Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Really wonderful interview. I really enjoy the people you are picking to interview, Parker. This helps folks like me who are amateur philosophy geeks get to know a lot more than just the lay material and books out there, even if that material is still great.
It's always kinda fun being a high schooler (technically just graduated but still) and hearing "Oh yeah most of my audience is masters and PhD students." Thanks for the fascinating episode as always!
His philosophy strikes me as absurdly anthropocentric. He complains about Dennett's use of language around science by pointing out that we have to have the thought in order to talk about science. That's true, but to go from that point to the claim that, therefore, the science is a function of the reasoning rather than the other way around is ridiculous. Despite claims to the contrary, a watched pot will eventually boil and a tree falling in a forest does indeed make a sound. The world does not care about your mental state and we have mountains and mountains of evidence to support that.
I’m not sure if anthropocentric would be the right word here. I lack an intuition that non-human animals can do science, unless science is defined is some broad manner. I think that trees falling makes air molecules vibrate very quickly, but *sounds* need a hearer. Your point is true only if we conduct science in such a way that precludes consciousness from its descriptions like modern science does. (See Galileo’s Error by Philip Goff for this point)
@@davidhanson972 >…air molecules vibrate very quickly, but sounds need a hearer. Sound IS molecules vibrating quickly. No hearer is needed for the molecules to vibrate. >…like modern science does. Modern science has provided an absolutely astonishing ability to accurately predict future events. If our goal is to know truth, modern science is by far the best tool available.
@@adamredwine774 Ok we can define sound as air molecules vibrating very quickly, so I’ll define sound* as the phenomenal experience of by an observer of those air molecules vibrating quickly, the ears picking up those vibrations, etc. And yes modern science is a great tool for seeking truth but it doesn’t give us a full understanding of consciousness.
@@adamredwine774 I think what might be the issue here is a misunderstanding of what position was being described. I believe you may think they’re subscribing to idealism as in a purely mental dependent reality. But they’re not, I’m sure they’d agree with you that physical phenomena don’t need human beings for their causes
@@davidhanson972 >...so I’ll define sound* as the phenomenal experience... Mental states are positions and firings of neuronal structures in brains. Those too are physical. I get that you are a "qualia" kind of person, but I find such descriptions to be not just pointless, but positively obfuscatory. >And yes modern science is a great tool for seeking truth but it doesn’t give us a full understanding of consciousness. I disagree. >..I’m sure they’d agree with you that physical phenomena don’t need human beings for their causes And I'm sure they would not agree with the fundamental claim that mental states (of any thing at all including any gods one might imagine) are not needed for physical phenomena.
Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Really wonderful interview. I really enjoy the people you are picking to interview, Parker. This helps folks like me who are amateur philosophy geeks get to know a lot more than just the lay material and books out there, even if that material is still great.
Well, that was an awesome interview. Thanks for doing that.
Thanks for listening man!
"If this is the rabbit hole, I want to be in the warren..." Love it!
Awesome interview.
I'm a Christian illustrator who enjoys your podcast while working. Not all of us are smarty philosopher types :) BTW Great talk.
Dude let's talk about illustrations sometime!
It's always kinda fun being a high schooler (technically just graduated but still) and hearing "Oh yeah most of my audience is masters and PhD students." Thanks for the fascinating episode as always!
You're a sharp one bro!
@@ParkersPensees Not really, I have to google a good 60% of the terms in most episodes. Still good fun though!
Great interview!
Oh yes...looooove this dude.
Hi Parker thx for you videos. Please make a video about radical/strong emergence .
Did you see the episode with Hasker?
Hahahaha! I love that opening.
🤣😂 I was rethinking my whole world
His philosophy strikes me as absurdly anthropocentric. He complains about Dennett's use of language around science by pointing out that we have to have the thought in order to talk about science. That's true, but to go from that point to the claim that, therefore, the science is a function of the reasoning rather than the other way around is ridiculous. Despite claims to the contrary, a watched pot will eventually boil and a tree falling in a forest does indeed make a sound. The world does not care about your mental state and we have mountains and mountains of evidence to support that.
I’m not sure if anthropocentric would be the right word here. I lack an intuition that non-human animals can do science, unless science is defined is some broad manner. I think that trees falling makes air molecules vibrate very quickly, but *sounds* need a hearer. Your point is true only if we conduct science in such a way that precludes consciousness from its descriptions like modern science does. (See Galileo’s Error by Philip Goff for this point)
@@davidhanson972
>…air molecules vibrate very quickly, but sounds need a hearer.
Sound IS molecules vibrating quickly. No hearer is needed for the molecules to vibrate.
>…like modern science does.
Modern science has provided an absolutely astonishing ability to accurately predict future events. If our goal is to know truth, modern science is by far the best tool available.
@@adamredwine774 Ok we can define sound as air molecules vibrating very quickly, so I’ll define sound* as the phenomenal experience of by an observer of those air molecules vibrating quickly, the ears picking up those vibrations, etc.
And yes modern science is a great tool for seeking truth but it doesn’t give us a full understanding of consciousness.
@@adamredwine774 I think what might be the issue here is a misunderstanding of what position was being described. I believe you may think they’re subscribing to idealism as in a purely mental dependent reality. But they’re not, I’m sure they’d agree with you that physical phenomena don’t need human beings for their causes
@@davidhanson972
>...so I’ll define sound* as the phenomenal experience...
Mental states are positions and firings of neuronal structures in brains. Those too are physical. I get that you are a "qualia" kind of person, but I find such descriptions to be not just pointless, but positively obfuscatory.
>And yes modern science is a great tool for seeking truth but it doesn’t give us a full understanding of consciousness.
I disagree.
>..I’m sure they’d agree with you that physical phenomena don’t need human beings for their causes
And I'm sure they would not agree with the fundamental claim that mental states (of any thing at all including any gods one might imagine) are not needed for physical phenomena.