position. Before Galileo, people thought the physical world was filled with qualities: there were colors on the surfaces of objects, tastes in food, smells floating through the air. The trouble is that you can’t capture these kinds of qualities in the purely quantitative vocabulary of mathematics. You can’t capture the spicy taste of paprika, for example, in an equation"
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... g-mistake/

Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


ElabR8Aspie
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 9 Apr 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 448
Location: Universe

28 Nov 2020, 9:56 pm

Fnord wrote:
All of which is nothing more than the usual New-Age philosophical drivel in a different package.

Yes,whatever sells.
and use keyword black magics such as 'Galiileo','Foundations','Science','Consciousness'.


Funny thing isn't it,we read things such as this,we read books,literature etc and listen to others,

We then in turn lose consciousness.



Last edited by ElabR8Aspie on 28 Nov 2020, 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,007
Location: Stendec

28 Nov 2020, 10:05 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
... you can’t capture these kinds of qualities in the purely quantitative vocabulary of mathematics. You can’t capture the spicy taste of paprika, for example, in an equation...
True ... but you can capture quantitative expressions of the chemical processes that compose the chemicals that convey the unique taste of paprika, as well as numerical proportions of each chemical that gives paprika its unique taste.

Vintners and sommeliers use qualitative terms to describe the "experience" of wine in order to sell their products; but if instead they presented a quantitative breakdown of the fractions and chemical compositions of each of their wines, you might never get around to giving them your hard-earned wages for what amounts to a bottle of mixed poisons and toxins.

Everything can be described in quantitative terms -- directly or indirectly -- but it is the quality that sells the wine.


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans •


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,025
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

28 Nov 2020, 10:21 pm

Antrax wrote:
Can I get a summary for someone who handles text much better than videos? Thanks.

I'm still watching it as I took a break in the middle but since this thread's moving on without me I should probably give some synopsis of what the discussion has been so far:

- Goff singing the praises of Galileo, recounting to Shermer both how much he contributed to science, that his separation of mathematics and the quantifiable from what one might call 'qualia' gave us the capacity to get to a place like mathematical physics. Arguing that for science to take on consciousness, something Goff believes it can, we're going to curve back around and figure out a way to pull qualia back in.

- Both Goff and Shermer agreeing that they both have conscious experience, poking light fun of Dennett for the eliminativism (Goff compliments that Dennett's POV is probably the most consistent if one is going to take reductive materialism to its full conclusions). Story of how Goff changed Dennett's mind on some technical point related to dualism.

- Both having a light joke about discussions between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow about philosophy being dead. Shermer brought up Mlodinow's model-dependent realism which seems like a modernized variant of Eddinger's fishing net analogy. Some crazy story from Mlodinow about a town in Italy where the animal rights people had mandated that goldfish can't be kept in round bowls, that it distorts the world they see, Shermer ties that back in to model-dependent realism. Goff doesn't like model-dependent realism because he feels like it takes too much of a step back from objective realism which he feels strongly that there is an objective universe that's knowable (I personally didn't mind the idea - I think it just suggests that you're supposed to separate out 'truth' from intuitions, it points at certain traps with buying current knowledge too uncritically).

- Shermer talks briefly about Chopra's beliefs, they both agree he's an idealist.

- Brief coverage of the three major clusters for consciousness study in academia - dualism, materialism, and panpsychism.

- Goff: Bertrand Russell and Arthur Eddington having laid the groundwork for the academic case for panpsychism.

- Goff recounting that he had trouble with both dualism and materialism for certain oversights where he felt that panpsychism was the best middle ground.

- Goff talking about Chalmers' form of dualism and it's similarities to strong emergence.

- Goff talking about the importance of neuroscience / neurology in gaining more ground in understanding the correlations between brain states and consciousness.

- Goff argues for both experimental and theoretical branches of consciousness study.

- Shermer cites a Stephen Pinker quote where Pinker seems to suggest, underneath Global Workspace theory of consciousness is still an unsolved, possibly unsolvable mystery of where the 'I' comes from to participate in said workspace to begin with.

- Goff clarifying that panpsychism declaring consciousness to be a primitive might sound like it makes things easier but it doesn't necessarily - that there are two constraints that need convincing explanation, the external constraints such as the data coming in from neuroscience and the internal constraint is to get rid of explanatory gaps such as emergence without explanation.

- Shermer brings up the Ayahuasca paradox - that the depth of the experience seems to ground people's convictions that the entities are real, that Shermer's wife won't let him do it, that if he did and came away with the same conviction he'd only have the same things to say to the next person, ie. that it's a fascinating effect but really hard to see how it can be empirically studied.

- Shermer gets Goff to talk about some of what import panpsychism can have for determinism vs. free will, Goff suggests that he doesn't think it would necessarily makes a difference (no change in causal structure - essentially deterministic). Goff touches briefly on a 'Panpsychism and Free Will' paper that he did write at the urging of a collegue, he seems to go in the Harris direction as far as orientation of information and time, plus the lack of cognition that would be the case with the assumption of lower level particles. Goff sounds less compatibalist than Shermer.

- Shermer talks Harris and Pinker. Pinker's ideas on moral truths and whether there is an objective morality to be deduced from the world. Goff wouldn't recommend counting blades of grass as a life purpose, especially if you don't enjoy it. Strong moral realism from Goff after having been a moral nihilist before his MA.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,025
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

28 Nov 2020, 10:29 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Like me, maybe you wonder, what is this error ?

Probably his publisher persuading him that he needs a 'hook' in his title.

From the interview - not to be taken literally. Shermer and Goff both seem to agree that it was for the better that Galileo suggested examination of the natural world through mathematics. For the politics of Galileo's time, particularly with his ordeals with the Catholic church, that keeping to the mathematics and quantifiable was also needed to get out from under the church. It was both the low-hanging fruit and likely the only way that science could survive the 17th and 18th centuries without being trampled by the Protestants as well.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,025
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

29 Nov 2020, 11:40 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
- Shermer gets Goff to talk about some of what import panpsychism can have for determinism vs. free will, Goff suggests that he doesn't think it would necessarily makes a difference (no change in causal structure - essentially deterministic). Goff touches briefly on a 'Panpsychism and Free Will' paper that he did write at the urging of a collegue, he seems to go in the Harris direction as far as orientation of information and time, plus the lack of cognition that would be the case with the assumption of lower level particles. Goff sounds less compatibalist than Shermer.

One place where I think I didn't explain this adequately - it sounded like he was skeptical of free will at first but then suggested that he (Goff) is agnostic on the topic and that if anything while he doesn't necessarily believe in libertarian free will he hasn't found the arguments against it such as those posed by Harris particularly convincing.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin